IrfanView: sometimes very slow loading

"J. Clarke"
Sun, 13
Sep 2015 08:04:52 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote:

In article
,
says...

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XP is outdated because it is now out of support, and anyone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.

So let's see, according to you Microsoft will be able to steal
information off of a doctor's computer in violation of HIPPA? You
mean that they just willingly abandoned the entire medical market?

Nothing is according to me. I've published no papers or articles
myself on the subject. This is all from other sources. Respected, IT,
sources. I've made no claims that Microsoft can outright steal
anything, either. How do you steal something in the digital world? Do
you intend to delete the file when you're done copying it, so the
original owner no longer has it?

Use a search engine. What I've written isn't 'new' news.

Please don't put words in my mouth again.



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

nospam
Sun, 13 Sep 2015
01:28:39 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote:

In article
, Diesel
wrote:

XP is not outdated simply because
he's having trouble setting up his new disk.

xp is outdated because it's no longer being supported by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.

only because the existing version continues to work.

ROFL. No, that's not why they continue to support Windows XP. They
could recode a small section of their program and remove XP support, if
they wanted to do so. They don't for a specific reason.

new apps don't.

Really? I've got the latest and greatest copy of Gimp on two XP
machines right here.



--
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
07:41:49 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote:

On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 00:02:38 +0000 (UTC), Diesel wrote:

nospam news:110920151029520516%
lid Fri, 11 Sep 2015 14:29:52 GMT in
alt.comp.freeware, wrote:

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

XP is not outdated simply because
he's having trouble setting up his new disk.

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.

I think your stats are a bit off, but, I don't expect any better from
you.



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

"J. Clarke"
Sun, 13
Sep 2015 08:05:59 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote:

In article
,
says...

nospam news:110920151029520516%
lid Fri, 11 Sep 2015 14:29:52 GMT in
alt.comp.freeware, wrote:

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

XP is not outdated simply because
he's having trouble setting up his new disk.

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.


Lots of people buy computers for the purpose of running
Malwarebytes do they?

I would hope not, actually. Wouldn't say good things about the state
of the Malware scene if that was the case. What does your comment
have to do with what I wrote?

It IS still supported by some software developers. I only listed one
in particular. PSP16 is XP friendly. As is The Gimp (newest version),
Firefox, etc. I've only seen a few programs so far that actually
won't install/run on Windows XP, and from a developer POV, I haven't
found anything unique in their code (obviously the 32bit versions) (I
reverse engineered their executables, naughty naughty!) that actually
prevented them from running on XP, they chose not do so so.

Intentionally. It's nothing to do with platform support
infrastructure not existing on XP, for them, so far. It's an
intentional effort to make their programs no longer run. It's just
that simple. I do understand some of their reasoning behind doing it,
but, I don't agree with it.








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

On 13/09/2015 18:56, Diesel wrote:
[]
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.

Thanks. I was after an example of privacy settings which changed back
after a period which I could check on the systems here. Have you seen
such a change yourself?

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

On 13/09/2015 18:56, Diesel wrote:
[]
Are you a technician by trade?

I am retired now, although it's semi-retired as I still update the
software I have provided for hundreds of users in the past, and help out
with a group of thousands of users, many of whom have upgraded to Win-10.

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

On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 09:36:00 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:

Further reading for anyone who thinks Win10 might
be an improvement:

http://arstechnica.com/information-t...he-new-normal/

http://arstechnica.com/information-t...-to-microsoft/

I guess I don't understand the concern. In this article, I see a lot
of "don't appear to", "appears to", "feels like", "seems to", "not
clear" "looks like", "isn't clear", etc., and little else.

I can agree that everything about the OS should be reported so users
can make decisions, but I also agree that this is being blown all out
of proportion by some folks. Anyone who has a smartphone with apps is
giving up way more privacy than Win 10 is taking forcibly. As others
have said, you can turn this stuff off, and anything being sent after
that is pure conjecture.

Total privacy is gone forever - it's just reality. If you are afraid
of every bit of info that is sent off into the ether, turn off your
phone, and disconnect from the internet. It's fine to be cautious, but
at some level, caution can become futile, and a waste of time.

And finally regarding upgrading from XP, I use lots of software -
mostly music and photo, and almost none of it will run on XP. And I
think I'm a typical user.

On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 09:36:57 -0300, Shadow wrote:

On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 08:37:34 +0100, "p-0''0-h the cat (UK) - The voice
of the Sheeple" 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...

Most people logon to XP using an adminstrative account and they 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 service hardening, lack of a whole raft of
group policy additions, 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.

And yet ... it's rarely affected by malware.

That's so not true. Just because you and I don't get malware [despite our
differing opinions on prevention] that doesn't mean Joe Public doesn't. We
know what we are doing and act accordingly. I rarely deal with end users OS
support nowadays but on the odd occasions I get dragged in it never ceases
to amaze me what people click on. Microsoft should supply boxing gloves
with every install. Usually it's not just one dodgy program it's several.
They have no idea what they are doing. This is what keeps Warnerbee out of
the gutter.

I had ONE
autorun-pendrive-borne infection years ago. The AV did not detect it,
but my firewall did. And that was the only time malware ran on my PC
in the last 20 years, out of a virtual OS.
Ironically I wrote to the security groups warning them about
autorun years before, but a windows update turned my autorun back on.
[]'s

Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.

--
p-0.0-h the cat

Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, ******* hacker, Resident evil, Monkey Boy,
Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll,
troll infâme, the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers]
lowlife troll, shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple,
sociopath, kook, smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile,
snittish scumbag, liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur,
scouringerer, the most complete ignoid, and furball.

NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist

Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.

Signature integrity check
md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896

In article ,
Diesel wrote:

you collect malware??

Sure. I've got thousands of samples myself.

what for?

Analysis.

so you can write your own?


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

because xp no longer has any security patches.

Xp itself, maybe not. It probably still depends on the severity. Some
POS terminals are still running XP. AND, it's still being supported
for several more years. Your favorite ATM machine might actually be
an XP driven 'dumb terminal'. It's likely still possible to mitigate
any potential harm from forthcoming unpatched issues, though.

A properly hardened XP machine is possible and does infact exist.

atm machines don't visit random web sites and download apps or other
stuff so they are not exposed to typical malware threats. citing that
as an example of xp being secure is very disingenuous.

however, atms are still vulnerable. here's one example:
https://securelist.com/blog/research...lating-atm-mac
hines-with-malware/
This new malware, detected by Kaspersky Lab as Backdoor.MSIL.Tyupkin,
affects ATMs from a major ATM manufacturer*running Microsoft Windows
32-bit.

you must not have that one in your 'collection'.

In article ,
Diesel 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.

sorry, but i do.