IrfanView: sometimes very slow loading

On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 23:26:11 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

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

because xp no longer has any security patches.

That's not correct. It's got many years worth of accumulated security
patches. It's just that it's not getting any more since MS stopped
supporting it.

that's what 'no longer has any security patches' means.

that means *all* exploits found can be weaponized.

That's only true of those found since MS stopped supporting XP. Some
of the earlier ones will still be open on XP machines according to
the extent that they have not been updated or their owners have
neglected security on their system.

obviously, exploits found while they were still patching it have been
patched. you're arguing just to argue.

since english does not appear to be your first language:
all exploits found since they stopped patching exploits will *not* be
patched and therefore can be weaponized. is that clearer?

SP3 was the last patch I applied. In 2008. I still have DOS on
this machine, from the early 90's, when I update an OS I just copy the
old OS over to the new disk. IOW, I've been running XP without a patch
for 7 years now. And even living in one of the most prolific malware
writing regions, (I receive anything from zero to 3 trojans a day) IT
HAS NOT affected me.
Malware writers exploit the latest vulnerabilities, the
undiscovered ones, or the ones M$ pretends it can't see because
government agencies are using them. No-one writes viruses for DOS, or
trojans for XP anymore.
And yes, I collect malware. I also collect stamps and enjoy
swimming, cycling and baking sourdough bread.
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

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adminstrative account if they require it, then there's the out of date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. 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

--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 04:04:52 -0400, "J. Clarke"
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?

Yes. I'm a doctor (retired). I would never run Win 10 on
anything with access to patient's records. I swore an oath, and I
intend to honor it.
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

| 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.
|

That's a rather general list, without details.
It's true that Win7 is somewhat safer in being
locked down. Someone who knows nothing is
probably better off on Win7, running as a lackey
user and bogged down with AV. But that also
has a lot of disadvantages. The AV drags on
the system and lackey mode requires dealing with
the hassles of "elevation" to access files and
programs. Some things are more than just hassles.
For instance, I keep VBScripts on my Desktop for
various things. The right-click menu has no
elevation option when clicking a VBScript. That
means I can't drag-drop onto a script without
running as admin. And so on....

You'll be safer around your house if you lock
up all of your sharp objects. If you always wear
a helmet then you won't crack your skull if you
slip in the bathtub. But of course there are
tradeoffs. (Like very dirty hair and an inability
to eat meat except by tearing at it with your
teeth.

There were studies at one point showing Vista
was safer than Win7. Microsoft was criticized for
allowing restrictions to be dialed down in Win7 via
the UAC controls. But those restrictions are also
the main reason that Vista was disliked so much.
People widely believe that Vista is junk and Win7
is great. They're virtually the same thing! The big
difference is that Win7 restrictions can be dialed
down. The screen doesn't turn dark and scream
DEFCON 4! every time one tries to get something
accomplished.

When I run on Win7 I run as admin. I remove file
restrictions rather than deal with elevation hassles.
When I first got Win7 I actually wrote a program to
remove all restrictions on *anything*. I don't have
time or patience for that nonsense. It's primarily
designed to block corporate employees from accessing
the system. It wasn't designed to provide you with
online security.

I don't know what group policy changes you're talking
about, but did you know that GPE is just a front-end
for corporate IT people who don't know how to use
Regedit efficiently? It doesn't even exist on Windows
Home version. So GP options are not necessarily relevant.
It depends on what they're doing.

Windows firewall is outdated? Who uses Windows
firewall? It was insufficient from the start and allows
Windows to go online. That's one of the critical points
that people often igno If you assume people on XP
are going online with default settings, using IE6 without
extra security, then you have a point. But people don't go
online with an OS. They go online with software. People
on XP can use the same version of Firefox that everyone
else uses.

Firewalls are another case where
convenience often trumps functionality. One of the best
firewalls ever was AtGuard, for Win98. Symantec then
licensed the program doubled the price, repackeged it,
set over 700 programs to be allowed through by default,
then sold that mess as Norton Internet Security. It was
perhaps the best firewall ever rendered as nearly useless,
for twice the price. But it was a big success. No hassles
when everything is allowed to go through!

So any of these points you're making need to be
detailed in order to be relevant. And then they
probably need to be taken with a grain of salt.

Also, a lot of bugs involve elevation hacks and a
lot of them are 0-day. In such a case, running on
Win7 in lackey mode is not going to help you.

It's *far* safer to run safe in the first place: Don't
use IE. Avoid javascript when possible. Block frames.
Don't install any Adobe crap. (Flash can be avoided
and there are better, safer PDF readers that don't
need to work as browser plugins). Don't install Java...
or Silverlight. With a few basic precautions like that --
and care in opening email -- there's very little way
that you can be attacked.
People who always allow script and may even have
Flash or Acrobat Reader installed, then talk about
not running as admin, are like someone who locks
his car but leaves his wallet sitting on the hood.

In article ,
"Mayayana" wrote:

| 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.
|

That's a rather general list, without details.
It's true that Win7 is somewhat safer in being
locked down. Someone who knows nothing is
probably better off on Win7, running as a lackey
user and bogged down with AV. But that also
has a lot of disadvantages. The AV drags on
the system and lackey mode requires dealing with
the hassles of "elevation" to access files and
programs. Some things are more than just hassles.
For instance, I keep VBScripts on my Desktop for
various things. The right-click menu has no
elevation option when clicking a VBScript. That
means I can't drag-drop onto a script without
running as admin. And so on....

You'll be safer around your house if you lock
up all of your sharp objects. If you always wear
a helmet then you won't crack your skull if you
slip in the bathtub. But of course there are
tradeoffs. (Like very dirty hair and an inability
to eat meat except by tearing at it with your
teeth.

There were studies at one point showing Vista
was safer than Win7. Microsoft was criticized for
allowing restrictions to be dialed down in Win7 via
the UAC controls. But those restrictions are also
the main reason that Vista was disliked so much.
People widely believe that Vista is junk and Win7
is great. They're virtually the same thing! The big
difference is that Win7 restrictions can be dialed
down. The screen doesn't turn dark and scream
DEFCON 4! every time one tries to get something
accomplished.

When I run on Win7 I run as admin. I remove file
restrictions rather than deal with elevation hassles.
When I first got Win7 I actually wrote a program to
remove all restrictions on *anything*. I don't have
time or patience for that nonsense. It's primarily
designed to block corporate employees from accessing
the system. It wasn't designed to provide you with
online security.

I don't know what group policy changes you're talking
about, but did you know that GPE is just a front-end
for corporate IT people who don't know how to use
Regedit efficiently? It doesn't even exist on Windows
Home version. So GP options are not necessarily relevant.
It depends on what they're doing.

Windows firewall is outdated? Who uses Windows
firewall? It was insufficient from the start and allows
Windows to go online. That's one of the critical points
that people often igno If you assume people on XP
are going online with default settings, using IE6 without
extra security, then you have a point. But people don't go
online with an OS. They go online with software. People
on XP can use the same version of Firefox that everyone
else uses.

Firewalls are another case where
convenience often trumps functionality. One of the best
firewalls ever was AtGuard, for Win98. Symantec then
licensed the program doubled the price, repackeged it,
set over 700 programs to be allowed through by default,
then sold that mess as Norton Internet Security. It was
perhaps the best firewall ever rendered as nearly useless,
for twice the price. But it was a big success. No hassles
when everything is allowed to go through!

So any of these points you're making need to be
detailed in order to be relevant. And then they
probably need to be taken with a grain of salt.

Also, a lot of bugs involve elevation hacks and a
lot of them are 0-day. In such a case, running on
Win7 in lackey mode is not going to help you.

It's *far* safer to run safe in the first place: Don't
use IE. Avoid javascript when possible. Block frames.
Don't install any Adobe crap. (Flash can be avoided
and there are better, safer PDF readers that don't
need to work as browser plugins). Don't install Java...
or Silverlight. With a few basic precautions like that --
and care in opening email -- there's very little way
that you can be attacked.
People who always allow script and may even have
Flash or Acrobat Reader installed, then talk about
not running as admin, are like someone who locks
his car but leaves his wallet sitting on the hood.

The safety precautions that's needed to make Windows safe also makes it
useless! ;-p
No personal offense intended but I'm now killfileing crosspostings from
alt.comp.freeware into rec.photo.*...
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/kill_file#English
--
teleportation kills

| The problem I have with this is that all your knowledge of and
| experience with Win-10 is second-hand, at best.

Yes. But we're not talking about the GUI. If you
like the GUI I won't argue with you because I
haven't used it. The problems I'm detailing have
been reported by reputable tech sites. The privacy
policy is Microsoft's own proclamation that they
intend to watch your actions and copy your data.
I don't need to use Win10 in order to know about
the problems.
MS make clear that there is no option to completely
stop calling home. They also make clear there is no
option to stop Windows Update. It is simply not your
computer to control as long as you use Win10. So
there's no guarantee that the Windows you updated
to this month will be the Windows you're running next
month. They reserve the right to change anything.
The integration of Metro is also well known and no
secret.

*The fact that Win10 is spyware is right there in
the privacy policy, shamelessly proclaimed by Microsoft.
I don't need to install Win10 to read it! I don't use
spyware, so why would I install spyware just to see
whether maybe I like the UI?*

You keep questioning these assertions, yet you can't
even be bothered to read the privacy policy! So who is
it that doesn't know about Win10?

| I've never see a single "ad".

And presumably you also didn't read my link to
"Smart Suggestions"? Microsoft is not hiding the
fact that they intend to use ads. The nags to
update to Win10 are an ad.

For the duration of these
discussions you've been portraying others' opinions
as hotheaded and paranoid, yet there's no indication
that you've made any effort to actually look into
the details of what's being said. I've posted links time
and again, yet you don't respond with any indication
that you've bothered to read any of them. You just
talk in generalities and tell me I'm wrong, without
even really knowing what I'm saying:
"What I've seen seems to be mostly paranoia."

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".

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.

You're welcome to your views, of course, but as a user of Win-10 on
multiple PCs they do not appear to reflect what I observe. Many others
have also found that the concerns raised about Win-10 have been
exaggerated, so opinion is divided amongst the experts.

We will have to agree to differ one this one.

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

| 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?

Have you read the privacy policy? Microsoft
have said as much. Why not read the details
people have linked to before declaring it all
nonsense?

But it's important to note that
all this applies only to "consumer" products.
Which is any OEM computer and any Win10
copy -- home or Pro -- bought by individuals
or small companies.
Corporations that license multiple systems via
so-called "Software Assurance" contracts are
not subject to forced Windows Update and the
privacy policy does not apply to them. So it
depends on where your doctor works and who
manages their computer.

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

When I run on Win7 I run as admin. I remove file
restrictions rather than deal with elevation hassles.
When I first got Win7 I actually wrote a program to
remove all restrictions on *anything*. I don't have
time or patience for that nonsense.

wow. just how stupid can anyone be?

It's primarily
designed to block corporate employees from accessing
the system. It wasn't designed to provide you with
online security.

complete nonsense.

you know nothing about security.

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

And here we are discussing whether there's any
problem with Google rifling through email while
Microsoft essentially hacks into computers to steal
data, Apple keeps records of iPhone owners
whereabouts and looks the other way while "apps"
steal data, and all of them ship off their stash illegally
to the NSA.

bull****.

google auto-scans email for spam, just like every other isp does.
nobody sits there reading people's mail.

microsoft does not hack into computers to steal data. do you not
realize how much trouble that would get them into?

apple does not keep records of iphone user's locations and they will
actually reject an app if it uploads personal information without
consent. the nsa does not have a backdoor either. they'll have to crack
the encryption just like anyone else would.