VOGONS

Common searches


What to do when Windows 7 support ends in a few weeks time?

Topic actions

  • This topic is locked. You cannot reply or edit posts.

Reply 60 of 317, by clueless1

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
appiah4 wrote:

Remember the days you used dial up networking on Windows 95 to connect to the internet? 😵

Ha! Yeah 😀 I started off on Compuserve then transitioned to AOL before finally moving away from dial-up. I think I was a late bloomer with high speed internet...started with 1Mbps DSL probably around 2003, 2004.

The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know.
OPL3 FM vs. Roland MT-32 vs. General MIDI DOS Game Comparison
Let's benchmark our systems with cache disabled
DOS PCI Graphics Card Benchmarks

Reply 61 of 317, by dr_st

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
bfcastello wrote:

I cannot remote to my home PC from my office (or vice versa) anymore either. I wish I could

It's typically as simple as forwarding one port on the home router (of course you need static IP in the LAN); in the workplace it's usually tricky since end users rarely have the permissions.

bfcastello wrote:

Yeah, but for some reason my internet provider does not let me try it.

It's possible your internet provider keeps you behind its own NAT (some do that), so you have no personal external IP, and so port forwarding is useless unless they set it up for you on their router as well.

https://cloakedthargoid.wordpress.com/ - Random content on hardware, software, games and toys

Reply 62 of 317, by Caluser2000

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
clueless1 wrote:
Caluser2000 wrote:

Anybody who had any sense, including us Win98 user at the time had a software firewall of some type set up. Iirc I used Kerio. It was small and did a great job informing the user what was going on wrt incoming and outgoing packets and would warn you of anything out of the ordinary.

I used to use Zone Alarm. I think it was the first software firewall that offered outbound filtering, and let us users finally see which apps were phoning home behind our backs. It was awesome in the beginning, then it started getting more commercialized went downhill fast.

Yes ZA was very popular. I see it still exists. Something to look at in future.

There's a glitch in the matrix.
A founding member of the 286 appreciation society.
Apparently 32-bit is dead and nobody likes P4s.
Of course, as always, I'm open to correction...😉

Reply 63 of 317, by 386SX

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
clueless1 wrote:
Caluser2000 wrote:

Anybody who had any sense, including us Win98 user at the time had a software firewall of some type set up. Iirc I used Kerio. It was small and did a great job informing the user what was going on wrt incoming and outgoing packets and would warn you of anything out of the ordinary.

I used to use Zone Alarm. I think it was the first software firewall that offered outbound filtering, and let us users finally see which apps were phoning home behind our backs. It was awesome in the beginning, then it started getting more commercialized went downhill fast.

Back in those time I remember the good old Sygate Personal Firewall if that was the name. It never game me problems at all and had sort of control of most apps.
There were also many other unknown freeware firewall softwares back then but thinking nowdays most had no support, sources or any info about them or developers. But nowdays things doesn't look so much better; I've seen well known antivirus/firewalls suites installations that were so heavy on cpu/memory/processes that took an hour to install and update (?) with hundreds of megabytes of setups with many options that could not be disabled for ads related or data collecting and the app itself showed ads popup from time to time.. from a security suite? 😲 😁
And even if it wasn't enough there're those useless not-configurable gui/menus with few buttons like you don't need to configure anything. It'd be nice to hear an opinion from a professional network administrator about those softwares.
Also to discuss on the security of old times compared to modern ones, mobile or not, I'd maybe think their own limitations about speed connections
or cpu speed or number of running processes and most important the "time" factor, would have been some positive security variable themself. How many hours those machine were staying powered on or online? Compared to nowdays machines, mobile or not, the time factor should be considered.

Reply 64 of 317, by Bruninho

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
dr_st wrote:
bfcastello wrote:

Yeah, but for some reason my internet provider does not let me try it.

It's possible your internet provider keeps you behind its own NAT (some do that), so you have no personal external IP, and so port forwarding is useless unless they set it up for you on their router as well.

This is exactly the problem. And no, they won't set it up for me... Well, it's not a big deal. I believe that getting remote access to our computers were a good thing back in the day, now we have cloud storage, so... I don't actually miss it that much.

"Design isn't just what it looks like and feels like. Design is how it works."
JOBS, Steve.
READ: Right to Repair sucks and is illegal!

Reply 65 of 317, by SirNickity

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
386SX wrote:

It'd be nice to hear an opinion from a professional network administrator about those softwares.

I'm a network engineer, so more on the hardware side, but since I regularly deal with security appliances and those manufacturers are also getting into endpoint protection.. it's ... kind of my bailiwick. IMO, products like Palo Alto's Traps are changing the game for security products. It's a relatively recent acquisition (I was loosely involved in a deployment of Palo's first release after purchasing the IP) but they're getting it more and more polished with every release. Client software isn't their strong point, so the client interface is still a little... ehhhh... but it works, and the theory of operation is awesome.

For those not already aware, it's basically an exploit technique-aware product. It doesn't really deal with AV signatures in the traditional sense, although it can connect to Wildfire for executable signature (and thus benign / malicious verdict) validation. Instead, it watches for common techniques used by malware to gain access and escalate privileges. Stuff like spraying memory with executable code, messing with the registry, certain syscalls, so on. So there's really not much relevance to the concept of "0-day" code. It's either doing something shady, or not. On top of that, Wildfire copies executable code to a cloud sandbox, runs it, pokes and prods it to try and get it to "detonate," then records everything it does and creates a report so you know what to look for and how to clean it up if it has infected something else. It also gets hashed so anyone else in the world with a Wildfire subscription will get updated within a few minutes and know it's malicious.

Pretty freakin cool technology, and makes the old reactive process of traditional AV software pretty much obsolete. Unfortunately, AFAIK, this kind of stuff only really exists in the enterprise market. Same for next-gen firewalls (filtering on OSI layers >4 -- that is, not just IP / protocol / port, but also application -- not just what the packet says it is, but the actual identifiable payload within the packet.)

There are even products emerging now that are based on AI -- watching user behavior and sounding alarms when something anomalous happens -- like accessing shares or sending traffic that they wouldn't ordinarily. It requires a training period, but in the sea of noise that is enterprise network activity, this kind of thing is really the only way you would know when you have either an insider threat, or an infected host.

Reply 66 of 317, by konc

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
bfcastello wrote:
dr_st wrote:
bfcastello wrote:

Yeah, but for some reason my internet provider does not let me try it.

It's possible your internet provider keeps you behind its own NAT (some do that), so you have no personal external IP, and so port forwarding is useless unless they set it up for you on their router as well.

This is exactly the problem. And no, they won't set it up for me... Well, it's not a big deal. I believe that getting remote access to our computers were a good thing back in the day, now we have cloud storage, so... I don't actually miss it that much.

I don't know if this helps in your country/isp but in many cases the argument "I want to be able to see my cameras" helps and they remove the user from the CGN. Accessing your PC may not trigger this, but security cameras often do. Just leaving this here in case it helps.

Reply 67 of 317, by 386SX

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
SirNickity wrote:
386SX wrote:

It'd be nice to hear an opinion from a professional network administrator about those softwares.

There are even products emerging now that are based on AI -- watching user behavior and sounding alarms when something anomalous happens -- like accessing shares or sending traffic that they wouldn't ordinarily. It requires a training period, but in the sea of noise that is enterprise network activity, this kind of thing is really the only way you would know when you have either an insider threat, or an infected host.

Interesting, I didn't know how security softwares are changing in the way they works and I was still comparing them most with old ones.
I'm not that expert but sometimes more for a 'philosophical' reasoning, not talking of any specific sw or company, there's anyway the contradiction that after many ai/cloud based/smarter than the smartest new ways of functioning, many softwares to survive needs ads data, statistics, the usual modern market oriented client-company bond and the increasing depending server-side processing ("verdicts" you're talking for example) that would make some softwares basically useless offline or by themself when bought. The contradiction of a 'security' suite with such logics feels clear. Sometimes it sounds like someone sleeping at the office because that way he's already there the day after.

Reply 68 of 317, by SirNickity

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

That's true -- there's a lot of dependence on cloud connectivity for these things. I guess there are a few ways to look at it.

For one, if you're not online anyway, you're maybe not exposed to 0-day threats (just by whatever means you trade information with others aside from the Internet), and so perhaps you can get by with periodic signature updates.

For two, harness the power of the collective. The idea is, if I see something malicious, (depending on how I have the policy configured) it might get through my defenses while I wait on the verdict in the cloud sandbox. But, I can be alerted when the verdict comes in, and proceed with a cleanup effort based on the findings. Meanwhile, if you don't get a copy of that brand-new virus until 15 min later, you're 100% protected. That's super powerful.. way more likely to stop a massive outbreak than everyone being an island. Particularly when you start bringing in analytics as well, where it's not just a cloud sandbox detonation, but collected intelligence. Something happens that might seem benign when it happens in ONE place, but when you start seeing the same low-but-not-zero risk event happen in multiple places simultaneously, something's definitely not right.

If you want the sandbox solution without the connectivity requirement, Palo and Juniper (and probably others.. I'm just not as familiar) have on-site appliances that will do that. It's mostly intended for high-security environments like financial and government. Potentially out-of-reach for your average enterprise.

Reply 69 of 317, by sliderider

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

It's sad that Windows 7 support is ending. Windows 8/8.1 was a horrible distraction, worse in many ways than Vista. Windows 7 is basically the last viable Windows upgrade for a lot of older machines still in use that can't make the jump to Windows 10.

Reply 70 of 317, by SirNickity

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

I've been using 10 at a client's site where I'm contracting. Visually, it's a mess. The UI elements are inconsistent, a lot of stuff is just white.. not quite as bad as Office 2015 or whatever it was, but still not much contrast. Aside from being ambiguous, it's just not very nice to look at. MS has always preached consistent design language to developers, then released an Office suite nearly in tandem with an OS that introduced new or modified UI concepts. After XP, I just felt like they don't have any adults with taste leading the design philosophy, and it's kind of like "everyone pick your favorite color or shape, and we'll use all of them."

Other than that... it runs programs. *shrug* Still doesn't have a lot of baked in utilities I use every day, that exist out of the box on any Linux distro or OS X. Good old milk-toast Windows.

Reply 71 of 317, by schmatzler

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
SirNickity wrote:

The UI elements are inconsistent

Not really. Windows is just using two design philosophies at the moment - their flat "Metro style" applications that are pushed through the store and are available in light or dark color schemes and the legacy Win32 applications we've been used to since at least Windows 95.

I get why they're doing this. Windows really needed a visual overhaul, but because of old applications Microsoft can't just completely make the switch to one design scheme. They tried that with Windows RT and horribly failed.

I still think they're doing a pretty good job making both worlds play together. I love my black explorer for example.

Still doesn't have a lot of baked in utilities I use every day, that exist out of the box on any Linux distro or OS X.

Windows does have a subsystem for Linux. Debian, Ubuntu etc. can be installed from the Store. If you miss anything from the Linux world, it's probably there.

"Windows 98's natural state is locked up"

Reply 72 of 317, by Bruninho

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

I think my opinion is probably a blend of SirNickity and schmatzler's opinions.

Windows does have a decent UI, much more discrete than the failed "Metro style" though, but I have to agree that it is too white or dark, depending of which theme you choose. I'm going with the light one and very little tweaks to look like a modern Windows 95, but it's far from being a mess. XP, Aero theme, Vista, Windows 8, these were a mess. Like if they had allowed a kid to design them.

Can't say that I miss the old File Manager from Windows 3.x, there is a version on gitHub that runs on Windows 10. It’s a testament to the backward compatibility of Windows itself, especially since this was originally included in Windows more than 20 years ago. Now if you download and run the Progman.exe (aka old Program Manager) on Windows 10, you will see how much the UI has changed through the years.

I have to be honest and praise Microsoft for their backwards compatibility. However, NTVDM only works for the 32 bits Windows version and I run 64 bits one, so I had to use OTVDM (also found on gitHub) from someone so I could run 16bit apps and games on WIndows 10).

I just can't accept the stupid automatic updates and the (unnecessary) overhauled start menu. The original menu from Windows 9x was extremely simple and very good. Can't they just K.I.S.S. ? Why do they have to put so much bloatware on it? I hate the alphabetical order.

I have installed the Ubuntu subsystem, for work purposes, and I played with it a bit. So far so good. But we're far from having Linux apps running natively on Windows and vice versa.

"Design isn't just what it looks like and feels like. Design is how it works."
JOBS, Steve.
READ: Right to Repair sucks and is illegal!

Reply 73 of 317, by dr_st

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
schmatzler wrote:

I still think they're doing a pretty good job making both worlds play together. I love my black explorer for example.

It's been a gradual improvement since the mess than the original Win8 release was, however, it's not 100% perfect yet, and possibly never will be. My problem is not with how things look, but with how they behave. There are certain system configuration options that are accessed through the modern UI, and then some that are accessed through the legacy UI. Not everything is available in both places, which creates confusion especially for less experienced users.

bfcastello wrote:

XP, Aero theme, Vista, Windows 8, these were a mess. Like if they had allowed a kid to design them.

I rather dislike the Luna style (XP) and on all my XP machines switched to classic theme immediately; however, Aero (Vista/Win7) I find really nice and I think it's the best desktop look in any version of Windows, ever.

bfcastello wrote:

The original menu from Windows 9x was extremely simple and very good. Can't they just K.I.S.S. ? Why do they have to put so much bloatware on it? I hate the alphabetical order.

I am undecided about this. I used to love the Win9x simple start menu and for several years would meticulously organize my start menu folders, and so the constant changes to the design would annoy me, but then I understood the following things:

  • Keeping everything organized is rather annoying if you frequently install/uninstall programs; most of them do not let you customize their start menu locations, and if you move things manually, then the uninstaller later can't find them, or it updates and puts new folders/shortcuts back in the original location, etc. You find yourself constantly chasing loose ends to keep it organized.
  • I actually don't use the Start menu all that much, because the hierarchical organization is slow to navigate. Frequently accessed programs I put on my desktop / quick launch / taskbar and usually have a shortcut key combo assigned to them.
  • When I do need to hunt for something that I don't frequently used, I found that the improved search options of the start menu (where you start typing the name and it just brings it up) typically outweigh the lack of organization. So I stopped caring at all about organizing start menu entries on anything Win7 and newer.

Still, for someone who wants the start menu to follow a very particular method, Classic Shell (yes, a third party tool) typically offers a plethora of configurable solutions.

https://cloakedthargoid.wordpress.com/ - Random content on hardware, software, games and toys

Reply 74 of 317, by Caluser2000

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

I like the BIG button approach. With buttons representing the 12 our so programmes used on a regular basic with key-stroke as well with a menu option by right clicking some were on the desktop to access ny other progammes on the system. I also like *nixes highlight to copy then middle click to paste across all DE/WMs. Saving desktop as left on next start up is handy as well. A thing OS/2 implemented as well. Some times it's interesting to how much some things just haven't changed or gotten worse. This Windows Explorer pretend to do something when really achieving nothing much at all. File access on my P166MMX test rig is instant in *nix, win9x-w2k is instant.

Edit-Just spent 1/2 using Progam Manager in Windows 3.1 on my 286/12. Far snappier than Windows 10 Explorer

Last edited by Caluser2000 on 2019-10-31, 11:48. Edited 4 times in total.

There's a glitch in the matrix.
A founding member of the 286 appreciation society.
Apparently 32-bit is dead and nobody likes P4s.
Of course, as always, I'm open to correction...😉

Reply 75 of 317, by Cyberdyne

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

For me Windows 3.1 Button and control system, and Windows 9x user interface. Soooo... Calmira. We really did not have to go higher. Ok but i really like that soft Windows 7 look, and hate that boxy 8/10 look.

I am aroused about any X86 motherboard that has full functional ISA slot. I think i have problem. Not really into that original (Turbo) XT,286,386 and CGA/EGA stuff. So just a DOS nut.

Reply 76 of 317, by Caluser2000

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
Cyberdyne wrote:

For me Windows 3.1 Button and control system, and Windows 9x user interface. Soooo... Calmira. ..

There were some nice wee widget customizing utilities available for Win3.x as well.

There's a glitch in the matrix.
A founding member of the 286 appreciation society.
Apparently 32-bit is dead and nobody likes P4s.
Of course, as always, I'm open to correction...😉

Reply 77 of 317, by appiah4

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

I wish the Windows GUI froze with Windows 2000.

There are some great desktop environments for Linux these days, by the way.

Anyway, the GUI is the least of Windows 10's problems AFAIC.

I have a Windows 10N installation at home I can't even update beyond ver. 1810, the update fails and rolls itself back every time no matter what I do.

Retronautics: A digital gallery of my retro computers, hardware and projects.

Reply 79 of 317, by imi

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

I love how distinct buttons and control elements and how easy to read text was in the old classic windows UI, usability got thrown out of the window (pun fully intended) for the sake of "looking nice".
and don't even get me started on cleartype and all that useless whitespace wasting all my screen real estate.