PDA

View Full Version : If you want to continue getting XP updates here's an idea...



Stone
May 28th, 2014, 07:14 AM
Here's how:

A Hacker Found An Easy Trick To Get Security Fixes For Windows XP, And Microsoft Is Not Amused

http://www.businessinsider.com/hack-tricks-xp-into-security-updates-2014-5

lutiana
May 28th, 2014, 08:33 AM
The author of this article lost all credibility with me when he reffered to adding a registry key as "writing a few lines of code". Also, MS is not amused because the updates they will be supplying are not tested for XP, they are designed and tested for XP Embedded and POS versions and as such could very well break the desktop version of XP. So this "hack" won't be as reliable as the author implies it would be.

Chuck(G)
May 28th, 2014, 08:44 AM
I'll differ a bit here--XP POSReady is little more than a pruned-down XP. It's extremely unlikely that an XPe update would not work on XP.

krebizfan
May 28th, 2014, 09:00 AM
An XP POS update could readily break Office or other software that isn't expected to run on POS systems. MS isn't going to test the wide range of possible applications to minimize the number of regressions.

Chuck(G)
May 28th, 2014, 10:51 AM
You can always select the updates that you're interested in. If the updates are for XPe in general, who's to say that some outfit running XPe on their thin client isn't running Office or a component thereof?

glitch
May 28th, 2014, 11:09 AM
Is running XPe/Windows Server 2003 a viable option for XP holdouts? A quick eBay search seems to turn up Windows Server 2003 install media/licenses at a comparable price to Windows 7 or Windows 8.

Chuck(G)
May 28th, 2014, 11:32 AM
Actually, the updates are intended for XPe POSready, a download of which can be had for free from Microsoft's web site. Activation is by simple key (left to you to discover) and no net registration is performed (unlike XP retail). Basically, what you get is a stripped-down lightweight 32-bit XP--missing facilities can be easily added back from your own copy of XP.

It really isn't that special.

SpidersWeb
May 28th, 2014, 12:22 PM
And Microsoft has a point. The PC world has changed a lot in 12 years and newer versions of Windows are faster and more secure.

I wish people (including MS themselves) would stop saying the 'new operating systems are faster' - any speed improvements are usually overtaken by additional code. More secure, more features yeah sure - but faster? If each OS was faster than the last, my Pentium 233 would run Windows 8 like a breeze. It's like telling me cheeseburgers are healthy because they have a tomato in them.

vwestlife
May 28th, 2014, 05:06 PM
Windows Embedded POSReady 2009 is really just a slimmed-down version of XP Professional SP3 -- in fact, that's what it identifies itself as in the System Properties. Some people say Office 2010 runs fine on it, some people say it doesn't -- I haven't installed Office on a POSReady machine, so I can't say for sure. But I did implement the hack on an XP machine and it downloaded and installed the same recent updates that POSReady got, and is still running fine.

KC9UDX
May 28th, 2014, 05:21 PM
I wish people (including MS themselves) would stop saying the 'new operating systems are faster' - any speed improvements are usually overtaken by additional code. More secure, more features yeah sure - but faster? If each OS was faster than the last, my Pentium 233 would run Windows 8 like a breeze. It's like telling me cheeseburgers are healthy because they have a tomato in them.

You should have been an Amiga user. :grin:

Every version of AmigaOS was always progressively faster than the previous one, except maybe 3.5 and 3.9. I don't really recall any speed difference with those, but, 1.3 was faster than 1.2, 2.0 was considerably faster than 1.2, 3.0 was astonishingly faster than 2.0, and it continues on through 4.x. I can't comment on 4.1 though because I only got to run it for a few minutes before my CyberStormPPC gave up the ghost.

It's one of those things that us Amiga users are spoilt about: It's unfathomable how PC's keep getting orders of magnitude faster, yet every new PC runs at seemingly exactly the same speed as a 90MHz Pentium machine running Windows 95.

Caluser2000
May 28th, 2014, 09:14 PM
Nice. Saved using notepad.

An MS OS being faster than the previous version of Windows? It must be some good stuff he's smoking.

vwestlife
May 28th, 2014, 10:29 PM
An MS OS being faster than the previous version of Windows? It must be some good stuff he's smoking.

Windows ME does start up faster 98SE... but it also crashes faster.

commodorejohn
May 29th, 2014, 03:24 AM
With 7 and 8 everybody lets themselves get fooled by the built-in disk caching. I've been stuck using 8.1 at work for almost two months now, and under load it's at least as slow as XP, if not more so.

Agent Orange
May 29th, 2014, 07:00 AM
. . . under load it's at least as slow as XP, if not more so.

Interesting - what kind of load are you talking about? Also, what's your hardware setup like?

Tiberian Fiend
June 10th, 2014, 04:41 PM
Couldn't seem to get this trick to work. Not sure if it's because it doesn't work anymore or because I'm doing it wrong. What does SP3 do for me besides take up space? Do I need it (SP2 is installed)?

Chuck(G)
June 10th, 2014, 05:45 PM
SP's are generally cumulative, so SP3 by itself should be okay. There were some major internal changes in SP3--several programs will not run without it installed.

Agent Orange
June 10th, 2014, 06:13 PM
Couldn't seem to get this trick to work. Not sure if it's because it doesn't work anymore or because I'm doing it wrong. What does SP3 do for me besides take up space? Do I need it (SP2 is installed)?

You need XP SP3 for most MS updates and it is a requirement for Microsoft Security Essentials.

Tiberian Fiend
June 18th, 2014, 05:23 PM
I downloaded and installed SP3 manually from a file site, and updates worked after that. Thanks.

Chuck(G)
June 18th, 2014, 08:23 PM
Great!

We can pick this topic up again in 2019.... :)