windows xp

[yoda313]

I too believe a simple Home version will suffice, especially on an older machine.

Well if you want media center than you need the premium version - at least for vista and 7. I know they dropped it completely from 8.

Wondering if I'm allowed to use the same copy on like 4-5 machines

I don't believe so. Not legally anyway. You might be able to do it if one doesn't go online but I think it will block you after 30 days without some kind of activation.

I think it's worse than norton that has different editions that let you specifically use one copy on up to 3 pcs or more depending on which version you buy.

I would hazard a guess any version of windows is limited to one pc only. I could be wrong but I think ms wouldn't let you use one disc on more than one pc, not these days anway.

[TBoneit]

The thing to watch out for is sites selling pirated versions.

This came up over on another site and all the sites selling inexpensive versions led back to China.

You can find windows 7 on NewEgg Canada or Amazon Canada for example, not real cheap however. I saw prices for the Home Version around $99.99

If I were to buy from a site where the price seems to good to be true I would be using a gift card type of Visa where I could load it for a one time use and expect to lose the money, I wouldn't buy from such a site however. Who knows what is loaded into the disk You receive.

The answer to Your next part of Your question is You can not activate a copy for more than one computer legally and would probably fail activation too.

Good Luck
TBoneit

[jagabo]

Wondering if I'm allowed to use the same copy on like 4-5 machines.

Of course not. Unless you buy a multi user license. Microsoft sells these 3 packs for about $120 every now and then:

http://www.amazon.com/Microsoft-Windows-Premium-Upgrade-Family/dp/B002MV2MG0

Note those are upgrades.

[usually_quiet]

Wondering if I'm allowed to use the same copy on like 4-5 machines.

Of course not. Unless you buy a multi user license. Microsoft sells these 3 packs for about $120 every now and then:

http://www.amazon.com/Microsoft-Windows-Premium-Upgrade-Family/dp/B002MV2MG0

Note those are upgrades.

Microsoft stopped distributing retail versions of Windows 7, including upgrade versions on October 30 or last year. The remaining old stock is now being sold at inflated prices in many cases. Microsoft is still shipping OEM copies of Windows 7 to places like Newegg, and those can still be purchased at something close to their regular price.

[nic2k4]

I know they have adapters that go from pata to sata. Don't they have them the other way around? To use a "new" drive on an old non sata system?

I would hazard a guess any version of windows is limited to one pc only. I could be wrong but I think ms wouldn't let you use one disc on more than one pc, not these days anway.

Check the link in my previous post, this is a bi-directional adapter it works both ways.

They started locking the disc to one machine with Win 8, but only when you buy it from the online store. What they do is insert your product key in the install configuration file, when you install you don't need to enter it. If you install it on another PC you wouldn't be able to activate, but you always have the option to request and pay for a new one.

Retail discs still work as before, the disc is not your proof of "ownership" the CoA is (the sticker).

You can still download the Win 7 ISO's from the Microsoft store, then install it without the product key or use the proper default product key; either way the same key is used. Then request and pay for a product key when you activate.

Better yet, use WinToolKit to download the Win 7 Ultimate ISO for 32 and 64 bit, then re-enable all the other editions and mix in the 32 and 64 bit to make an all in one disc.

[NJRoadfan]

I've been doing some side research and find actually that Windows 7 (without Aero of course) actually ran XP machines better and faster according to several reports. Was that your case too?

So far the transition doesn't look so bad. When I do get it done hopefully I can post positive results for several machines myself.

It takes slightly longer to boot and the RAM footprint on a clean install is about 150MB more. Somehow the HD in this box scored well on the system performance index. It is a WD 120GB SATA drive. One of the first generation ones that actually are PATA with an onboard SATA bridge tacked on. Honestly though, its time to retire those Pentium 4s. They suck down electric like nobody's business and their performance is being eclipsed by smartphones!

The important thing about keeping Vista and 7 happy is throwing a ton of memory in the machine. Most XP machines came with 1GB tops, but the average one came stock with 512MB. Thats why Vista was slammed so much when it came out. The average machine didn't have more than the recommended minimum of 1GB and performance suffered. Machines with 4GB+ of RAM and Aero compatible video cards have been shipping for the past FIVE years. If your XP rig is that old, it should have zero issue with upgrading. My own machine is approaching six years old and runs 7 just fine.

[yoda313]

They suck down electric like nobody's business and their performance is being eclipsed by smartphones!

Yes but who wants to do regular work on a smartphone? Even if its a roomy 5" screen on a "phablet" that doesn't do well for long term use.

Now a bluetooth keyboard and an easel type holder to prop up the device for long term use would be more passable.

But I would agree the more the ram the better. Only trick might be finding compatible ram on an older machine. It might be more expensive then "modern" ram if supply is low.

[Constant Gardener]

But I would agree the more the ram the better. Only trick might be finding compatible ram on an older machine. It might be more expensive then "modern" ram if supply is low.

Unfortunately my little VIA Eden board is maxxed out at 1 GB DDR. I've set up a VM with 32-bit Win7 Pro to see how it runs with one processor and one gigabyte. So far, it's looking good, with more than 500 MB memory available and tolerable speed.

In case you're wondering, the virtual machine is running on a fancier system. I have VMWare Workstation on one computer - love it - and am trying VirtualBox on another.

[PuzZLeR]

Hi thanks for your feedback guys.

Just to note, I had no intention of doing anything illegal. I just didn't know if it was allowable to run the same O/S disc on multiple PCs for home use since I have never purchased an O/S before. Always used OEM versions for all my machines.

Of course, if it was allowable, sure, but now that I know it isn't, I know I'm in for some issues if I do.

Also, any torrent, or hacked, or whatnot, version is out of the question for me. Still shopping.

[hello_hello]

I think there's a lot of unjustified alarm regarding this matter. I can tell you that I ran Windows XP SP2 without ANY updates whatsoever, NO Windows firewall and NO antivirus for almost a decade (until December 2012) always online and never had a single problem.

That's right! No browser hijacks, no trojans, nothing. From time to time I would run an on-demand antivirus scan, just to be on the safe side, but never found anything wrong.

My only protection was my router's firewall and, of course, the fact that my machine was behind a router which is, by itself, the most important protection measure.

That's how I've been running XP myself for the last few years without any type of infection. I still think these days (now the days of drive-by ActiveX downloads are gone) most infections come via some sort of user interaction, ie "user permission". I've cleaned junk off every PC in this house at some stage, a couple of them several times, with the exception of my two PCs (there's six XP PCs connected to the internet here). Ironically my PCs are the only ones which aren't running some sort of antivirus, anti-malware software, but the main differece pretty much comes down to these two PCs aren't used by anyone else except me. I travel to all sorts of dark corners of the internet but I'm very careful regarding what I click on and what I install.

I do wonder how much of the "I'm using XP so I'm a target for viruses" hysteria comes from running IE on XP, in which case in the near future that may have some truth to it, but I also wonder how much of my security online is the responsibility of the browser I'm using and not so much the OS it's running on (unless maybe, the browser is IE). To my way of thinking for something to infect me during the course of normal surfing it's got to get past the browser first, and if my browser is secure and up to date does the fact it's running on XP make it less secure? I'm not saying that can't happen, but before all the PC's in this house are upgraded in a mad panic I'd like some definitive information as to why Firefox running on XP should be less secure than Firefox running on Win7. At least less secure in a way which should have me worrying every time I navigate to a new website.

naive people suck. no doubt you're all owned and don't even know it. hopefully your isp's will take you offline until you learn to protect the net.

Not true for me. I image my Windows and programs setup. Once or twice a year (it depends how much installing/uninstalling I've been doing and what breaks as a result), I restore the previous image, update everything, then make a new one. Once every couple of years or so I start again from scratch. On three occasions, before restoring the old image I've installed antivirus and antimalware software and run full system scans just to see what they'd find. Unless you call a few false positives (from files which have been sitting on my second partition and producing false positives for years) or a few "tracking cookies" as "being owned" then I've been unowned for years. The net doesn't need protecting from me. On the other hand, give my nephew a PC and a few hours of clicking time and he can somehow prove virtually any security software is worthless.....

[Constant Gardener]

Yesterday I put Win7 Pro on my 1.2 GHz, 1 GB DDR Via Eden system. It took about eight hours, including 131 updates, and after disabling most of the graphics enhancements it's running nicely. Half the memory is available. So there's hope for small old machines. Next target is the wife's Atom netbook.

[fritzi93]

Next target is the wife's Atom netbook.

Ah, my wife and I each have one, with Win7 "Starter" on them. They're used almost exclusively for photos, email and web surfing. Their limitation is in the hardware, not the OS. Win7 runs okay on them.

I should think you'll be fine.

[nic2k4]

You could do the same things for free with Peppermint or Linux Mint Xfce on those netbooks.

[zzyzzx]

I think there's a lot of unjustified alarm regarding this matter. I can tell you that I ran Windows XP SP2 without ANY updates whatsoever, NO Windows firewall and NO antivirus for almost a decade (until December 2012) always online and never had a single problem.

That's right! No browser hijacks, no trojans, nothing. From time to time I would run an on-demand antivirus scan, just to be on the safe side, but never found anything wrong.

My only protection was my router's firewall and, of course, the fact that my machine was behind a router which is, by itself, the most important protection measure.

I also think a firewall is way more important that any other from of protection. That and turn off the computer when you are not using it.

If I for some reason have to stop using Windows XP, I will just use Fedora instead.

[hello_hello]

A router is a firewall due to the way it functions. If you're behind a router, a software firewall is to a certain extent, duplicating what the router is already doing. Of course the router doesn't warn you when a program is trying to access the internet as software firewalls often do..... thankfully.... because it's somewhat annoying.

[Kerry56]

Going back to the original post, and the end of support for MSE in Windows XP, it now appears that Microsoft has relented in the face of complaints and will continue to allow it in XP until July 15, 2015.
http://www.myce.com/news/microsoft-extends-life-of-microsoft-security-essentials-for-x...14-2015-70209/

[enim]

Going back to the original post, and the end of support for MSE in Windows XP, it now appears that Microsoft has relented in the face of complaints and will continue to allow it in XP until July 15, 2015.

This is because the rate of migration from Windows XP is still very very low. Users may be fallen in love with XP because of very small foot-print. On desktop and laptops Windows dominate almost 87% market share monopoly. Microsoft needs to focus more on mobile devices. While TuX is faded from 4% to 1%. The poor tux!

Originally Posted by nic2k4
You can still download the Win 7 ISO's from the Microsoft store, then install it without the product key or use the proper default product key; either way the same key is used. Then request and pay for a product key when you activate.

How much one has to spend to get the cheapest genuine key? suppose anyone downloads Windows 7 SP1 from the Microsoft Store.

[nic2k4]

How much one has to spend to get the cheapest genuine key?

I suppose it depends on where you live and I suspect it would be close to the cost of a retail disc judging from the original cost of the Win 8 I got from the same store. I'm sure it wouldn't be cheaper than an OEM version.

If you really want to know, just install it and request a key, it's all done online and doesn't cost anything until you hit the pay button.

[nic2k4]

Going back to the original post, and the end of support for MSE in Windows XP, it now appears that Microsoft has relented in the face of complaints and will continue to allow it in XP until July 15, 2015.
http://www.myce.com/news/microsoft-extends-life-of-microsoft-security-essentials-for-x...14-2015-70209/

I don't know how much good that's gonna do, every AV comparisons that had MSE dead last were done on un-patched PC's. If they don't keep patching XP I don't think MSE is going to be very effective by summer; best switch to Avast now.

[enim]

I suppose it depends on where you live and I suspect it would be close to the cost of a retail disc judging from the original cost of the Win 8 I got from the same store. I'm sure it wouldn't be cheaper than an OEM version.

If you really want to know, just install it and request a key, it's all done online and doesn't cost anything until you hit the pay button.

I would rather prefer to stay and play with snow leopard, mountain lion and tux babies, as they serve my purpose in full with lots of ease, no more updates, no more upgrades. It took pretty long to blend whisky to suite my taste, in a manner - exactly the way I wanted.

But your inputs & feedback will definitely help lots here, many thanks!

[hello_hello]

I don't know how much good that's gonna do, every AV comparisons that had MSE dead last were done on un-patched PC's. If they don't keep patching XP I don't think MSE is going to be very effective by summer; best switch to Avast now.

Where did you get that info? AV-Comparatives rated MSE last and according to the info in their pdf, the PCs were patched. They ran their tests on PCs running Win7.
8% according to AV-Comparatives. That's the pecentage of viruses which MSE let walk on by and infect the PC. Compared to less than 1% for the top rated programs.

Would the requirement for a PC to be "patched" so it's harder to infect, be an indication it's the "patching" which is offering more protection than the antivirus software itself, assuming the antivirus software only works effectively when running on a patched PC?

[PuzZLeR]

Would the requirement for a PC to be "patched" so it's harder to infect, be an indication it's the "patching" which is offering more protection than the antivirus software itself, assuming the antivirus software only works effectively when running on a patched PC?

I'm wondering about this too. MSE has been extended, but not XP, so what does that mean?

To me it still means XP is crippled/dead with no further patches past this April, and the new 15 month extra grace period for MSE is only there to suit procrastinators (or for those saving their coin) willing to take a chance on a suddenly limited O/S.

As for the XP patching, or the end of XP patches, this only means that anti-virus software that protects XP machines will have to include their own version of one (in a protective context), at least in the way they would infer it to have been, ON TOP of the usual virus definitions, etc, if they want to support XP past this April.

Both a patch, or an anti-virus software update, are capable of providing protection. Just that past April, the anti-virus software has extra work to do to protect XP machines without the patching from Microsoft (and ironically, this would include MSE).

Again, that applies to any (third party) anti-virus software company IF they wish to support XP past this April.

[hello_hello]

Both a patch, or an anti-virus software update, are capable of providing protection. Just that past April, the anti-virus software has extra work to do to protect XP machines without the patching from Microsoft (and ironically, this would include MSE).

Again, that applies to any (third party) anti-virus software company IF they wish to support XP past this April.

I'm not sure I'd agree with your reasoning there. Antivirus programs pretty much work in two different ways. They have a list of virus "signatures" which they use to detect known viruses in files, while for unknown viruses they use Heuristic detection.... basically looking for virus type patterns in files and taking a guess. Most files are checked as they're read/written to the hard drive and anything containing a virus should be blocked. I'm not sure how the extent to which Windows is patched would effect their function in that regard.

[PuzZLeR]

Don't some Windows patches have some protection, such as against newly discovered malware, that would be redundant in an anti-virus utility?

I'm not sure how the extent to which Windows is patched would effect their function in that regard.

Anti-virus utilities don't need to add this extra, and latest, protection that would already be in the patch.

Past April, an anti-virus utility wishing to support XP would have to predict any necessary/new protection that Microsoft would have included, and add it on top of its usual update. It's possible, but anti-virus utilities supporting XP without the Windows patches would need more resources to be as effective.

[hello_hello]

A patch might protect you from an exploit which would otherwise get by an antivirus program, so in that respect I guess you could look at it as a second line of defence. I'm not saying keeping the OS fully patched is a bad idea, but in a perfect world nothing would get past the antivirus program in the first place.

I'm still not sure why an antivirus program would need to predict any new protection Microsoft would have included (in respect to patches). It should just keep doing what it's supposed to do. Scan files for viruses and stop anything containing a virus from running.

If you download the pdf containing the latest real world protection tests tests from the AV-Comparatives website, it mentions a fully patched Win7 64bit PC for testinmg made it much harder to find "in the wild" viruses which could infect the PCs without antivirus software running, therefore making it harder to test the protection provided by the antivirus software (page 4). They therefore remind users to keep Windows and browsers etc fully patched. Unfortunately the pdf won't let me copy and paste.
Ironically, the company which produces the patches for Windows also produced the worst performing antivirus program, according to the results of the Aug-Nov 2013 tests.

[PuzZLeR]

Yes, exploits of the O/S are covered in the patches, but so are some updates for latest malware, especially the critical ones urged on top of the scheduled ones. I can't see how these patches wouldn't help the anti-virus utility, at least as a second line of defense, and certainly can be supplemental to what they're doing or supposed to be doing.

Yes, it's hard to determine whether these patches are necessary for an anti-virus utility to be more effective, or wouldn't have nailed some malware without them. It is indeed a gray area and hard to test, and Microsoft can leverage the argument - valid or not - that they are the Creator of the O/S and would be the only ones with resources possible to find malware well ahead of any third party. So maybe I can see your point here somewhere, but I can't see either how a fully patched XP wouldn't be a bonus for protection either, and either way can see more resources needed by anti-virus engineers wishing to protect an XP machine after April without these patches.

[jman98]

Would the requirement for a PC to be "patched" so it's harder to infect, be an indication it's the "patching" which is offering more protection than the antivirus software itself, assuming the antivirus software only works effectively when running on a patched PC?

I'm wondering about this too. MSE has been extended, but not XP, so what does that mean?

To me it still means XP is crippled/dead with no further patches past this April, and the new 15 month extra grace period for MSE is only there to suit procrastinators (or for those saving their coin) willing to take a chance on a suddenly limited O/S.

As for the XP patching, or the end of XP patches, this only means that anti-virus software that protects XP machines will have to include their own version of one (in a protective context), at least in the way they would infer it to have been, ON TOP of the usual virus definitions, etc, if they want to support XP past this April.

It basically means that businesses that are still refusing to switch may get some protection in that if their firewall is OK, just updating MSE may cover their butts from idiot workers doing stupid things while XP itself remains unpatched. This is not an ironclad guarantee and don't be surprised if the bad guys just resort to the old "get a dumb user to click on an email link" trick to bypass all the firewall protection and exploit XP security holes that will no longer be patched. My guess is that Microsoft had enough of their smallish business partners beg for "one more year please, we can't afford the time or cost to do it this year" that Microsoft decided to offer them protection of a sort. It's probably not that costly to keep MSE updated for XP and it puts the onus on the consumer who refuses to upgrade to have to protect the bad guys from getting in in the first place. I expect more customer pleading next year around this time and it would not surprise me at all if Microsoft extends MSE support yet another year. It also wouldn't surprise me if in March Microsoft throws in the towel and agrees to update XP for yet another year, but as long as they keep making it easy for customers to stay with it, they'll never leave XP.

[PuzZLeR]

@Jman98... and then there's a third type like me, not a procrastinator or someone hindered by the cost to upgrade, just that I absolutely love XP and am finding it hard to let it go...

To be honest, I'd be in favor of anything Microsoft extends with XP for this reason.

[nic2k4]

Where did you get that info? AV-Comparatives rated MSE last and according to the info in their pdf, the PCs were patched.

It's been a while since I last checked an AV comparison from any site; this was one of the things that caught my attention then. Sorry I can't give you a link, that would take too much time to search for. Still there's no denying that MSE is a basic AV and that Microsoft is not an AV shop, but whether it's a 1% or an 8% failure to detect, it's still a failure. In the end, the only thing left to save your ass is the quality of the heuristics and if that was a perfect solution there wouldn't be 0-day exploits.

Would the requirement for a PC to be "patched" so it's harder to infect, be an indication it's the "patching" which is offering more protection than the antivirus software itself, assuming the antivirus software only works effectively when running on a patched PC?

I think you hit the nail on the head right there. AFAIK, MSE relies on automatic updates to be enabled to get its updates, forcing users to keep their OS updated. Still, the weak link in PC security is always the user. Whether it's clicking every blinking icons in sight, visiting questionable sites... A little education would do more good than the warm cosy feeling of having a top shelf AV installed; as can be attested by everyone that say they run no AV.

As for the "if your PC is infected you won't know" I wouldn't be surprised if that doesn't trace back to some FUD (reminds me of the Zonealarm scareware). I can tell you that I've never seen an infected PC that didn't scream malware. If a large company with many programmers can't get their product right, how is a lone malware programmer supposed to get his ware to work without a itch on every PC configuration? That's disregarding Stuxnet, there was a specific target and large amounts of expertise and money involved.

It also wouldn't surprise me if in March Microsoft throws in the towel and agrees to update XP for yet another year, but as long as they keep making it easy for customers to stay with it, they'll never leave XP.

That's funny, I was thinking the same thing, although this might be the more important reason. Judging from the perfectly nice XP machines I've seen going to recycling in the past six months, I'd say they've found a more effective way to get XP out of their misery; just wait for some new update that causes a similar effect. At least Microsoft is treating their customers nicer than Apple; they don't just abruptly drop support for older OSx versions (incidently older hardware).

@Jman98... and then there's a third type like me, not a procrastinator or someone hindered by the cost to upgrade, just that I absolutely love XP and am finding it hard to let it go...

And there's nothing wrong with that, there are many ways to keep XP and be safe on the net. It starts with disabling all network access in XP, then:

- get another PC and a KVM
- don't get another PC and dual boot a nice fast Linux distro
- install a VM and only browse the net in it
- run your browser in a sandbox

Ok, the last 2 may not be totally safe as you'd have to keep networking enabled, but if you have a machine powerful enough to do either why not go back to option 1 and get an off-lease Core2 duo for cheap to run XP.

[NJRoadfan]

Ok, the last 2 may not be totally safe as you'd have to keep networking enabled, but if you have a machine powerful enough to do either why not go back to option 1 and get an off-lease Core2 duo for cheap to run XP.

An off-lease Core2Duo machine likely includes a Windows 7 OEM COA/license and has enough resources to run it without a problem.