Some guy got .NET Framework 2.0 working on Windows 95. To my knowledge, no version of .NET Framework was ever open-sourced or had license terms changed. Admittedly, I hacked old games too. If they want to put me in jail for it, well, I don't like my job much anyway, hehehe.

Perhaps my opinion is hypocritical, I just think the operating system is too delicate to mess with.

Now, are we being oppressed for our favorite old Windows version no longer running current software? Certain group of people certainly seem to think that way. They will cite planned obsolescence and changes they don't like in subsequent OS versions and why they should throw old computer away, accompanied by angry emojis and remarks that developers targeting newer OS are the root of all evil.

So the concept of the right to use particular version of the OS against all odds. A concept that must have never been discussed in any sort of legal or human rights context. Some food for thought.

Jo22 wrote on 2025-11-16, 22:01:

PS/2: But I agree on one thing: That Windows 10 should never get a kernel extension.
It simply doesn't deserve one. IMHO.

10 is the XP of 2020s! 😁

My workplace will probably want me to put Win11 on machine. They're also talking about joining domain, which probably means Group Policies and oppression. Holding onto Win10 1809 until it lasts, that thing just works.

Then I won't be able to feel good about hacking one of Visual Studio 2022's services to keep Diagnostic Tools working on old Windows version despite the "required" missing security mitigation (forgot the details), because it will just work.

Goodbye Win7 theme too, that took a while to put together.

Life sucks.

UCyborg wrote on 2025-11-16, 23:01:

My workplace will probably want me to put Win11 on machine. They're also talking about joining domain, which probably means Group Policies and oppression. Holding onto Win10 1809 until it lasts, that thing just works.

Local accounts and VM's are things, if you know what I mean 😉

UCyborg wrote on 2025-11-16, 23:01:

Jo22 wrote on 2025-11-16, 22:01:

PS/2: But I agree on one thing: That Windows 10 should never get a kernel extension.
It simply doesn't deserve one. IMHO.

10 is the XP of 2020s! :D

Oh no! That sounds so wrong! 😭

UCyborg wrote on 2025-11-16, 22:40:

Now, are we being oppressed for our favorite old Windows version no longer running current software? Certain group of people certainly seem to think that way. [..]

Personally, I belong to the group of people who just thinks that these upgrades makes the old OS useful.
Because it can run everyday software then. Which in turn used to be a purpose of an OS: run software.
Before Software-As-A-Service model showed up and the OS became an data octopus and advertisement platform.

For example, I do have a Compaq Armada laptop running Windows 98SE.
I mainly use it to run VB6, Delphi and older development software for microcontrollers.
Thanks to the unofficial Service Pack and the extension I now can use USB pendrives
or run some more recent applications, from time to time.
Such as newer compilers, for experimenting on same system.
Or using newer utilities (IrfanView, Audacity etc).

KernelEx can be turned on/off and doesn't harm the 98SE in any way.
It also adds a "compatibility tab", which is handy for running older Windows 95 or NT4 software.

UCyborg wrote on 2025-11-16, 18:12:

I'm allergic to extended kernels. People working on them should do something useful with their lives instead. Leave the OS kernels to the pros.

I understand. It's the "because something can't be what isn't allowed to be".
Which makes it feel like a personal attack on someone's own belief system.
The cult of "period-correctness" is such a phenomenon, I sometimes think.
This results in PC builds that are more period-correct than the PC configurations that actually existed back in the day.

Though I wonder if the hobbyists tinkering with old stuff aren’t secretly the real pros (experts) by now.
The usual employees working at MS have no idea about vintage Windows codebase, maybe.

It's that way in amateur radio, at least: Here, the hobbyists sometimes have a deeper understanding on a given matter than their commercial, professional colleagues.
Because they fix and tinker with stuff, rather than just using it like the professionals who never touch any internals.
The term "amateur" is meant in a non-commercial sense here, it doesn't refer to a poor skill set.

UCyborg wrote on 2025-11-16, 22:40:

They will cite planned obsolescence and changes they don't like in subsequent OS versions and why they should throw old computer away, accompanied by angry emojis and remarks that developers targeting newer OS are the root of all evil.

So the concept of the right to use particular version of the OS against all odds. A concept that must have never been discussed in any sort of legal or human rights context. Some food for thought.

Nah, I'm not like that. Personally, I'm all in for throwing away obsolete Windows 10 PCs.
Or at least, for upgrading them for being Windows 11 ready.
New CPU, maybe mainboard if needed. To make them SSE4.2 and TPM2 compatible. It's about time.

Generally speaking, what's good about older Windowses is its therapheutical value, maybe.
Windows XP feels like home, it's very user-friendly and anti-depressive.
Even Windows 98SE is a joy to use when comming from a modern Windows.
Everything here is so clear, so calm, so logical organized. Just like with Windows 2000.

I can thus totally see why certain people hold on to using vintage OSes privately
or try to avoid modern versions as much as possible - it's a self-defense, like using an adblocker.
Some writers even use DOS for distraction free writing.
That's okay. Each to his own. As long as it doesn't harm others, it's fine. :)

Edited. Link fixed.

UCyborg wrote on 2025-11-16, 18:12:

I'm allergic to extended kernels. People working on them should do something useful with their lives instead. Leave the OS kernels to the pros.

On the one hand, I agree it is unfortunate that one set of developers has to spend their time fixing compatibility problems that are deliberately caused by another set of developers. But this battle will never end, because "the pros" are in it for the money and they don't work for the user. Normies now have adware and spyware in everything they own. Many people predicted this outcome.

Just let the used car salesman pick out a car for you. I'm sure you'll get something good.

UCyborg wrote on 2025-11-16, 18:12:

I'm allergic to extended kernels. People working on them should do something useful with their lives instead. Leave the OS kernels to the pros.

I had been in a similar situation years ago when I learned about retro/vintage computing.
All of a sudden, users built Pentium and higher machines to run Windows 95.
To me, that was ridiculous! So wrong! Because to me, Windows 95 was part of the classic 386/486 era, after all.
It took me a while to mentally comprehend that in other places of the world the Pentium had been adopted quicker than where I lived.
Personally, though, I still tend to associate both Windows 3.1x and 95 RTM to 386/486 era.
And Windows 98 to the Pentium/MMX (low end) and Pentium II/III (high end) era.
Same goes for Windows XP, which I do associate with Pentium II/III in first place. Rather than an Athlon XP or intel core i7.

UCyborg wrote on 2025-11-16, 18:12:

I'm allergic to extended kernels. People working on them should do something useful with their lives instead. Leave the OS kernels to the pros.

Don't think you understand the mechanism fully. I made a kernel extension myself once. You can add one function in a custom dll, and then pass-through all the other functions to the official kernel32.dll, or some other dll one is extending. Then add the extender/wrapper dll to the program folder, and all that it does, is add support for that one custom function. There are no complications that way.

Actually gog.com uses the above functionality for custom ddraw.dll and winmm.dll extensions, in many of their tweaked classic game packages. Well, not extensions per say, but reroutes to certain custom functions.

I never dared to install an OS-wide kernel-ex suite though. I would only dare such on an experimental setup,

bakemono wrote on 2025-11-17, 15:19:

UCyborg wrote on 2025-11-16, 18:12:

I'm allergic to extended kernels. People working on them should do something useful with their lives instead. Leave the OS kernels to the pros.

On the one hand, I agree it is unfortunate that one set of developers has to spend their time fixing compatibility problems that are deliberately caused by another set of developers. But this battle will never end, because "the pros" are in it for the money and they don't work for the user. Normies now have adware and spyware in everything they own. Many people predicted this outcome.

The more versions of Windows you support, the more testing is required. And older versions of Windows may not support the features required resulting in extra work. If you've got 1000 users on Windows 10 and 3 users on Windows XP, those three users simply may not be worth all of the extra effort required to continue supporting them. If the thing you're developing is a library then of course this has flow-on effects to other software.

Jo22 wrote on 2025-11-17, 07:43:

UCyborg wrote on 2025-11-16, 23:01:

10 is the XP of 2020s! 😁

Oh no! That sounds so wrong! 😭

It happened to solve some gripes I had with Windows. Though I seem to care about things no one else cares about.

Jo22 wrote on 2025-11-17, 07:43:

I understand. It's the "because something can't be what isn't allowed to be". Which makes it feel like a personal attack on some […]
Show full quote

UCyborg wrote on 2025-11-16, 18:12:

I'm allergic to extended kernels. People working on them should do something useful with their lives instead. Leave the OS kernels to the pros.

I understand. It's the "because something can't be what isn't allowed to be".
Which makes it feel like a personal attack on someone's own belief system.
The cult of "period-correctness" is such a phenomenon, I sometimes think.
This results in PC builds that are more period-correct than the PC configurations that actually existed back in the day.

Though I wonder if the hobbyists tinkering with old stuff aren’t secretly the real pros (experts) by now.
The usual employees working at MS have no idea about vintage Windows codebase, maybe.

It's that way in amateur radio, at least: Here, the hobbyists sometimes have a deeper understanding on a given matter than their commercial, professional colleagues.
Because they fix and tinker with stuff, rather than just using it like the professionals who never touch any internals.
The term "amateur" is meant in a non-commercial sense here, it doesn't refer to a poor skill set.

It was just a particular buggy experience. Note that I deal with buggy software daily for €€€. So coming from "buggy" to "just works" is refreshing.

At my workplace, major release hasn't been seen in almost a year. No one really knows the state of the "trunk". Things that should have been solved with major release back in January are still being found well into November. But new (major) version must go out, they say.

I heard one of the ex-developers there coped with good amount of weekly alcohol.

I don't even know why I resurrected this thread. Restless mind I guess.

davidrg wrote on 2025-11-17, 21:39:

bakemono wrote on 2025-11-17, 15:19:

UCyborg wrote on 2025-11-16, 18:12:

I'm allergic to extended kernels. People working on them should do something useful with their lives instead. Leave the OS kernels to the pros.

On the one hand, I agree it is unfortunate that one set of developers has to spend their time fixing compatibility problems that are deliberately caused by another set of developers. But this battle will never end, because "the pros" are in it for the money and they don't work for the user. Normies now have adware and spyware in everything they own. Many people predicted this outcome.

The more versions of Windows you support, the more testing is required. And older versions of Windows may not support the features required resulting in extra work. If you've got 1000 users on Windows 10 and 3 users on Windows XP, those three users simply may not be worth all of the extra effort required to continue supporting them. If the thing you're developing is a library then of course this has flow-on effects to other software.

I never found the conclusive answer to the question whether .NET 8 really works on Windows 7. Sure it seems to work, but is there a catch? What random method may throw an exception?

There also seems to be this phenomenon these days that no one really knows (system) requirements. It seems you'd need strict policies and workflows in place to be even able to tell them. "What version of Edge, Chrome or Firefox does your application require?" "The current version at time of release is sure to work."

davidrg wrote on 2025-11-17, 21:39:

bakemono wrote on 2025-11-17, 15:19:

On the one hand, I agree it is unfortunate that one set of developers has to spend their time fixing compatibility problems that are deliberately caused by another set of developers. But this battle will never end, because "the pros" are in it for the money and they don't work for the user. Normies now have adware and spyware in everything they own. Many people predicted this outcome.

The more versions of Windows you support, the more testing is required. And older versions of Windows may not support the features required resulting in extra work. If you've got 1000 users on Windows 10 and 3 users on Windows XP, those three users simply may not be worth all of the extra effort required to continue supporting them. If the thing you're developing is a library then of course this has flow-on effects to other software.

You are still pretending that developers work for users. According to your theory, users are flocking to adware and spyware and dragging the hapless developers along with them. So users are making choices against their own interest, and developers who should know better are playing along because it would be extra work to accomodate anyone making a different choice. Who are the good guys in this story?

bakemono wrote on 2025-11-18, 14:32:

You are still pretending that developers work for users. According to your theory, users are flocking to adware and spyware and dragging the hapless developers along with them. So users are making choices against their own interest, and developers who should know better are playing along because it would be extra work to accomodate anyone making a different choice. Who are the good guys in this story?

The more interesting question to me is - who are the bad guys? Are there bad guys?

bakemono wrote on 2025-11-18, 14:32:

You are still pretending that developers work for users. According to your theory, users are flocking to adware and spyware and dragging the hapless developers along with them. So users are making choices against their own interest, and developers who should know better are playing along because it would be extra work to accomodate anyone making a different choice. Who are the good guys in this story?

The vast majority of users out there are either corporate who will always run a supported release (Which XP is not) for the obvious security reasons, or people who buy a new computer when their old one is "broken" and just accept whatever OS they're given because they have other things to worry about.

This explains why the overwhelming majority of computers out there are running Windows 10 or 11. As that is where the users are, that is what developers target.

If you have an issue with the telemetry and advertising in current Windows releases, windows XP is not the answer - it's lack of security means your just trading Microsoft spying for cyber criminals. MacOS or Linux is the alternative - XP is for retrocomputing now.

davidrg wrote on 2025-11-18, 18:01:

MacOS or Linux is the alternative - XP is for retrocomputing now.

Older OSes are still useful for private use or a single use case.
Say, video or photo editing. CAD/CAM, making PDFs, making music, reading e-books etc.
The advantage is that older OSes from the pre-2010s were still user-friendly and purposeful.
At least compared to what came afterwards. always-on(line), touch UI, Cloud hype, bitcoin mining, LLMs..

I wouldn't let the old OS be left connected to the internet when being unsupervised, though.
An external hardware firewall such an old DSL/cable router mode, pi-hole etc. might increase security to a minimum level.
Personally, I would tend to use XP as a main OS for sake of mental health, but would do the actual surfing inside a VM.

Then there's the problem with large storage media, making it difficult to use in the 2020s.
Windows XP officially tops out at 2TB for internal storage (HDD, SSD) while external storage via USB etc.
can be larger in capacity if the medium does use a translation layer.
That's why some external USB HDDs with, say, 8TB can be used on XP while others can't.

Edit: Then there are special cases, for example. Industrial machine control, an hydroelectric power station, use on sea etc.

For example, on a boat, an Windows XP laptop, an HF radio and a Pactor TNC (PTC) can be useful to use AirMail/WinLink.
So you can retrieve e-mails via amateur radio on the open sea.
Such an insular solution doesn't age like the rest of the world.
Here, Windows XP could remain in use for the next 50 years or so.

Example video (old): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxXunz5dmAc
AirMail: http://siriuscyber.net/airmail/

Jo22 wrote on 2025-11-18, 18:27:

Edit: Then there are special cases, for example. Industrial machine control, an hydroelectric power station, use on sea etc. […]
Show full quote

Edit: Then there are special cases, for example. Industrial machine control, an hydroelectric power station, use on sea etc.

For example, on a boat, an Windows XP laptop, an HF radio and a Pactor TNC (PTC) can be useful to use AirMail/WinLink.
So you can retrieve e-mails via amateur radio on the open sea.
Such an insular solution doesn't age like the rest of the world.
Here, Windows XP could remain in use for the next 50 years or so.

These use cases are perhaps the most problematic to be running on an insecure platform. Much higher value targets than a grandmother looking at facebook, and stuxnet demonstrates that air gaps even in high security environments are far from fool-proof. I would hope that any entities still running things like power plants on unsupported platforms have at least removed all means of exchanging data with the outside world - network interfaces, usb ports, removable media drives, etc, to lower the risk. But I doubt most have - if they prioritised security like that, they wouldn't be running insecure software in the first place.

Microsoft publishes end-of-life dates well in advance so this really should be factored in to design and purchasing decisions for such things. If the software is going to become a liability before the equiment is end of life then that should be a black mark against both the vendor and equipment. They could have chosen a different approach, but likely didn't because just using Windows was cheaper and by the time its a problem they've already got your money.

dr_st wrote on 2025-11-18, 16:23:

The more interesting question to me is - who are the bad guys? Are there bad guys?

That hinges on whether we can agree that adware and spyware are bad. There are people creating it and people urging others to accept it.

davidrg wrote:

The vast majority of users out there are either corporate who will always run a supported release (Which XP is not) for the obvious security reasons, or people who buy a new computer when their old one is "broken" and just accept whatever OS they're given because they have other things to worry about.

You have (mostly) described why market forces fail to put any constraint on software quality.

As that is where the users are, that is what developers target.

Well, no. You just got done stripping users of their agency. You said they run whatever MS gives them. So developers are not following the users, they are following MS.

If you have an issue with the telemetry and advertising in current Windows releases, windows XP is not the answer

Lol. The answer is whatever I decide it is. It's MY COMPUTER. If MS offers something I want, then I will use it. If they only offer things that I don't want, then I won't use them. I have no idea why you feel the need to try to gatekeep what I am allowed to use. Realistically, you have no say in this decision.

bakemono wrote on 2025-11-19, 15:33:

Well, no. You just got done stripping users of their agency. You said they run whatever MS gives them. So developers are not fol […]
Show full quote

As that is where the users are, that is what developers target.

Well, no. You just got done stripping users of their agency. You said they run whatever MS gives them. So developers are not following the users, they are following MS.

If you have an issue with the telemetry and advertising in current Windows releases, windows XP is not the answer

Lol. The answer is whatever I decide it is. It's MY COMPUTER. If MS offers something I want, then I will use it. If they only offer things that I don't want, then I won't use them. I have no idea why you feel the need to try to gatekeep what I am allowed to use. Realistically, you have no say in this decision.

Beeing directly based on Windows 2000, XP has a solid foundation.
However, it also was the first OS to spy on the users or require online activation.
That's why in early 2000s, paranoid users would always use "XP-AntiSpy", a then-famous freeware utility.
At least in my little corner of the world. I have to add that the utilities can do more damage than good if incorrectly used.
"Windows XP Optimizer" was another tool of that category, maybe.

davidrg wrote on 2025-11-18, 20:10:

Jo22 wrote on 2025-11-18, 18:27:

Edit: Then there are special cases, for example. Industrial machine control, an hydroelectric power station, use on sea etc. […]
Show full quote

Edit: Then there are special cases, for example. Industrial machine control, an hydroelectric power station, use on sea etc.

For example, on a boat, an Windows XP laptop, an HF radio and a Pactor TNC (PTC) can be useful to use AirMail/WinLink.
So you can retrieve e-mails via amateur radio on the open sea.
Such an insular solution doesn't age like the rest of the world.
Here, Windows XP could remain in use for the next 50 years or so.

These use cases are perhaps the most problematic to be running on an insecure platform. Much higher value targets than a grandmother looking at facebook, and stuxnet demonstrates that air gaps even in high security environments are far from fool-proof. I would hope that any entities still running things like power plants on unsupported platforms have at least removed all means of exchanging data with the outside world - network interfaces, usb ports, removable media drives, etc, to lower the risk. But I doubt most have - if they prioritised security like that, they wouldn't be running insecure software in the first place.

Hi, I agree if the use cases have an active internet connection all time.
But insular applications not connected to the internet are pretty safe.
The amateur radio example has no internet connection, the e-mail is being retrieved as if calling a BBS (but over the air).
Some older power plants had no internet connection yet, but rather modems connected to the landline (POTS, ISDN).
For establishing a non-internet connection for diagnostic reasons etc.
Or had used an network connection via the classic X.25 rather than TCP/IP, UDP and so on.
And X.25 in the sense of its own network, not the internet.
In my country, Datex-P used to be a big X.25 network/service.
It had links to other X.25 networks (public data networks) such as Datapac, Telenet, Tymnet etc.
These were the kind of networks in the era of the original TRON movie.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X.25#Worldwide_ … c_data_networks

Edit: What I mean is this: When XP was released, it still was a transittional time.
Not all people using it also had an internet connection.
Some people also bought magazines with CD-ROMs full of software.
Or bought computer books in a library book store.
Some people I knew did live this way until the 2010s..
So it's not too farfetched to think of a scenario in which an old , local power plant still operates insular.
Not of a big city, but rather townscale. Here, an old OS such as Windows XP or OS/2 can do its duty for years without having issues.
It doesn't need updates, either, if it's being left alone.

Edit: That's the scale of a power plant I meant in the example.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nqUBdHVyac
A traditional one, mostly analogue, with computers for measuring the power output and some other things.
Something that runs for decades without a hardware upgrade.

Edit: And last but not least.. Windows XP had its own musical!
How can anything with a musical not be timeless?! 😉
https://tinyurl.com/mt5ut7dd

bakemono wrote on 2025-11-19, 15:33:

Well, no. You just got done stripping users of their agency.

Most users are not like You or I. They don't care about computers - its a tool to do a job, nothing more. A tool that is probably more hastle and expense than they'd like. The fact that so many people try to do all their computing today on phones and tablets demonstrates that many people would rather not have one if they can get away with it

bakemono wrote on 2025-11-19, 15:33:

Lol. The answer is whatever I decide it is. It's MY COMPUTER. If MS offers something I want, then I will use it. If they only offer things that I don't want, then I won't use them. I have no idea why you feel the need to try to gatekeep what I am allowed to use. Realistically, you have no say in this decision.

My point was that Windows XP at this point has no security. Having your computer wide open to anyone who wants to break in does not protect your privacy. If you're worried about Microsoft spying on you, I'd think you'd be even more worried about everyone being able to spy on you.

Jo22 wrote on 2025-11-19, 15:59:

Beeing directly based on Windows 2000, XP has a solid foundation. However, it also was the first OS to spy on the users or requi […]
Show full quote

bakemono wrote on 2025-11-19, 15:33:

Well, no. You just got done stripping users of their agency. You said they run whatever MS gives them. So developers are not fol […]
Show full quote

As that is where the users are, that is what developers target.

Well, no. You just got done stripping users of their agency. You said they run whatever MS gives them. So developers are not following the users, they are following MS.

If you have an issue with the telemetry and advertising in current Windows releases, windows XP is not the answer

Lol. The answer is whatever I decide it is. It's MY COMPUTER. If MS offers something I want, then I will use it. If they only offer things that I don't want, then I won't use them. I have no idea why you feel the need to try to gatekeep what I am allowed to use. Realistically, you have no say in this decision.

Beeing directly based on Windows 2000, XP has a solid foundation.
However, it also was the first OS to spy on the users or require online activation.
That's why in early 2000s, paranoid users would always use "XP-AntiSpy", a then-famous freeware utility.
At least in my little corner of the world. I have to add that the utilities can do more damage than good if incorrectly used.
"Windows XP Optimizer" was another tool of that category, maybe.

davidrg wrote on 2025-11-18, 20:10:

Hi, I agree if the use cases have an active internet connection all time.
But insular applications not connected to the internet are pretty safe.

Being in a secure building completely disconnected from the internet didn't stop Stuxnet from infiltrating the systems running Irans centrifuges. For high value targets, an air gap may not be enough so it isn't a good idea to assume that the computer system being protected doesn't need any further security.

bakemono wrote on 2025-11-19, 15:33:

dr_st wrote on 2025-11-18, 16:23:

The more interesting question to me is - who are the bad guys? Are there bad guys?

That hinges on whether we can agree that adware and spyware are bad. There are people creating it and people urging others to accept it.

I think we can agree on it, if we don't try to take it to the extreme. Adware and spyware are annoying. I don't think many would disagree. However, ads also provide a source of revenue that funds certain content and services, allowing them to be free or cheap to the users. It's not like the concept originated with software. Spyware, short of the malicious kinds (which are indubitably evil), is mostly just to target the user with specific ads (not that it cannot get awkward). Some things (like telemetry) are not even what I would consider spyware.

unluckybob wrote on 2025-11-16, 16:20:

there's also one core api that lets you run a lot of modern apps on xp, it's kinda like kernelEx for 9x.

Are you using it for a longer time? What are your experiences?
I still hadn't time for some more extensive testing. Also it seems to me that OCA is more intrusive to Windows system compared to e.g. KernelEx. I use KernelEx on W98SE for many years and didn't find any issues that it could cause some side effect for other applications. It simply has compatability tuning properties individual to every app you explicitly set and can be disabled as default. At least I always used that so I set individual compat. only for spec. apps which needed it. How about OCA? If I remember some years ago it enabled compat. for all apps and could potentially cause some issuses.
Not sure about legal things, but doesn't OCA use WINE codebase? At least for D3D it does, not? And WINE is legal,no? AFAIK OCA is still on Github that I though is not a warez site.

BTW I really don't understand someone telling he's annoyed by some one else writing a kernel extension and having an feeling of authority to direct someone else he should do in his free time. Srsly? Just don't install it. I can than say that playing games or retrocomputing is just a waste of time, don't burn the electricity and go save the planet!

davidrg wrote on 2025-11-19, 18:13:

Jo22 wrote on 2025-11-19, 15:59:

Beeing directly based on Windows 2000, XP has a solid foundation. However, it also was the first OS to spy on the users or requi […]
Show full quote

bakemono wrote on 2025-11-19, 15:33:

Well, no. You just got done stripping users of their agency. You said they run whatever MS gives them. So developers are not following the users, they are following MS.

Lol. The answer is whatever I decide it is. It's MY COMPUTER. If MS offers something I want, then I will use it. If they only offer things that I don't want, then I won't use them. I have no idea why you feel the need to try to gatekeep what I am allowed to use. Realistically, you have no say in this decision.

Beeing directly based on Windows 2000, XP has a solid foundation.
However, it also was the first OS to spy on the users or require online activation.
That's why in early 2000s, paranoid users would always use "XP-AntiSpy", a then-famous freeware utility.
At least in my little corner of the world. I have to add that the utilities can do more damage than good if incorrectly used.
"Windows XP Optimizer" was another tool of that category, maybe.

davidrg wrote on 2025-11-18, 20:10:

Hi, I agree if the use cases have an active internet connection all time.
But insular applications not connected to the internet are pretty safe.

Being in a secure building completely disconnected from the internet didn't stop Stuxnet from infiltrating the systems running Irans centrifuges. For high value targets, an air gap may not be enough so it isn't a good idea to assume that the computer system being protected doesn't need any further security.

Hi. Physical access can compromise about any system, I'm afraid.
Someone with physical access could deploy explosives or data-loggers, too.
That being said, I'm living in a different world here, also (not Iran).
So I doubt that there's much interest to infiltrate a local windmill, hydro station or an outlet of the weather service.

Old OSes such as DOS or Windows NT don't rely on an internet connection to function.
They are insular. Windows past Windows XP doesn't even have an on-line help that works locally, without the internet.
If there's an error message or a problem, it needs to connect a Microsoft server to describe it.
Not so with old systems, which *just work* when being disconnected.

In an insular installation, a modern OS could even cause issues.
Windows 10/11 expect to contact Microsoft in specific intervals.
Who knows what happens if that's not the case.The system could expire, maybe.
It could tell you that it has calculated that it is must be obsolete by now and that you must upgrade (-> lock screen).
That's irresponsible behavior, especially in an automated environment.
Windows 2000 would never have done such stuff.
That's why professionals do trust older OSes more than the current ones, I think.