Win XP vs Win 7 - an internet security debate.

[blahblah]

That's a fair assessment from a security standpoint.

The good news is that Windows 7 has another year of life in it at the bare minimum and will run just fine on Core 2 era hardware - it was built to run great on the late-generation Pentium 4 chips. That should be more than long enough to save ~$100 to buy a off-lease Sandy Bridge machine off eBay and slap a $40 SSD in it. Boom, fast, capable Windows 10 machine.

 

[Foxi4]

The good news is that Windows 7 has another year of life in it at the bare minimum and will run just fine on Core 2 era hardware. That should be more than long enough to save ~$100 to buy a off-lease Sandy Bridge machine off eBay and slap a $40 SSD in it. Boom, fast, capable Windows 10 machine.

I personally run 10, I think the attachment to older Windows versions is silly when you can declutter the current OS quite easily, but considering the fact that XP Embedded still gets security updates until April this year and you're one registry tweak away from getting them (which of course you already knew since you're knowledgeable and whatnot) a somewhat secure XP build is still conceivable, albeit not for long. Running 7 in light, classic mode is probably a better choice.

 

[blahblah]

I personally run 10, I think the attachment to older Windows versions is silly when you can declutter the current OS quite easily, but considering the fact that XP Embedded still gets security updates until April this year and you're one registry tweak away from getting them (which of course you already knew since you're knowledgeable and whatnot) a somewhat secure XP build is still conceivable, albeit not for long. Running 7 in light, classic mode is probably a better choice.

I am not a fan of attachment to a given version of an OS. I am just stating that, objectively, Windows 10 is heavier than 7 was. Which makes sense, it was built years later. Windows 7 was designed to run on weaker hardware than what Vista ran well on. Vista ran well on Core 2, Windows 7 ran fine on late generation P4s. Windows 10 really wants an SSD and something along the lines of a desktop first gen i5 or greater.

You can violate your license and install Windows XP updates intended for a different SKU, but MS does not backport all security patches to that version of Windows - they've left a lot unpatched & Windows patches only gets you so far without security updates to your browser too.

7 will run great in the default mode. It was designed to run great on weaker hardware than what the OP has. Core 2 and more than 2 gigs of ram equals an excellent 7 experience.

 

[Foxi4]

I am not a fan of attachment to a given version of an OS. I am just stating that, objectively, Windows 10 is heavier than 7 was. Which makes sense, it was built years later. Windows 7 was designed to run on weaker hardware than what Vista ran well on. Vista ran well on Core 2, Windows 7 ran fine on late generation P4s. Windows 10 really wants an SSD and something along the lines of a desktop first gen i5 or greater.

You can violate your license and install Windows XP updates intended for a different SKU, but MS does not backport all patches to that version of Windows & it only gets you so far without security updates to your browser too.

Funnily enough, in my experience 10 runs much lighter than 7 if configured correctly. There's a bunch of nonsense bundled with it that needs to be surgically removed, but in the right hands it can run better than 7 in most cases, although your mileage may vary depending on the build.

 

[blahblah]

Funnily enough, in my experience 10 runs much lighter than 7 if configured correctly. There's a bunch of nonsense bundled with it that needs to be surgically removed, but in the right hands it can run better than 7 in most cases, although your mileage may vary depending on the build.

Even if you were to remove every graphical component, stop all non-essential tasks and the like it's still the case that the modern Windows kernel and associated components are simply heavier. Which makes sense! Windows 10 wasn't designed around the performance constraints of the Prescott the way that Windows 7 was. Windows 10 was not a reaction to the previous version of Windows being too resource heavy.

You can hack away at Windows, stripping stuff away until you find performance acceptable. But that's not smart on modern Windows. Windows is a service. You stand a good chance of breaking things and not noticing until you try to run a UWP game or run a major Windows update. And you'll have to redo your work again with each major update.

There are other problems, like parts of Windows 10 being clearly designed for touch or for HiDPI screens or for <insert technology that a Core 2 Era laptop will not have here>.

 

[Foxi4]

Even if you were to remove every graphical component, stop all non-essential tasks and the like it's still the case that the modern Windows kernel and associated components are simply heavier. Which makes sense! Windows 10 wasn't designed around the performance constraints of the Prescott the way that Windows 7 was.

You can hack away at Windows, stripping stuff away until you find performance acceptable. But that's not smart on modern Windows. Windows is a service. You stand a good chance of breaking things and not noticing until you try to run a UWP game or run a major Windows update. And you'll have to redo your work again with each major update.

I suppose you're right, grandpa and grandma won't do that, which is why they need something that'll work vanilla. Ideally, they need a new machine, but that's not what the OP was asking for. He's asking for an XP config, and while wise council is welcome, it's not always heeded - another thing you'll learn in the future. You work with what you've got sometimes.

 

[blahblah]

I suppose you're right, grandpa and grandma won't do that, which is why they need something that'll work vanilla. Ideally, they need a new machine, but that's not what the OP was asking for - he's asking for an XP config, and while wise council is welcome, it's not always heeded - another thing you'll learn in the future. You work with what you've got sometimes.

They won't and shouldn't - it's not really smart even for semi-technically proficient gamer types. Constantly I see them do the stuff you describe and then whine on gaming forums when UWP apps don't work right.

I gave the OP the answer. The answer is running Windows 7 for a while and buying a cheap Sandy Bridge machine before end of support.

There is no need from a performance stand point to run XP on a Core 2 machine. The only reason that that machine shipped with XP is that it is a business machine - downgrade rights were used. Windows 7 will run great, even with Aero turned on.

 

[Foxi4]

They won't and shouldn't - it's not really smart even for semi-technically proficient gamer types. Constantly I see them do the stuff you describe and then whine on gaming forums when UWP apps don't work right.

I gave the OP the answer. The answer is running Windows 7 for a while and buying a cheap Sandy Bridge machine before end of support.

There is no need from a performance stand point to run XP on a Core 2 machine. The only reason that that machine shipped with XP is that it is a business machine - downgrade rights were used. Windows 7 will run great, even with Aero turned on.

7 is preferable for security reasons, I can happily shake on that.

 

[blahblah]

7 is preferable for security reasons, I can happily shake on that.

It's more than juuuust security. Stuff like 'Chrome gets updates still' and 'I can run the current version of Office 365' and 'The UI feels semi-modern'. But, yeah, we agree here.

 

[Foxi4]

It's more than juuuust security. Stuff like 'Chrome gets updates still' and 'I can run the current version of Office 365' and 'The UI feels semi-modern'. But, yeah, we agree here.

To be fair, Office 365 is cancer. Office is the one thing I never recommend upgrading, and once they come up with a successor to docx, I'll just advocate for OpenOffice. In fact, it's already a better alternative on machines like this, and it's free.

 

[blahblah]

To be fair, Office 365 is cancer. Office is the one thing I never recommend upgrading, and once they come up with a successor to docx, I'll just advocate for OpenOffice. In fact, it's already a better alternative on machines like this, and it's free.

That's your view. That's not a mainstream view & I am using 365 only as an example. Insert the name of virtually any mainstream piece of software in its place if you must.

 

[Foxi4]

That's your view. That's not a mainstream view & I am using 365 only as an example. Insert the name of virtually any mainstream piece of software in its place if you must.

Again, grandma and grandpa. Those are not typical users. If they still could run Win98, they probably would.

 

[blahblah]

Again, grandma and grandpa. Those are not typical users. If they still could run Win98, they probably would.

You are describing a typical user. Doing typical stuff. Basic stuff.

 

[Foxi4]

You are describing a typical user. Doing typical stuff. Basic stuff.

You should watch Big Lebowski sometime.

 

[blahblah]

You should watch Big Lebowski sometime.

I have watched it.

 

[Foxi4]

I have watched it.

Oh, good, good. I'm sure the joke will land then.

 

[blahblah]

Oh, good, good. I'm sure the joke will land then.

Hasn't yet

 

[Foxi4]

Hasn't yet

It'll hit you eventually, Walter.

 

[blahblah]

It'll hit you eventually, Walter.

I have nothing in common with him lol

 

[smf]

Even if you were to remove every graphical component, stop all non-essential tasks and the like it's still the case that the modern Windows kernel and associated components are simply heavier. Which makes sense! Windows 10 wasn't designed around the performance constraints of the Prescott the way that Windows 7 was. Windows 10 was not a reaction to the previous version of Windows being too resource heavy.

Don't forget they went through a period of optimisation so they could run it on Arm, that was after Windows 7.

Microsoft phones and the xbox one run Windows 10.