IrfanView: sometimes very slow loading

| xp is outdated because it's no longer being supported by microsoft or
| software developers.
|
| The latter is not entirely true. Some developers are continuing to
| support XP. Malwarebytes is one of them.
|
| But that sucks doesn't it. It's like only 10% of the team turning up. You
| can't expect to win at football if only the goalie plays.
|

10%? Adobe's cloud scam won't run on XP. Aside
from that? Pale Moon recently stopped supporting XP.
Firefox still supports XP. As does Libre Office. So far,
Pale Moon is the only issue I've come across. Last
year I bought PSP 16. That runs on XP. All the
software I use works fine, and I've had no problems
with updates. I just updated one of my own programs,
in fact. The update runs on XP+, but I also still provide
the old version, which supports Win98 to Win10.
(Though I only test now on XP and Win7.)

WinXP is still widely used, both in PCs and in kiosk
version. It's not a fringe OS yet. If it were then
people wouldn't be sticking with it. What you're
talking about is just the marketing disinformation
that Microsoft puts out.

Look at how this discussion is proceeding. Several
people who don't use XP keep insisting that it's no
longer usable, so we must update to Win10. (Even
Win7 is now 5 years old, so by your logic it's also
over the hill.) Yet the XP users are not complaining.
Why are *you* so worried about whether people on
XP can run their software?

| Bugs in MS Office are more common, but
| I don't have MS Office.
|
| then how do you know?
|

If you'd read the PDF from Cisco that I
linked then you'd know, too.

| Your attitude and logic is a classic case of
| ostrich mentality. If you were neutral you'd have no
| problem with some people not wanting software that
| calls home and copies data. But you're not neutral.
| You're willfully ignorant. To avoid looking at the
| details you need to create a barrier, dismissing it all
| as tinfoil hats and paranoia and compensating by
| trying to sell others on your own approach of diving
| into Win10 with "eyes wide closed".
|
| You stated that some of the privacy features would be re-enabled if
| disabled, but failed to provide one example for me to check on the
| systems here.
|

I didn't state that. Someone else did.
I stated facts that you can easily confirm.
Oh, and did I mention that you can read
the privacy policy for yourself to confirm
what I'm saying? Apparently you can't
find it. Do you need me to post the link
again?

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

WinXP is still widely used, both in PCs and in kiosk
version. It's not a fringe OS yet. If it were then
people wouldn't be sticking with it. What you're
talking about is just the marketing disinformation
that Microsoft puts out.

kiosks do not count. kiosks have dedicated software which the user
never sees. nobody installs firefox or adobe software or any other
software on a kiosk.

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

| Bugs in MS Office are more common, but
| I don't have MS Office.
|
| then how do you know?

If you'd read the PDF from Cisco that I
linked then you'd know, too.

in other words, you don't know.

On 13/09/2015 15:52, Mayayana wrote:
[]
| You stated that some of the privacy features would be re-enabled if
| disabled, but failed to provide one example for me to check on the
| systems here.

I didn't state that. Someone else did.
I stated facts that you can easily confirm.
Oh, and did I mention that you can read
the privacy policy for yourself to confirm
what I'm saying? Apparently you can't
find it. Do you need me to post the link
again?

So, someone else did. Sorry.

Yes, I've read the privacy policy and it seems little different to that
which might be applicable to almost any smart-phone or tablet.

--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

nospam
Sun, 13 Sep 2015
14:37:00 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote:

I doubt very much that Dustin, Mayayana, Corliss (unless he
continues to blindly update his Firefox or Thunderbird) or I will
be "struck" with malware.

they will be pwned at some point if they foolishly ignore security
patches.

You really have no idea what you're talking about. ROFL. Sorry, but,
you don't.





--
Optimist: Someone who doesn't know all the facts yet.

"p-0''0-h the cat (UK) - The voice of the Sheeple"

Sun, 13 Sep 2015
07:37:34 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote:

On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 00:02:36 +0000 (UTC), Diesel wrote:

yes it did. xp is insecure and anyone still running it is at
risk.

Okay. Please, specify the way(s) in which it's insecure.

Well, where do I start...

Excellent.

Most people logon to XP using an adminstrative account and they

That's not a smart thing to be doing for the typical computer user.
How is that the fault of XP though? Is XP forcing you to login as
admin? Mine doesn't. Although, I confess, I typically do use an Admin
account myself. The restricted account annoys me. I don't require
it's hand holding 'security' measures. Many of which you listed
below.

launch applications under that context whereas later versions of
Windows at least have UAC which only elevates applications to run
in the context of an adminstrative account if they require it,
then there's the out of date security subsystem, lack of mandatory
integrity control, user interface privilege isolation, windows

All of those features you brag about have already been defeated,
though.

it's missing a load of encryption additions and improvements in
later versions of windies, the firewall is dated, and so on and so
on.

What's forcing me to use the built in firewall? Even so, it still
does the basic stuff a firewall is known for doing, doesn't it? So..
other than losing out on very custom rule sets and more advanced
filtering options, what does it really matter in this case?

You wouldn't just rely on the OS firewall would you? Surely you're
incoming connection is behind a firewall of it's own. Yes?

Those encryption additions have worked out great for ransomware, I'm
glad you brought it up. Money maker, right there. Several PoCs have
already made it wild abusing them, too.



--
Optimist: Someone who doesn't know all the facts yet.

David Taylor
Sun, 13 Sep 2015 14:27:22 GMT in
alt.comp.freeware, wrote:

On 13/09/2015 15:14, Mayayana wrote:
[]
Your attitude and logic is a classic case of
ostrich mentality. If you were neutral you'd have no
problem with some people not wanting software that
calls home and copies data. But you're not neutral.
You're willfully ignorant. To avoid looking at the
details you need to create a barrier, dismissing it all
as tinfoil hats and paranoia and compensating by
trying to sell others on your own approach of diving
into Win10 with "eyes wide closed".

You stated that some of the privacy features would be re-enabled
if disabled, but failed to provide one example for me to check on
the systems here.

I believe that was me.

http://www.zdnet.com/article/windows...ed_fragment_=#!
http://arstechnica.co.uk/information...-to-microsoft/

If you need more urls, I can post them. You can also find them
yourself by using a search engine...The issue is known.. and
becoming much more well known by the day.



--
Optimist: Someone who doesn't know all the facts yet.
`

David Taylor
Sun, 13 Sep 2015 05:11:15 GMT in
alt.comp.freeware, wrote:

On 13/09/2015 01:02, Diesel wrote:
David Taylor
Fri, 11 Sep 2015 14:00:32 GMT in
alt.comp.freeware, wrote:

XP is outdated because it is now out of support, and anyone
using it with an Internet connection is asking for trouble. The
more modern Windows versions are more reliable and have fewer
bugs. As I run Win-7 on one PC which only has 1.25 GB memory, I
can hardly agree that it's a resource hog (but I don't photo
edit there).

asking for trouble, how exactly?

Don't be put off by the look of Windows-8 or Windows-10 - you
can use the free Classic Shell program to make it look like
Windows-7 should you wish.

To a point, yes.

You are in control of the privacy settings with Windows-10, so
choose carefully if you don't like the defaults. What is
collected is no more, and likely less, than Apple, Google,
Android etc. etc. Greatly exaggerated, in my view.

You may need glasses, then. As you are not in full control of the
privacy settings either. Some turn back on after a preset period
of being disabled.

From the many I've spoke to who have upgraded to Windows-10,
the
overwhelming view has been positive.

What is many?

And if you _really_ think that a 2015 computer is not going to
be more powerful than a 2001 computer, especially for photo and
video editing, I respectfully suggest you think again.
Processor speed, number of cores, available memory, disk speed,
display resolution, multiple displays - yes the difference /is/
stunning. Just try going back to a 2001 computer and see for
yourself....

The issue date of OS doesn't necessarily mean the computer is
also from 2001. XP was installed for years on many a box.

Asking for trouble in that they are running an OS with unpatched
vulnerabilities.

Are the vulnerabilities present in the OS itself, or possibly, 3rd
party software that may be in use on it? It's an important
difference.

What privacy settings get turned back on, and after what period of
being disabled? List them, and I will check on the systems here.

Some aren't completely turning off either now, it's being shown.
A search engine can be your friend.

http://arstechnica.co.uk/information...-to-microsoft/

Probably hundreds of users now. I haven't been counting.

Are you a technician by trade?


--
Optimist: Someone who doesn't know all the facts yet.