Continued support for Windows XP

[Alain Dekker]

Given the continued popularity of Windows XP (their best OS in my opinion)
is there any chance Microsoft will have a change of heart and continue
support for Windows XP SP3 beyond the 02 April 2014 cut-off date?

Regards,
Alain

[David H. Lipman]

From: "Alain Dekker" <alain....@NO.SPAM.loma.com>

Not a chance. :-(


--
Dave
Multi-AV Scanning Tool - http://multi-av.thespykiller.co.uk
http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp

[philo]

On 07/04/2013 10:32 AM, David H. Lipman wrote:
> From: "Alain Dekker" <alain....@NO.SPAM.loma.com>
>
>> Given the continued popularity of Windows XP (their best OS in my
>> opinion) is there any chance Microsoft will have a change of heart and
>> continue support for Windows XP SP3 beyond the 02 April 2014 cut-off
>> date?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Alain
>
> Not a chance. :-(
>
>

That's correct , however there is no need to give up using XP anytime
soon. As long as you use a virus checker that is supported by XP the
updates for that will keep coming...Additionally, if you are using
Firefox or Chrome, the updates for that will keep coming...
plus other software.

So, XP should be a viable operating system for quite a few more years.

[G.F.]

"philo " <ph...@privacy.net> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:kr4673$vpu$1...@dont-email.me...

You're right indeed, however you should realize that updates concern the
security of our PCs against malwares. When updates will end, the new
malwares will hit our PCs through backdoors that Microsoft/nobody will no
longer close.

[JJ]

On Thu, 4 Jul 2013 18:18:54 +0200, G.F. wrote:
> You're right indeed, however you should realize that updates concern the
> security of our PCs against malwares.

And anyone should also realize that no matter how secure an OS is, the final
decision is yours to make.

> When updates will end, the new
> malwares will hit our PCs through backdoors that Microsoft/nobody will no
> longer close.

That'll likely to happen if there's a newly found security hole. But
hopefully, malware authors will shift their focus to Metro apps.

[Ken Blake, MVP]

*Any* chance? I suppose there's a slight chance, but it's *very*
slight.

I'm not a betting man, but I would put money on their not doing it.

[Ant]

On 7/4/2013 8:21 AM PT, Alain Dekker typed:

> Given the continued popularity of Windows XP (their best OS in my opinion)
> is there any chance Microsoft will have a change of heart and continue
> support for Windows XP SP3 beyond the 02 April 2014 cut-off date?

No. They already did that. It's old. Time to let it go! It's 12 years old!!
--
"Did the ant fall off the toilet seat because she was pissed off?" --unknown
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |
\ _ / If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
( ) If e-mailing, then axe ANT from its address if needed.
A song is/was playing on this computer: Belinda Carlisle - Summer Rain #1

[Ant]

On 7/4/2013 10:18 AM PT, Ken Blake, MVP typed:

> On Thu, 4 Jul 2013 16:21:03 +0100, "Alain Dekker"
> <alain....@NO.SPAM.loma.com> wrote:
>
>> Given the continued popularity of Windows XP (their best OS in my opinion)
>> is there any chance Microsoft will have a change of heart and continue
>> support for Windows XP SP3 beyond the 02 April 2014 cut-off date?
>
>
> *Any* chance? I suppose there's a slight chance, but it's *very*
> slight.

More like zero/0 since MS already gave us an extension a few years ago!
It's time to leave outdated XP SP3! No one stopping you to keep using
it. It's 12 years old! I have had clients who kept using old OSes for
years. No big deal.
--
"Whence we see spiders, flies, or ants entombed and preserved forever in
amber, a more than royal tomb." --Sir Francis Bacon in Historia Vitæ et
Mortis; Sylva Sylvarum, Cent. i. Exper. 100.

[David H. Lipman]

From: "G.F." <nos...@grazie.it>

What you MEAN to say is...
"...updates that concern the security of our PCs to mitigate vulnerabilities
that can lead to a compromised system and malware."

The term "Malware" is both singular and plural.

The updates in themselves have nothing to do with malware. It has to do
with the Information Assurance of the computers whose lack of mitigating
security flaws can lead to a greater propensity of malware infections.

BTW: It is quite possible that Windows Update may continue to serve up the
monthly updates and scan via MS MRT.

[Ken Blake, MVP]

On Thu, 04 Jul 2013 10:59:47 -0700, Ant <a...@zimage.comANT> wrote:

> On 7/4/2013 10:18 AM PT, Ken Blake, MVP typed:
>
> > On Thu, 4 Jul 2013 16:21:03 +0100, "Alain Dekker"
> > <alain....@NO.SPAM.loma.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Given the continued popularity of Windows XP (their best OS in my opinion)
> >> is there any chance Microsoft will have a change of heart and continue
> >> support for Windows XP SP3 beyond the 02 April 2014 cut-off date?
> >
> >
> > *Any* chance? I suppose there's a slight chance, but it's *very*
> > slight.
>
> More like zero/0 since MS already gave us an extension a few years ago!

As I said, I would bet against its happening. But is it *remotely*
possible that it could happen? Yes.

> It's time to leave outdated XP SP3!

Yep! We agree completely.

[Ken Blake, MVP]

On Thu, 4 Jul 2013 14:28:25 -0400, "David H. Lipman"
<DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote:

> The term "Malware" is both singular and plural.

Forgive the grammar lesson, but actually, no it's not. It's a mass
noun, not a count noun. As is "software," by the way. Another common
example of a mass noun is "furniture." You can talk about "furniture,"
but not "furnitures."

For a technical discussion of the difference between the two types of
nouns, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_noun

And by the way, several years ago my wife and I took a vacation in
China, and studied Chinese a little for a few months before the trip.
One of the things our teacher pointed out was that Chinese nouns were
very different from English in that every Chinese noun required a
qualifier, describing the kind of thing it is. So you can't say "a
paper," you have to say "a piece of paper," you can't say "a wood,"
you have to say "a stick of wood," and so on. Our teacher didn't know
the technical terms "mass noun" and "count noun," but she was
essentially saying that all Chinese nouns are mass nouns, which they
are. And since mass nouns are fairly common in English, Chinese isn't
as different from English in that respect as she thought it was.

So what it all comes down to is that, since they are mass nouns, you
can never say "malwares" or "softwares." You can talk about "malware"
or "software," or "a piece of malware" or "a piece of software."

[Paul in Houston TX]

I find it interesting that this home XP3 gamer machine has never had
any active antivirus nor MS updates for 2 years and it never gets
a virus. However, my w7.1 machine has active everything, its
used for company related work only, and its the one that gets
a virus every two weeks.

[G.F.]

"David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:YqKdnbpFL5NXI0jM...@giganews.com...

> What you MEAN to say is...
> "...updates that concern the security of our PCs to mitigate
> vulnerabilities that can lead to a compromised system and malware."

It seems to me we say substantially the same thing

> The updates in themselves have nothing to do with malware

How can you say that? Just now I have verified the last 10 updates: they all
concern security.

[David H. Lipman]

From: "Ken Blake, MVP" <kbl...@kb.invalid>

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.................

[Bill in Co]

But I think it really depends on the needs of the user. Some of us are
quite content with XP, and see no real need (in our case) for a newer OS. I
haven't had any virus problems yet, but maybe that's due to where I go and
don't go online. Of course, if one is getting hit with malware, and/or
wants to run the latest and greatest apps, that may be another story.
Heck, Office 2000 still works fine for me (and in some cases is overkill).

What I'm suggesting is this: if all the apps you need work perfectly well
in XP, and you aren't getting "infected", what's the gain in going to yet
another OS?

[David H. Lipman]

From: "G.F." <nos...@grazie.it>

Malware is a security concern
Information assurance is a security concern
Phsihing is a security concern
The Insider threat is a security concern

However just because something is a security concern does not mean malware.

Updates are patches that fix bugs, correct errors and mitigate
vulnerabilities that can leat to exploitation and a possible compromise. Bu
that does not automatically infer malware.

Lets take the situation of the Lovasa/Blaster of 10 years ago. This worm
used test packets to see if an Internt host, WAN host ot LAN host had a
vulnerability in RPC DCOM. It then sent specially crafted packets to cause
a "buffer overflow with an elevation of priveledges" condition. That lead
to the Lovsan/Blaster to to be dropped on the compromised system and
executed thus allowing that infected computer to seek out new hosts to
infect. A patch was a security fix that mitigated that vulnerability.

No look at implemntation of SQL where there is an action by a hacker who
uses a SQL Injection. Ther hacker does not "infect" the computer but know
has access to it like an administrator. No malware is involved. A patch
was a security fix that mitigated that vulnerability.

Malware may or may not be the end result.

We are not saying the same thing. There is a specific point you are not
"getting" here and that is just because there is a security hotfix does not
neccessarily mean malware.

[David H. Lipman]

From: "Paul in Houston TX" <Pa...@Houston.com>

I'll make you a bet that you do NOT get a virus every two weeks. At best,
you may get a trojan every two weeks.

[David H. Lipman]

From: "Ken Blake, MVP" <kbl...@kb.invalid>

It depends.

If the PC is to be connected to the Internet, yes, replace it's OS.

If the PC is a standalone PC then no, it can stay with XP past WinXP's EoL.

[Buffalo]

"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message
news:htibt8d81hbp3hbva...@4ax.com...

What is the point of this reply? Perhaps you are giddy on some meds. :)
It is kinda like elk or elks. Elk can be both singular and plural, just like
David was talking about 'malware' being able to mean either one.
I guess I don't understand your sense of humor. :)
After all, this is not a grammar lesson ng, IMHO, but one where info about
xp is exchanged.
Have a fun filled 4th!!!!
Buffalo

[Paul in Houston TX]

You are correct.
Rephrasing: virus, trojan, malware, rootkit, etc.

[philo]

Great info there. I have always been fascinated with the Chinese
language...but I cannot imagine trying to learn it.

[philo]

FWIW: I recently retired an XP (64bit) machine that I built for my wife
close to ten years ago. After some updates broke the drivers for her
WACOM tablet I turned off Windows updates entirely.The browser was
Firefox and the virus checker was the free version of Avast and it was
kept updated. (It originally had AVG)

I am now using the machine for myself as a backup and updated everything
and gave it a complete scan for malware and viruses. The machine was in
good shape. No infections found.

[philo]

That's what I say too. If the days comes for a whole new machine of
course one would go with the current OS...but until one gets new
hardware...XP may very well be the best choice.

[philo]

On 07/04/2013 12:58 PM, Ant wrote:
> On 7/4/2013 8:21 AM PT, Alain Dekker typed:
>
>> Given the continued popularity of Windows XP (their best OS in my
>> opinion)
>> is there any chance Microsoft will have a change of heart and continue
>> support for Windows XP SP3 beyond the 02 April 2014 cut-off date?
>
> No. They already did that. It's old. Time to let it go! It's 12 years old!!

Side note:

A friend of mine was still using dial-up and Win2k until about a month
ago. I gave her a fairly decent P-IV with XP on it and told her she had
to go with DSL.

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Glad you liked it. And note that we didn't really try to *learn*
Chinese, just learn enough to get us around, ask where the bathroom
is, understand the answer, know the names of foods and how to read
menus, and so on.

As it turned out, our efforts were almost wasted. We were on a tour
and never got to use the little we learned, except once in a
restaurant when I asked for chopsticks.

[Ken Blake, MVP]

On Thu, 4 Jul 2013 17:01:55 -0400, "David H. Lipman"
<DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote:

> From: "Ken Blake, MVP" <kbl...@kb.invalid>
>
> > On Thu, 04 Jul 2013 10:59:47 -0700, Ant <a...@zimage.comANT> wrote:
> >
> >> On 7/4/2013 10:18 AM PT, Ken Blake, MVP typed:
> >>
> >>> On Thu, 4 Jul 2013 16:21:03 +0100, "Alain Dekker"
> >>> <alain....@NO.SPAM.loma.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Given the continued popularity of Windows XP (their best OS in my
> >>>> opinion)
> >>>> is there any chance Microsoft will have a change of heart and continue
> >>>> support for Windows XP SP3 beyond the 02 April 2014 cut-off date?
> >>>
> >>> *Any* chance? I suppose there's a slight chance, but it's *very*
> >>> slight.
> >>
> >> More like zero/0 since MS already gave us an extension a few years ago!
> >
> > As I said, I would bet against its happening. But is it *remotely*
> > possible that it could happen? Yes.
> >
> >> It's time to leave outdated XP SP3!
> >
> > Yep! We agree completely.
>
> It depends.
>
> If the PC is to be connected to the Internet, yes, replace it's OS.
>
> If the PC is a standalone PC then no, it can stay with XP past WinXP's EoL.

OK--correction accepted.

[philo]

One of my biggest questions in life has always been:

Are there Chinese crossword puzzles?

I finally got that answered by the daughter of a friend of mine who has
been there several times to study.

Indeed they do have crossword puzzles!

I did get some books just for the purpose of seeing the logic behind the
language so I at least got a rudimentary education of the general scheme
of things. In the process I also learned that Japanese is really
considerably more complicated.


Side note:

One for the books I got out of the library was a Chinese to English
dictionary that had been translated from the French. Now /that/ was useless.

[JJ]

On Thu, 4 Jul 2013 14:52:10 -0600, Bill in Co wrote:
> But I think it really depends on the needs of the user. Some of us are
> quite content with XP, and see no real need (in our case) for a newer OS. I
> haven't had any virus problems yet, but maybe that's due to where I go and
> don't go online. Of course, if one is getting hit with malware, and/or
> wants to run the latest and greatest apps, that may be another story.
> Heck, Office 2000 still works fine for me (and in some cases is overkill).
>
> What I'm suggesting is this: if all the apps you need work perfectly well
> in XP, and you aren't getting "infected", what's the gain in going to yet
> another OS?

It depends.

OS is like your house. Newer OS is like a bigger house with stronger walls,
more sophisticated alarm system, more professional security guards, and
anything you can think of, for a secure, hi-tech dream house.

Ideally, it would be preferable, but all of those won't matter if you leave
you door open when you leave your house, ward off the alarm because it's
annoying, or told the security guards not to disturb you because you brought
strangers to your house.

[Ken Blake, MVP]

On Thu, 04 Jul 2013 18:13:54 -0500, philo  <ph...@privacy.net> wrote:

> On 07/04/2013 05:23 PM, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
> > On Thu, 04 Jul 2013 17:09:03 -0500, philo <ph...@privacy.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On 07/04/2013 02:36 PM, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
> >
> >>> So what it all comes down to is that, since they are mass nouns, you
> >>> can never say "malwares" or "softwares." You can talk about "malware"
> >>> or "software," or "a piece of malware" or "a piece of software."
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Great info there. I have always been fascinated with the Chinese
> >> language...but I cannot imagine trying to learn it.
> >
> >
> > Glad you liked it. And note that we didn't really try to *learn*
> > Chinese, just learn enough to get us around, ask where the bathroom
> > is, understand the answer, know the names of foods and how to read
> > menus, and so on.
> >
> > As it turned out, our efforts were almost wasted. We were on a tour
> > and never got to use the little we learned, except once in a
> > restaurant when I asked for chopsticks.
> >
> >
>
>
> One of my biggest questions in life has always been:
>
> Are there Chinese crossword puzzles?
>
> I finally got that answered by the daughter of a friend of mine who has
> been there several times to study.
>
> Indeed they do have crossword puzzles!

I'm glad you got the answer. I didn't know it.

>
> I did get some books just for the purpose of seeing the logic behind the
> language so I at least got a rudimentary education of the general scheme
> of things. In the process I also learned that Japanese is really
> considerably more complicated.

I learned a little Japanese when I went there, too. I don't know which
is more complicated, but I remember a lot more Japanese than Chinese,
even though my study of Japanese is considerably older.

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Bear in mind that some newer software won't run on older versions of
Windows, too. And that could also be a good reason to go to a new
Windows version.

[Bill in Co]

JJ wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Jul 2013 14:52:10 -0600, Bill in Co wrote:
>> But I think it really depends on the needs of the user. Some of us are
>> quite content with XP, and see no real need (in our case) for a newer OS.
>>
>> I haven't had any virus problems yet, but maybe that's due to where I go
>> and don't go online. Of course, if one is getting hit with malware,
>> and/or
>> wants to run the latest and greatest apps, that may be another story.
>> Heck, Office 2000 still works fine for me (and in some cases is
>> overkill).
>>
>> What I'm suggesting is this: if all the apps you need work perfectly
>> well
>> in XP, and you aren't getting "infected", what's the gain in going to yet
>> another OS?
>
> It depends.
>
> OS is like your house. Newer OS is like a bigger house with stronger
> walls,
> more sophisticated alarm system, more professional security guards, and
> anything you can think of, for a secure, hi-tech dream house.

My dream house is an OLDER house, NOT a newer one. I think (most) newer
homes are just stamped out (cookie cutters), and most have tiny lots.

Check out the *craftmanship* and charm that went into the older homes. :-)
(but yes, I concede, their insulation sucked, and the floor plans weren't
quite as smart as we have now - but that's ALL :-)

(BTW, some time ago, I lived in a small home with just 30 amp service for
the entire home (but also had gas service, of course). It was cute and
livable! :-)

> Ideally, it would be preferable, but all of those won't matter if you
> leave
> you door open when you leave your house, ward off the alarm because it's
> annoying, or told the security guards not to disturb you because you
> brought
> strangers to your house.

I'm being pretty watchful. I think. :-)
Besides which, I imagine most of the virus writers are taloring their
"services" towards the newer OS's now, anyways! (i.e. "bigger market")

[Bill in Co]

Well, not "of course", at least not for me. I'd just look for an older used
computer, with XP on it (and/or I can reinstall it).

I don't think I'll need any new hardware, for quite a spell. :-)

[Stef]

Alain Dekker wrote:

> Given the continued popularity of Windows XP (their best OS in my opinion)
> is there any chance Microsoft will have a change of heart and continue
> support for Windows XP SP3 beyond the 02 April 2014 cut-off date?

No. Not a chance. But that doesn't mean XP will stop working next
April. I'm still using Windows 2000 Pro on a old notebook.
(Originally came with W98SE on it.) Works fine for what I need it for.

Stef

[Ant]

On 7/4/2013 1:52 PM PT, Bill in Co typed:

> Heck, Office 2000 still works fine for me (and in some cases is overkill).

LOL. I still use Office 2K SR3 as well. It does fine. Only one big
problem was opening password protected docx files from newer Office. :(

> What I'm suggesting is this: if all the apps you need work perfectly well
> in XP, and you aren't getting "infected", what's the gain in going to yet
> another OS?

Ditto. If old stuff work fine, why change/upgrade? :)
--
"If you're an ant, and you're walking along across the top of a cup of
pudding, you probably have no idea that the only thing between you and
disaster is the strength of that pudding skin." --Jack Handy from
Saturday Night Live
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |
\ _ / If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
( ) If e-mailing, then axe ANT from its address if needed.
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on this computer.

[Ant]

On 7/4/2013 4:28 PM PT, Ken Blake, MVP typed:

> Bear in mind that some newer software won't run on older versions of
> Windows, too. And that could also be a good reason to go to a new
> Windows version.

Yeah, if that is required. I am fine with my old stuff for now... :)
--
"..., you ready for a little dumpster diving?" "Um... okay." "You know I
don't mind getting my hands dirty." "I mean, maggots, wet trash, I am
the first one in." "Okay, so what are you waiting for?" "Ants."
(Chuckles) "Ants?" "Yes, I have got a problem with ants." "They are
sneaky, and they are mobile, and when they get on you, even if you get
them off..." "Okay, Calleigh, chill." --CSI: Miami (Wannabe episode; #218)

[Ant]

On 7/4/2013 3:22 PM PT, philo typed:

> A friend of mine was still using dial-up and Win2k until about a month
> ago. I gave her a fairly decent P-IV with XP on it and told her she had
> to go with DSL.

Almost the same with my father. He finally dumped his W2K SP4 Dell PC to
donate. I told him kept his HDD just in case.

Was her WIndows 2K clean (no infections)?
--
"Ants. There's a size for every picnic, a colour for every occasion, and
a bite to let you know that they are there. Apart from the bite, that
could describe a Basenji pretty well." --Len Reddie

[Bill in Co]

Ant wrote:
> On 7/4/2013 1:52 PM PT, Bill in Co typed:
>
>> Heck, Office 2000 still works fine for me (and in some cases is
>> overkill).
>
> LOL. I still use Office 2K SR3 as well. It does fine. Only one big
> problem was opening password protected docx files from newer Office. :(

Don't know about the "password protected part", but you can open the other
.docx files with that OfficeFileFormatConverter pack.

I gather that the newer Office versions somehow allow you to open password
protected docx files, from what you're implying.

One thing I'm pretty sure of: MS kept adding more bells and whistles and
that stupid ribbon thing (IMHO) to the newer versions. I am quite content
with the "old fashioned" menu system. I'm not sure if I'm in the minority
now, or not.

>> What I'm suggesting is this: if all the apps you need work perfectly
>> well
>> in XP, and you aren't getting "infected", what's the gain in going to yet
>> another OS?
>

> Ditto. If old stuff works fine, why change/upgrade? :)

Exactly. Of course, I once felt that way with Win98SE, and DOS. :-)
(actually still have that on my other home computer :-)

[philo]

On 07/04/2013 09:16 PM, Ant wrote:
> On 7/4/2013 3:22 PM PT, philo typed:
>
>> A friend of mine was still using dial-up and Win2k until about a month
>> ago. I gave her a fairly decent P-IV with XP on it and told her she had
>> to go with DSL.
>
> Almost the same with my father. He finally dumped his W2K SP4 Dell PC to
> donate. I told him kept his HDD just in case.
>
> Was her WIndows 2K clean (no infections)?

Her Win2k machine was clean as far as I know.


Though I had been urging her to go with DSL for many years, she remained
stubborn. Finally she admitted that her virus checker would no longer
update. I suspect it was more a case of it taking an hour or so.

[Alain Dekker]

I also don't run an anti-virus on my home XP machine, just a firewall. Never
had a problem. Windows XP rocks...really not looking forward to dealing with
Windows 7 or 8...


"Paul in Houston TX" <Pa...@Houston.com> wrote in message
news:kr4iot$92e$2...@dont-email.me...

[Alain Dekker]

I'm also running Windows XP, never use an anti-virus and have turned off the
Automatic Updates service. Runs fast and sweet and never had a problem...

Alain

"philo " <ph...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:kr4rta$qh8$1...@dont-email.me...

[Alain Dekker]

Its also a professional question. We develop a complex image processing
application that gets provided to clients on an embedded Windows XP machine.
There is lots of complex automated machinery attached that needs to be
controlled from that embedded machine as well. We are currently providing
them with XP licenses and would like to continue providing them with Windows
XP licenses. We are able to continue to provide licenses till December 2016
on the "Embedded" support path, but security updates will nonetheless stop
in April 2014.

I'm kind of hoping that loyal XP users (who have moreover provided Microsoft
with a tonne of cash over the years!) will get security support till at
least Dec 2016. Frankly, outdated it might be, but why doesn't Microsoft
just continue to support Windows XP? Kill off Vista, though, no-one gives a
hoot! :o)

I'm not arguing with those calling Windows XP "out-dated" (it is) but I
personally see nothing in Windows 7 or 8 that makes me want to move! For
example, if you actually want to make phone calls and send/receive the odd
SMS message, old-style mobile phones are far superior to expensive
smartphones. Its the same with Windows XP AFAICS.

Thanks,
Alain

"Ant" <a...@zimage.comANT> wrote in message
news:IdGdnZgYD7eOJUjM...@earthlink.com...

> On 7/4/2013 10:18 AM PT, Ken Blake, MVP typed:
>
>> On Thu, 4 Jul 2013 16:21:03 +0100, "Alain Dekker"

>> <alain....@NO.SPAM.loma.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Given the continued popularity of Windows XP (their best OS in my
>>> opinion)
>>> is there any chance Microsoft will have a change of heart and continue
>>> support for Windows XP SP3 beyond the 02 April 2014 cut-off date?
>>
>>

>> *Any* chance? I suppose there's a slight chance, but it's *very*
>> slight.
>
> More like zero/0 since MS already gave us an extension a few years ago!

> It's time to leave outdated XP SP3! No one stopping you to keep using it.
> It's 12 years old! I have had clients who kept using old OSes for years.
> No big deal.
> --
> "Whence we see spiders, flies, or ants entombed and preserved forever in
> amber, a more than royal tomb." --Sir Francis Bacon in Historia Vitæ et
> Mortis; Sylva Sylvarum, Cent. i. Exper. 100.

> /\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
> / /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
> | |o o| |
> \ _ / If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
> ( ) If e-mailing, then axe ANT from its address if needed.

> A song is/was playing on this computer: Belinda Carlisle - Summer Rain #1

[Alain Dekker]

Office 2000 here as well. Tried Office 2003 and 2007 and both were vastly
inferior. Only thing I could see that *was* improved was the notes feature
(where you can share a document between multiple users).

Still use Office 97 in my work and its perfect!

"Ant" <a...@zimage.comANT> wrote in message

news:2IKdnRW7Lo5ItkvM...@earthlink.com...

[Alain Dekker]

Thanks for the answer, but I have to smile. Saying something is "12 years
old" doesn't seem like a terribly sophisticated argument! Not everything,
even technology, gets linearly better with time. Usually things go backwards
before taking a step forward again. It would be nice if Microsoft had an OS
genuinely better than XP before they shut XP down. Microsoft hit a
sweet-spot with Windows 98SE and then Windows XP. I doubt there is a sane
person out there who thinks Vista is an improvement over Windows XP or that
Windows Me was superior to 98SE! :o)

Having said that, I do acknowledge that Windows 7 is reasonable, but don't
accept it is "better" than XP.
Alain

"Ant" <a...@zimage.comANT> wrote in message

news:IdGdnZkYD7dcKkjM...@earthlink.com...

> On 7/4/2013 8:21 AM PT, Alain Dekker typed:
>

>> Given the continued popularity of Windows XP (their best OS in my
>> opinion)
>> is there any chance Microsoft will have a change of heart and continue
>> support for Windows XP SP3 beyond the 02 April 2014 cut-off date?
>

> No. They already did that. It's old. Time to let it go! It's 12 years
> old!!

> --
> "Did the ant fall off the toilet seat because she was pissed
> off?" --unknown

> /\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
> / /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
> | |o o| |
> \ _ / If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
> ( ) If e-mailing, then axe ANT from its address if needed.

[David H. Lipman]

From: "Alain Dekker" <alain....@NO.SPAM.loma.com>

> Its also a professional question. We develop a complex image processing
> application that gets provided to clients on an embedded Windows XP
> machine. There is lots of complex automated machinery attached that needs
> to be controlled from that embedded machine as well. We are currently
> providing them with XP licenses and would like to continue providing them
> with Windows XP licenses. We are able to continue to provide licenses till
> December 2016 on the "Embedded" support path, but security updates will
> nonetheless stop in April 2014.
>
> I'm kind of hoping that loyal XP users (who have moreover provided
> Microsoft with a tonne of cash over the years!) will get security support
> till at least Dec 2016. Frankly, outdated it might be, but why doesn't
> Microsoft just continue to support Windows XP? Kill off Vista, though,
> no-one gives a hoot! :o)
>
> I'm not arguing with those calling Windows XP "out-dated" (it is) but I
> personally see nothing in Windows 7 or 8 that makes me want to move! For
> example, if you actually want to make phone calls and send/receive the odd
> SMS message, old-style mobile phones are far superior to expensive
> smartphones. Its the same with Windows XP AFAICS.
>
> Thanks,
> Alain
>

Actually, Corporate and Enterprise customers can PAY to have extended
security update support (at least they have done that with Win2K and below).

But also so those "...complex automated machinery attached that needs to be
controlled from that embedded machine as well" should be standalone
computers and not connected to a LAN, WAN re especially the Internet.

--
Dave
Multi-AV Scanning Tool - http://multi-av.thespykiller.co.uk
http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp

[David H. Lipman]

From: "Alain Dekker" <alain....@NO.SPAM.loma.com>

> Thanks for the answer, but I have to smile. Saying something is "12 years
> old" doesn't seem like a terribly sophisticated argument! Not everything,
> even technology, gets linearly better with time. Usually things go
> backwards before taking a step forward again. It would be nice if
> Microsoft had an OS genuinely better than XP before they shut XP down.
> Microsoft hit a sweet-spot with Windows 98SE and then Windows XP. I doubt
> there is a sane person out there who thinks Vista is an improvement over
> Windows XP or that Windows Me was superior to 98SE! :o)
>
> Having said that, I do acknowledge that Windows 7 is reasonable, but don't
> accept it is "better" than XP.
> Alain
>

SSDD

The saem was said abount Win2K.

[Alain Dekker]

Thats true, our machines are generally not connected to the internet, except
occasionally on dedicated connections for remote support (via TeamViewer).
The machines are, however, usually connected to the customer's internal LAN
/ WAN.

"David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message
news:VKOdnTCRv8GhSUvM...@giganews.com...

[philo]

Yep, our house was built in 1898 and there is no way I'd have one of
today's "cardboard" mansions. Though if you have a /ton/ of money you
can still get good craftsmanship few can afford (or want) it.

Our house was electrified in 1932 which means it's actually got conduit
and BX rather than knob and tube. The service was originally 30A 115v
but I had that upgraded years ago. Of course I had to insulate the house
and get new windows...but no way do I consider newer to be better.

[David H. Lipman]

From: "Alain Dekker" <alain....@NO.SPAM.loma.com>

> Thats true, our machines are generally not connected to the internet,
> except occasionally on dedicated connections for remote support (via
> TeamViewer). The machines are, however, usually connected to the
> customer's internal LAN / WAN.
>

They should be segreagated via VLANs.

[Ken Blake, MVP]

On Thu, 04 Jul 2013 19:14:21 -0700, Ant <a...@zimage.comANT> wrote:

> On 7/4/2013 4:28 PM PT, Ken Blake, MVP typed:

> > Bear in mind that some newer software won't run on older versions of
> > Windows, too. And that could also be a good reason to go to a new
> > Windows version.
>
> Yeah, if that is required. I am fine with my old stuff for now... :)

Yes, as I said, "could be," not "is." But you never know when a new
version of something (or an entirely new product) may come along with
features that you may want.

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Yes, I agree, but let me add that security is only one issue when it
comes to evaluating a new operating system. Other issues are the
feature set, ease of use, etc.

[Ant]

W7 is fine, but 8.x. Argh! I would rather use Vista than 8! Haha.


On 7/5/2013 5:22 AM PT, Alain Dekker typed:

> I also don't run an anti-virus on my home XP machine, just a firewall. Never
> had a problem. Windows XP rocks...really not looking forward to dealing with
> Windows 7 or 8...

--
"If I find one beer can in that car, it's over!" --Red; "And no donuts
either! Ants!" --Kitty from That '70s Show pilot

/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |
\ _ / If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
( ) If e-mailing, then axe ANT from its address if needed.

[Ant]

On 7/5/2013 8:12 AM PT, Ken Blake, MVP typed:

> ... But you never know when a new

> version of something (or an entirely new product) may come along with
> features that you may want.

Yep.

--
"If I find one beer can in that car, it's over!" --Red; "And no donuts
either! Ants!" --Kitty from That '70s Show pilot

[Ant]

On 7/4/2013 10:34 PM PT, Bill in Co typed:

>>> Heck, Office 2000 still works fine for me (and in some cases is
>>> overkill).
>>
>> LOL. I still use Office 2K SR3 as well. It does fine. Only one big
>> problem was opening password protected docx files from newer Office. :(
>
> Don't know about the "password protected part", but you can open the other
> .docx files with that OfficeFileFormatConverter pack.

It still didn't work since I already have it installed and updated. :(

> I gather that the newer Office versions somehow allow you to open password
> protected docx files, from what you're implying.

Yes, but not older Office opening these encrypted docx files. :( I can
share an example if you want.

> One thing I'm pretty sure of: MS kept adding more bells and whistles and
> that stupid ribbon thing (IMHO) to the newer versions. I am quite content
> with the "old fashioned" menu system. I'm not sure if I'm in the minority
> now, or not.

YES! I hate the new GUI! I am forced to use it at work with its newer
Office versions. Argh! I just use 2000, OpenOffice, and LibreOffice at home.

>> Ditto. If old stuff works fine, why change/upgrade? :)
>
> Exactly. Of course, I once felt that way with Win98SE, and DOS. :-)
> (actually still have that on my other home computer :-)

LOL. I got rid of my old Compaq Armada 1585DMT with its Windows 95 OSR2.
It still worked before I Dbanned its HDD. I giggled at my customizations
on it like boot loader, multi-configurations in DOS, Windows, etc. :D I
don't do that anymore due to lack of time due to BUSY life these days. :(
--
"Where there is sugar, there are bound to be ants." --Malay Proverb

[Ant]

On 7/5/2013 3:42 AM PT, philo typed:

> Though I had been urging her to go with DSL for many years, she remained
> stubborn. Finally she admitted that her virus checker would no longer
> update. I suspect it was more a case of it taking an hour or so.

Ugh, that sounds like my old uncle. He refuses to get broadband to dump
AOL. Argh!
--
"Since the world began, we have never exterminated. We probably shall
never exterminate as much as one single insect species. If there was
ever an example of an insect we cannot destroy, the fire ant is it."
--an entomologist quote mentioned by Leonard Nimoy on In The Search Of:
Deadly Ants (1978)

[David H. Lipman]

From: "Ant" <a...@zimage.comANT>

> W7 is fine, but 8.x. Argh! I would rather use Vista than 8! Haha.
>

Win8 is OK IFF you use Classic Shell.
http://sourceforge.net/projects/classicshell/

We'll see what what Win8.1 "is."

[Ken Blake, MVP]

On Fri, 5 Jul 2013 14:22:26 -0400, "David H. Lipman"
<DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote:

> From: "Ant" <a...@zimage.comANT>
>
> > W7 is fine, but 8.x. Argh! I would rather use Vista than 8! Haha.
> >
> Win8 is OK IFF you use Classic Shell.
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/classicshell/

ClassicShell is OK, but Start8 is even better.

[David H. Lipman]

From: "Ken Blake, MVP" <kbl...@kb.invalid>

;-)

[philo]

On 07/05/2013 10:30 AM, Ant wrote:
> On 7/5/2013 3:42 AM PT, philo typed:
>
> > Though I had been urging her to go with DSL for many years, she remained
>> stubborn. Finally she admitted that her virus checker would no longer
>> update. I suspect it was more a case of it taking an hour or so.
>
> Ugh, that sounds like my old uncle. He refuses to get broadband to dump
> AOL. Argh!

I am a bit stubborn myself and don't always like change, but I only need
to stay about "ten years behind the curve". In my situation, since I had
a 2nd phone line for my dial-up I actually saved money by going with
DSL. Recently I've gone one better and got cable and at a slightly lower
cost than DSL

[Ken Blake, MVP]

On Fri, 05 Jul 2013 15:25:02 -0500, philo  <ph...@privacy.net> wrote:

> I am a bit stubborn myself and don't always like change, but I only need
> to stay about "ten years behind the curve". In my situation, since I had
> a 2nd phone line for my dial-up I actually saved money by going with
> DSL. Recently I've gone one better and got cable and at a slightly lower
> cost than DSL

Should you be interested, if you are in the USA, and have a router
connected to an internet connection, you can get a dial-up phone line
for free. Use GoogleVoice and buy an OBi100. The $38 cost of the
OBi100 is a one-time charge.

[Ant]

On 7/5/2013 1:25 PM PT, philo typed:

> I am a bit stubborn myself and don't always like change, but I only need
> to stay about "ten years behind the curve". In my situation, since I had
> a 2nd phone line for my dial-up I actually saved money by going with
> DSL. Recently I've gone one better and got cable and at a slightly lower
> cost than DSL

For me (stubborn too), I am an online hogger so I need faster Internet.
Dial-up (still have it as a backup when cable goes down) isn't fun
especially when phone lines suck (26400-31200) with line noises and
downloading at 3 KB/sec. for already compressed data during good speeds. :)
--
"What reason, like the careful ant, draws laboriously together, the wind
of accident sometimes collects in a moment." --Friedrich von Schiller

[philo]

That's a good deal but I'd hate to change my phone number.
A lot of people know my land line number...but one of these days I may
change things. When I retired I turned in my company cell phone and have
gotten by OK for a year without one. My wife of course has a cell phone,
so we can still get calls when we aren't home...but usually don't want them!

[Ken Blake, MVP]

On Fri, 05 Jul 2013 16:51:14 -0500, philo  <ph...@privacy.net> wrote:

> On 07/05/2013 03:35 PM, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

> > Should you be interested, if you are in the USA, and have a router
> > connected to an internet connection, you can get a dial-up phone line
> > for free. Use GoogleVoice and buy an OBi100. The $38 cost of the
> > OBi100 is a one-time charge.
> >
>
>
> That's a good deal but I'd hate to change my phone number.
> A lot of people know my land line number...but one of these days I may
> change things.

I understand. I didn't want to change my number either. But
considering that I save about $20 a month...

> When I retired I turned in my company cell phone and have
> gotten by OK for a year without one. My wife of course has a cell phone,
> so we can still get calls when we aren't home...but usually don't want them!

My wife and I each have a cell phone, but our service with T-Mobile
has no monthly charge. We each bought a total of 1000 minutes to be
used any time ($100 each), then buy another few minutes each year for
$10 each to keep the remaining minutes from expiring. So we pay total
of $10 a year each.

Considering that neither of us uses the cell phone much at all (it's
only for emergencies or for me to tell her something like I'll be home
late) that's fine. We can go a month or more with neither of using the
cell phone at all.

So our three phone lines (one home line and two cell phones) costs us
a total of $20 a year.

[philo]

That looks like an excellent price. More than likely I will have to
eventually give up my land-line. Considering that most of the calls I
get are from telemarketers it may be a relief to get rid of it.

[philo]

On 07/05/2013 07:23 AM, Alain Dekker wrote:
> I'm also running Windows XP, never use an anti-virus and have turned off the
> Automatic Updates service. Runs fast and sweet and never had a problem...
>
> Alain
>
>

<snip>


I don't think I'd ever run a Windows machine without an anti-virus.

When I used to set up low end machines I'd always at least install
Clam-Win. It does not have real-time protection so it will not in any
way slow the machine down...but the user can manually scan any downloads
and perform full scans when desired.

I know that a virus can really take you by surprise.
I once did a data transfer from a machine that had never been on-line
and was surprised when the virus checker on my machine found a virus.

[Ant]

On 7/6/2013 2:44 AM PT, philo typed:

> I don't think I'd ever run a Windows machine without an anti-virus.

I don't run memory resident ones. I do manually scan often.
--
"A centipede is an ant made to Canadian/government specs." --unknown

/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |
\ _ / If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
( ) If e-mailing, then axe ANT from its address if needed.

A song is/was playing on this computer: Aaron Neville - Earth Angel {D}

[Ken Blake, MVP]

On Sat, 06 Jul 2013 11:41:27 -0700, Ant <a...@zimage.comANT> wrote:

> On 7/6/2013 2:44 AM PT, philo typed:
>
> > I don't think I'd ever run a Windows machine without an anti-virus.
>
> I don't run memory resident ones. I do manually scan often.

The problem with that approach is that you use an anti-virus to get
rid of an infection, not to prevent one. In my view, it's very
important to prevent infection, for two reasons:

1. Some infections can be very hard to get rid of

2. You may get rid of an infection only *after* it has already done
unrecoverable damage.

Unless you recognize that you may need to do a clean reinstallation of
Windows and are willing to do it, I think it's much better to have a
resident anti-virus and prevent, rather than remove, infections.

[David H. Lipman]

From: "Ant" <a...@zimage.comANT>

> On 7/6/2013 2:44 AM PT, philo typed:
>
>> I don't think I'd ever run a Windows machine without an anti-virus.
>
> I don't run memory resident ones. I do manually scan often.

They are either called "On Access" or "On Demand".

On Access - Loaded such that as files are read or written to media, the
file is scanned for indications that is is malware. This is a resident
application and has to be fully installed.

On Demand - A GUI or Command Line based scanner that upon demand will scan
all mediam, selected media, sleected file or selected folders. An On Demand
scanner does not have to be fully installed and can fall into the "portable"
category. The scanners in my Multi-AV Scanning Tool afre all "On Demand" AV
scanners.

[Andy]

On Thursday, July 4, 2013 10:21:03 AM UTC-5, Alain Dekker wrote:
> Given the continued popularity of Windows XP (their best OS in my opinion)
>
> is there any chance Microsoft will have a change of heart and continue
>
> support for Windows XP SP3 beyond the 02 April 2014 cut-off date?
>
>
>

> Regards,
>
> Alain

I would not worry.

XP has got to be the most studied and used O.S. in history.

Most infections are due to opening files from unknown sources.

Andy

[David H. Lipman]

From: "Andy" <andrew_...@yahoo.com>

Not true.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <tknm4ywerf0h.1l...@40tude.net>, JJ <d...@nah.meh>
writes:

>On Thu, 4 Jul 2013 14:52:10 -0600, Bill in Co wrote:
>> But I think it really depends on the needs of the user. Some of us are
>> quite content with XP, and see no real need (in our case) for a newer OS. I
>> haven't had any virus problems yet, but maybe that's due to where I go and
>> don't go online. Of course, if one is getting hit with malware, and/or
>> wants to run the latest and greatest apps, that may be another story.

>> Heck, Office 2000 still works fine for me (and in some cases is overkill).
>>

>> What I'm suggesting is this: if all the apps you need work perfectly well
>> in XP, and you aren't getting "infected", what's the gain in going to yet
>> another OS?
>
>It depends.
>
>OS is like your house. Newer OS is like a bigger house with stronger walls,
>more sophisticated alarm system, more professional security guards, and
>anything you can think of, for a secure, hi-tech dream house.

This new house, even if it has energy-saving features, will still turn
out to use more power, even when you're not doing anything (in fact
especially then), and cost you more in local taxes, than your old one.
(Processor power, RAM, disc space ...)

>
>Ideally, it would be preferable, but all of those won't matter if you leave
>you door open when you leave your house, ward off the alarm because it's
>annoying, or told the security guards not to disturb you because you brought
>strangers to your house.

Which may very well be the case if all the extra security features make
it more or less unusable. (If it takes me some minutes to undo all the
bolts when I _want_ to go out ...)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous"

I already am largely ambisinistral.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <1lodt8t0k3s1him36...@4ax.com>, "Ken Blake,

MVP" <kbl...@kb.invalid> writes:
>On Fri, 5 Jul 2013 06:27:03 +0700, JJ <d...@nah.meh> wrote:

[]

>> OS is like your house. Newer OS is like a bigger house with stronger walls,

(I forgot to say before that I've never suffered a home invasion via the
walls, even in older houses. [In fact here in UK where "older" probably
has different magnitude, older is likely to be thicker anyway.])
[]

>Yes, I agree, but let me add that security is only one issue when it
>comes to evaluating a new operating system. Other issues are the
>feature set, ease of use, etc.
>

Indeed. So far, I've not heard of any feature that makes me want to go
to 7 - I was going to say "makes 7 a must-have", but thinking about it I
can't think of any that I've even desired at all. But I (see previous
posts) have nothing _against_ 7, other than extra resource requirements
(which more or less are satisfied anyway if you get a new computer).
(And "ease of use" would, initially at least, work _against_ it since
I'm so familiar with how to do things under XP - but that would apply to
_any_ new OS.)

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <9O2dnaqN97qye0vM...@earthlink.com>, Ant
<a...@zimage.comANT> writes:
[]

>Yes, but not older Office opening these encrypted docx files. :( I can
>share an example if you want.
>
>
>> One thing I'm pretty sure of: MS kept adding more bells and whistles and
>> that stupid ribbon thing (IMHO) to the newer versions. I am quite content
>> with the "old fashioned" menu system. I'm not sure if I'm in the minority
>> now, or not.
>
>YES! I hate the new GUI! I am forced to use it at work with its newer
>Office versions. Argh! I just use 2000, OpenOffice, and LibreOffice at
>home.
>

I have to use 2007 (or 2010, not sure) at work, and must say (they give
us reasonably big monitors) I don't find the "ribbon" that irritating. I
don't find it particularly an improvement, either. What I do find
irritating is not knowing where certain features are: I'm gradually
learning those. But for those in the same boat, I'd recommend an add-on
I found (which could be installed without the privileges I've not got!)
which gives me the old menu back: it doesn't replace the ribbon, it just
adds one more option (I think it's called Menu) to it, which when
selected gives the old menu. I _am_ learning where things are on the
ribbon, but still occasionally use this to find something. Note that if
you're so familiar with the old Office that you use keyboard shortcuts
rather than the mouse, the new one recognises a lot of them (though pops
up something like "old office key sequence", which you ignore).

>
>>> Ditto. If old stuff works fine, why change/upgrade? :)
>>
>> Exactly. Of course, I once felt that way with Win98SE, and DOS. :-)
>> (actually still have that on my other home computer :-)

I still have 98SElite on my other laptop, with its 128M of RAM - works
fine. And on my desktop, though I keep meaning to XP that, especially
since I broke the sound drivers (or something; it has no sound, anyway).
But I use it so rarely (this 12" netbook is my main PC).
[]

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <kr6l4q$gkn$1...@dont-email.me>, Alain Dekker

<alain....@NO.SPAM.loma.com> writes:
>Thats true, our machines are generally not connected to the internet, except
>occasionally on dedicated connections for remote support (via TeamViewer).

[]
Since this is obviously a professional use, How do you find the cost of
TeamViewer? I'm very impressed with it as a home user, and hope that it
continues to be available (the servers), so I hope it gets plenty of
commercial use so the company stays in business!

Also, I understand that the way it works is that both you and the remote
end are in fact logging in to a server at a third location (that's how
it manages to work regardless of firewalls and the like). Do you (or
your customers) have any security concerns about your private business
going via such? (I'm not sure where the servers are actually situated.)

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <kr4s9e$s4v$1...@dont-email.me>, philo  <ph...@privacy.net>
writes:
>On 07/04/2013 12:58 PM, Ant wrote:
>> On 7/4/2013 8:21 AM PT, Alain Dekker typed:

>>
>>> Given the continued popularity of Windows XP (their best OS in my
>>> opinion)
>>> is there any chance Microsoft will have a change of heart and continue
>>> support for Windows XP SP3 beyond the 02 April 2014 cut-off date?
>>

>> No. They already did that. It's old. Time to let it go! It's 12 years old!!
>
Ah, like a good whisky ... (-:
>
>
>Side note:
>
>A friend of mine was still using dial-up and Win2k until about a month
>ago. I gave her a fairly decent P-IV with XP on it and told her she had
>to go with DSL.

How's she getting on?

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <38udnZam5LeyNkXM...@giganews.com>, David H.
Lipman <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> writes:
>From: "Andy" <andrew_...@yahoo.com>
[]

>> XP has got to be the most studied and used O.S. in history.
>>
>> Most infections are due to opening files from unknown sources.
>>
>> Andy
>
>Not true.
>

So what, in _your_ experience, are most infections caused by?

[David H. Lipman]

From: "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk>

> In message <38udnZam5LeyNkXM...@giganews.com>, David H. Lipman
> <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> writes:
>> From: "Andy" <andrew_...@yahoo.com>
> []
>>> XP has got to be the most studied and used O.S. in history.
>>>
>>> Most infections are due to opening files from unknown sources.
>>>
>>> Andy
>>
>> Not true.
>>
> So what, in _your_ experience, are most infections caused by?

Exploitation.

Social Engineeering (the human exploit) and software vulnerability exploitation.

[Ant]

On 7/7/2013 1:30 AM PT, J. P. Gilliver (John) typed:

> I have to use 2007 (or 2010, not sure) at work, and must say (they give
> us reasonably big monitors) I don't find the "ribbon" that irritating. I
> don't find it particularly an improvement, either. What I do find
> irritating is not knowing where certain features are: I'm gradually
> learning those. But for those in the same boat, I'd recommend an add-on

Even after years since 2007, I still get lost and frustrated! :(

> I found (which could be installed without the privileges I've not got!)
> which gives me the old menu back: it doesn't replace the ribbon, it just
> adds one more option (I think it's called Menu) to it, which when
> selected gives the old menu. I _am_ learning where things are on the
> ribbon, but still occasionally use this to find something. Note that if
> you're so familiar with the old Office that you use keyboard shortcuts
> rather than the mouse, the new one recognises a lot of them (though pops
> up something like "old office key sequence", which you ignore).

Interesting. Called "Menu"? That will be hard to search for being a
common term. Haha.

> I still have 98SElite on my other laptop, with its 128M of RAM - works
> fine. And on my desktop, though I keep meaning to XP that, especially
> since I broke the sound drivers (or something; it has no sound, anyway).
> But I use it so rarely (this 12" netbook is my main PC).
> []

What do you use 98 SE Lite for these days?
--
"Even an ant can hurt an elephant." --Proverb

/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |
\ _ / If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
( ) If e-mailing, then axe ANT from its address if needed.

A song is/was playing on this computer: Two Steps From Hell - Strength
of a Thousand Men

[philo]

On 07/05/2013 07:49 AM, Alain Dekker wrote:
> Office 2000 here as well. Tried Office 2003 and 2007 and both were vastly
> inferior. Only thing I could see that *was* improved was the notes feature
> (where you can share a document between multiple users).
>
> Still use Office 97 in my work and its perfect!
>


Office 2000 is fine except it will not handle the new docx format


however someone told me about this:



http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=3

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <lsrgt89203poaiccn...@4ax.com>, "Ken Blake,

MVP" <kbl...@kb.invalid> writes:
>On Sat, 06 Jul 2013 11:41:27 -0700, Ant <a...@zimage.comANT> wrote:
>
>> On 7/6/2013 2:44 AM PT, philo typed:
>>
>> > I don't think I'd ever run a Windows machine without an
anti-virus.
>>
>> I don't run memory resident ones. I do manually scan often.
>
>
>The problem with that approach is that you use an anti-virus to get
>rid of an infection, not to prevent one. In my view, it's very

Ah, the ambiguities of vernacular English. At first I thought you (Ken)
were saying "one uses ...", but you meant specifically that Ant is
using. But anyway ...

Infections don't just happen; they are always a result of something
you've done - some code you've run. If you use a manual scanner to scan
any executable you download, you'll catch a lot of them.

Of course, you can be fooled into running code by several less-obvious
means than just actually running downloaded executables. There was the
.jpg code exploit (I think it used a buffer overflow means), which
IrfanView and others weren't susceptible to (though I believe the
Microsoft default viewers were). There is script that runs from
websites. If you're not running an on-access AV, then anything you let
self-update is a potential vector, and so on.

I certainly use AV as prevention not cure. (Well, mine claims cure
capability, I've just never had opportunity to find how well it works.)

>important to prevent infection, for two reasons:
>
>1. Some infections can be very hard to get rid of

Indeed (as can some "legitimate" softwares - from what I've heard McAfee
and Chrome for example!).

>
>2. You may get rid of an infection only *after* it has already done
>unrecoverable damage.

Agreed again.

>
>Unless you recognize that you may need to do a clean reinstallation of
>Windows and are willing to do it, I think it's much better to have a
>resident anti-virus and prevent, rather than remove, infections.
>

And again.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <lsrgt89203poaiccn...@4ax.com>, "Ken Blake,
MVP" <kbl...@kb.invalid> writes:

>On Sat, 06 Jul 2013 11:41:27 -0700, Ant <a...@zimage.comANT> wrote:
>
>> On 7/6/2013 2:44 AM PT, philo typed:
>>
>> > I don't think I'd ever run a Windows machine without an
anti-virus.
>>
>> I don't run memory resident ones. I do manually scan often.
>
>
>The problem with that approach is that you use an anti-virus to get
>rid of an infection, not to prevent one. In my view, it's very

Ah, the ambiguities of vernacular English. At first I thought you (Ken)
were saying "one uses ...", but you meant specifically that Ant is
using. But anyway ...

Infections don't just happen; they are always a result of something
you've done - some code you've run. If you use a manual scanner to scan
any executable you download, you'll catch a lot of them.

Of course, you can be fooled into running code by several less-obvious
means than just actually running downloaded executables. There was the
.jpg code exploit (I think it used a buffer overflow means), which
IrfanView and others weren't susceptible to (though I believe the

Microsoft default vewers were). There is script that runs from websites.

If you're not running an on-access AV, then anything you let self-update
is a potential vector, and so on.

I certainly use AV as prevention not cure. (Well, mine claims cure
capability, I've just never had opportunity to find how well it works.)

>important to prevent infection, for two reasons:
>
>1. Some infections can be very hard to get rid of

Indeed (as can some "legitimate" softwares - from what I've heard McAfee
and Chrome for example!).
>

>2. You may get rid of an infection only *after* it has already done
>unrecoverable damage.

Agreed again.

>
>Unless you recognize that you may need to do a clean reinstallation of
>Windows and are willing to do it, I think it's much better to have a
>resident anti-virus and prevent, rather than remove, infections.
>

[Ghostrider]

It works. Not everyone at work adopted Office 2007, even today.

GR

[Ant]

On 7/7/2013 8:14 AM PT, philo typed:

> http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=3

FYI, that addon has been out for years. ;) However, it and third party
Office suites doesn't seem to handle password protected docx files at
all. :(
--
"You feel the faint grit of ants beneath your shoes, but keep on walking
because in this world you have to decide what you're willing to kill."
--Tony Hoagland from "Candlelight"

/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |
\ _ / If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
( ) If e-mailing, then axe ANT from its address if needed.

A song is/was playing on this computer: Rammstein - Amerika

[philo]

On 07/07/2013 03:39 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> In message <kr4s9e$s4v$1...@dont-email.me>, philo <ph...@privacy.net> writes:
>> On 07/04/2013 12:58 PM, Ant wrote:
>>> On 7/4/2013 8:21 AM PT, Alain Dekker typed:
>>>
>>>> Given the continued popularity of Windows XP (their best OS in my
>>>> opinion)
>>>> is there any chance Microsoft will have a change of heart and continue
>>>> support for Windows XP SP3 beyond the 02 April 2014 cut-off date?
>>>
>>> No. They already did that. It's old. Time to let it go! It's 12 years
>>> old!!
>>
> Ah, like a good whisky ... (-:
>>
>>
>> Side note:
>>
>> A friend of mine was still using dial-up and Win2k until about a month
>> ago. I gave her a fairly decent P-IV with XP on it and told her she
>> had to go with DSL.
>
> How's she getting on?

Her P-IV with XP and her new DSL are just fine.

The first computer she had was a 386 her brother had given her that she
wanted me to upgrade from win3x to Win95.
All the time I had it in my van to bring over to my shop I was trying to
figure out how to tell her she had a useless piece of junk...even though
I knew Win95 could run on a 386.
Just before I got home a found a completely smashed up machine in the
trash and my wife was shocked to see me stop and pick it up.

As it turned out, the trashed machine had a perfectly good 486-66
mobo/cpu even though nothing else was salvageable...not even the case.


So when the friend got her machine back I never told her I upgraded it a
bit.

[Bill in Co]

Ant wrote:
> On 7/7/2013 8:14 AM PT, philo typed:
>
>> http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=3
>
> FYI, that addon has been out for years. ;) However, it and third party
> Office suites doesn't seem to handle password protected docx files at
> all. :(

I just noticed that they've updated it. I have the older file version,
from 2007, but this new one is a bit bigger, and was updated in 2010. It
may work for your case (I don't know).

I think it adds support for Office 2010 and Office 2013 documents too, as
mentioned here: (not sure if my older version does, however)

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/924074

However, I did notice one "cautionary" note on their site, about it removing
some custom XML tags, if you are using Word 2003 (due to some legalities).
Here is that note from their site:

Update: The Microsoft Office Compatibility Pack has been updated to include
SP2. Additionally, with the updated Compatibility Pack, if .DOCX or .DOCM
files contain custom XML tags, those tags are removed when the file is
opened in Word 2003. For more information, please see KB978951

[choro]

Didn't know that it worked for MS Office 2000 too. It certainly works
with my MS Office 2003. And I must add that I *do NOT* like MS Office
2007. Was working on a friend's computer the other day and I kept
looking and looking for File>Save. That icon in the top RH corner is
*stoopid*!
--
choro
*****

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <9M2dnWtoCY7N4kTM...@earthlink.com>, Ant

<a...@zimage.comANT> writes:
>On 7/7/2013 1:30 AM PT, J. P. Gilliver (John) typed:

[]

>Even after years since 2007, I still get lost and frustrated! :(
>
>
>> I found (which could be installed without the privileges I've not got!)
>> which gives me the old menu back: it doesn't replace the ribbon, it just
>> adds one more option (I think it's called Menu) to it, which when
>> selected gives the old menu. I _am_ learning where things are on the
>> ribbon, but still occasionally use this to find something. Note that if
>> you're so familiar with the old Office that you use keyboard shortcuts
>> rather than the mouse, the new one recognises a lot of them (though pops
>> up something like "old office key sequence", which you ignore).
>
>Interesting. Called "Menu"? That will be hard to search for being a
>common term. Haha.
>

No, it wasn't called that. I'll have a root around to see if I can find
what it is called.

>
>> I still have 98SElite on my other laptop, with its 128M of RAM - works
>> fine. And on my desktop, though I keep meaning to XP that, especially
>> since I broke the sound drivers (or something; it has no sound, anyway).
>> But I use it so rarely (this 12" netbook is my main PC).
>> []
>
>What do you use 98 SE Lite for these days?

Well, what do you "use" XP for? I very rarely use that machine, but when
I do, it explores files and surfs the net (via Firefox 2.x.x.x) well
enough.

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Bother," said Pooh, as he fell off the bridge with his stick.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <krbhq...@news1.newsguy.com>, David H. Lipman

<DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> writes:
>From: "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk>
>
>> In message <38udnZam5LeyNkXM...@giganews.com>, David H. Lipman
>> <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> writes:
>>> From: "Andy" <andrew_...@yahoo.com>
>> []
>>>> XP has got to be the most studied and used O.S. in history.
>>>>
>>>> Most infections are due to opening files from unknown sources.
>>>>
>>>> Andy
>>>
>>> Not true.
>>>
>> So what, in _your_ experience, are most infections caused by?
>
>Exploitation.
>
>Social Engineeering (the human exploit) and software vulnerability
>exploitation.
>
>
>

OK on the human; but to exploit the software vulnerabilities, surely the
user must still be tricked into running code.

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

[Ant]

On 7/7/2013 11:41 PM PT, J. P. Gilliver (John) typed:

>>> I found (which could be installed without the privileges I've not got!)
>>> which gives me the old menu back: it doesn't replace the ribbon, it just
>>> adds one more option (I think it's called Menu) to it, which when
>>> selected gives the old menu. I _am_ learning where things are on the
>>> ribbon, but still occasionally use this to find something. Note that if
>>> you're so familiar with the old Office that you use keyboard shortcuts
>>> rather than the mouse, the new one recognises a lot of them (though pops
>>> up something like "old office key sequence", which you ignore).
>>
>> Interesting. Called "Menu"? That will be hard to search for being a
>> common term. Haha.
>>
> No, it wasn't called that. I'll have a root around to see if I can find
> what it is called.

OK.

>>> I still have 98SElite on my other laptop, with its 128M of RAM - works
>>> fine. And on my desktop, though I keep meaning to XP that, especially
>>> since I broke the sound drivers (or something; it has no sound, anyway).
>>> But I use it so rarely (this 12" netbook is my main PC).
>>> []
>>
>> What do you use 98 SE Lite for these days?
>
> Well, what do you "use" XP for? I very rarely use that machine, but when
> I do, it explores files and surfs the net (via Firefox 2.x.x.x) well
> enough.

XP is still popular today compared to 98. ;) Wow, Firefox v2 works well
on web sites? The last time I tried v2.0.0.20a, many web sites were
unusable and ugly. :(
--
"Let him who boasts the knowledge of actually existing things, first
tell us of the nature of the ant." --Saint Basil quote from his letter
XVI written against Eunomius the Heretic

/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |
\ _ / If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
( ) If e-mailing, then axe ANT from its address if needed.

Ant is currently not listening to any songs on this computer.

[David H. Lipman]

From: "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk>

> In message <krbhq...@news1.newsguy.com>, David H. Lipman
> <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> writes:
>> From: "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk>
>>
>>> In message <38udnZam5LeyNkXM...@giganews.com>, David H. Lipman
>>> <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> writes:
>>>> From: "Andy" <andrew_...@yahoo.com>
>>> []
>>>>> XP has got to be the most studied and used O.S. in history.
>>>>>
>>>>> Most infections are due to opening files from unknown sources.
>>>>>
>>>>> Andy
>>>>
>>>> Not true.
>>>>
>>> So what, in _your_ experience, are most infections caused by?
>>
>> Exploitation.
>>
>> Social Engineeering (the human exploit) and software vulnerability exploitation.
>>
>>
>>
> OK on the human; but to exploit the software vulnerabilities, surely the user must still
> be tricked into running code.

No. Often it is a case of a "Buffer Overflow with an Elevation of Privileges".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privilege_escalation
http://www.borderware.com/infocenter/editorial/135144.asp

[Al Sparber-PVII]

Alain Dekker wrote:
> Given the continued popularity of Windows XP (their best OS in my opinion)
> is there any chance Microsoft will have a change of heart and continue
> support for Windows XP SP3 beyond the 02 April 2014 cut-off date?
>

> Regards,
> Alain
>
>

what support are you looking for? Windows XP is almost dead and people
are moving to Windows 8 and to windows 8.1 very soon.

What you need is our assistance to enhance your manhood. You are
currently suffering from small penis syndrome and our penile extension
program can help you here.



--

Al Sparber - PVII
http://www.projectseven.com
The Finest Dreamweaver Menus | Galleries | Widgets
Since 1998

[Al Sparber-PVII]

philo wrote:

>
> So, XP should be a viable operating system for quite a few more years.


I hope you are taking your medications regularly because you are showing
signs of suffering from small penis syndrome. You can benefit from our
penile extension program.

[Al Sparber-PVII]

G.F. wrote:

> You're right indeed, however you should realize that updates concern the
> security of our PCs against malwares. When updates will end, the new
> malwares will hit our PCs through backdoors that Microsoft/nobody will no
> longer close.
>

You can stop using XP and move on to Windows 8.1 and also get our penile
extensions to cure your small penis syndrome.

You arre still looking for young boys right?

[Al Sparber-PVII]

Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

> On Thu, 4 Jul 2013 16:21:03 +0100, "Alain Dekker"
> <alain....@NO.SPAM.loma.com> wrote:
>
>> Given the continued popularity of Windows XP (their best OS in my opinion)
>> is there any chance Microsoft will have a change of heart and continue
>> support for Windows XP SP3 beyond the 02 April 2014 cut-off date?
>
>

> *Any* chance? I suppose there's a slight chance, but it's *very*
> slight.
>


But you will be dead by then at your advanced age. Have you thought of
getting our penile extensions? you don't have to worry about XP after that.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <8L6dnTKeUcAVCEfM...@earthlink.com>, Ant

<a...@zimage.comANT> writes:
>On 7/7/2013 11:41 PM PT, J. P. Gilliver (John) typed:
>
>>>> I found (which could be installed without the privileges I've not got!)
>>>> which gives me the old menu back: it doesn't replace the ribbon, it just
>>>> adds one more option (I think it's called Menu) to it, which when
>>>> selected gives the old menu. I _am_ learning where things are on the
>>>> ribbon, but still occasionally use this to find something. Note that if
>>>> you're so familiar with the old Office that you use keyboard shortcuts
>>>> rather than the mouse, the new one recognises a lot of them (though pops
>>>> up something like "old office key sequence", which you ignore).
>>>
>>> Interesting. Called "Menu"? That will be hard to search for being a
>>> common term. Haha.
>>>
>> No, it wasn't called that. I'll have a root around to see if I can find
>> what it is called.
>
>OK.
>

Have done. http://www.ubit.ch/software/ubitmenu-languages/ - do play
fair and buy if you use it other than privately, it's cheap enough.
(Free for home.) Scroll down the page a bit.

[]
>>> What do you use 98 SE Lite for these days?
>>
>> Well, what do you "use" XP for? I very rarely use that machine, but when
>> I do, it explores files and surfs the net (via Firefox 2.x.x.x) well
>> enough.
>
>XP is still popular today compared to 98. ;) Wow, Firefox v2 works well
>on web sites? The last time I tried v2.0.0.20a, many web sites were
>unusable and ugly. :(

On the few websites I use that PC for - it's what I mainly use it for in
fact - it's fine. (Though I think it does google, Wikipedia, and a few
others, too. I wouldn't expect it to work on YouTube, though I can't
remember if I've tried.)

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

For people who like peace and quiet: a phoneless cord.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <kre78...@news7.newsguy.com>, David H. Lipman

<DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> writes:
>From: "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk>
>
>> In message <krbhq...@news1.newsguy.com>, David H. Lipman
>> <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> writes:
>>> From: "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk>
>>>
>>>> In message <38udnZam5LeyNkXM...@giganews.com>, David H. Lipman
>>>> <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> writes:
>>>>> From: "Andy" <andrew_...@yahoo.com>
>>>> []
>>>>>> XP has got to be the most studied and used O.S. in history.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Most infections are due to opening files from unknown sources.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>
>>>>> Not true.
>>>>>
>>>> So what, in _your_ experience, are most infections caused by?
>>>
>>> Exploitation.
>>>
>>> Social Engineeering (the human exploit) and software vulnerability
>>>exploitation.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> OK on the human; but to exploit the software vulnerabilities, surely
>>the user must still
>> be tricked into running code.
>
>No. Often it is a case of a "Buffer Overflow with an Elevation of Privileges".
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privilege_escalation
>http://www.borderware.com/infocenter/editorial/135144.asp
>

But how is the buffer overflow etc. triggered?

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists to
adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable
man. -George Bernard Shaw, writer, Nobel laureate (1856-1950)

[David H. Lipman]

By some method of flooding an input with too much data.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffer_overflow

[Alain Dekker]

I install the DOCX converter and it works great in Office 97. Office 97 was
greater, Office 2000 is even better. Have used Office 2003 and 2007 since
and neither are an improvement (AFAICS) over 2000/97. Moreover, Office 97
flies.

"philo " <ph...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:krc09r$hg3$1...@dont-email.me...

[Alain Dekker]

TeamViewer is superb. We paid for 3 concurrent licenses (I think it was
1,500 euros) and a "QuickSupport" tool. The advantage of the QS tool is that
we can embed our own logo and a custom-instruction for the user (Please call
this number for additional support, etc(. When they need remote support,
they click a button in our software, which in turn launches the QS tool.

We have password-protected the TeamViewer login so that the customer does
not know what the password is, and therefore only ourselves can log into the
machines (using the 9-digit code they telephone us with).

In terms of customer concerns, there are a few (usually the bigger,
multi-nationals) who won't allow the machine to connect to the internet (and
therefore allow the machine to log into the servers in Germany). For these
customers, we just use our on-site technicians and the customer has to live
with reduced service support. The bulk of our customers are happy to allow
remote, password-protected access. Its only ever run when they want, anyway,
so its usually fairly easy to assure them of the security of the connection.

We are currently using TeamViewer v4. TeamViewer in Germany are now up to v7
or v8, not sure, and we've noticed that they've taken a commercial decision
to prevent v5+ clients connecting to v4 servers. At the time I was rather
annoyed by this decision, but as they allow free downloads of the v4 viewer,
its not really a big concern and it does at least protect their business
since as they add new functionality (like remote chat, VOIP, additional
recording features, etc) if you need that functionality you pay for a new
license. One feature we wish we did have was the ability to control our
machines via an iPad, but TeamViewer only introduced iOS support in v6,
which means we'll need to buy a v6 license if we want to make use of this
feature. Who knows, we may just do that...

Our once-off 1,500 euro license fee has been a massive bargain over the last
4-5 years and I'd recommend TeamViewer to anyone tempted. They've done a an
excellent (German-like?) job.

Alain


"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:jmU4UOV3...@soft255.demon.co.uk...

[David H. Lipman]

From: "Alain Dekker" <alain....@NO.SPAM.loma.com>

> I install the DOCX converter and it works great in Office 97. Office 97
> was greater, Office 2000 is even better. Have used Office 2003 and 2007
> since and neither are an improvement (AFAICS) over 2000/97. Moreover,
> Office 97 flies.
>

That depends. There are improvements, many infect, for MS Outlook including
but not limited to PKI.

One thing that pisses me off is MS Office 2007 (and maybe through Office
2013) dropped direct TWAIN support. In Office 2003 and below you can;
insert --> picture --> scanner or camera

Starting with 2007 you had to externally scan an object and then create a
disk file subsequently inserting that file into an Office application. To
me that was a STEP BACK. Additionally the "ribbons" GUI was a big mistake.
They should have instituted "Classic" and "Ribbons" GUI skins so the user
can choose a preference. This way, older office workers would contiunue to
be proficient without re-education.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Thanks for this info..

In message <krh38l$hq6$1...@dont-email.me>, Alain Dekker

<alain....@NO.SPAM.loma.com> writes:
>TeamViewer is superb. We paid for 3 concurrent licenses (I think it was
>1,500 euros) and a "QuickSupport" tool. The advantage of the QS tool is that

Wow, not cheap! Though definitely worth it.
[]

>We are currently using TeamViewer v4. TeamViewer in Germany are now up to v7
>or v8, not sure, and we've noticed that they've taken a commercial decision
>to prevent v5+ clients connecting to v4 servers. At the time I was rather
>annoyed by this decision, but as they allow free downloads of the v4 viewer,
>its not really a big concern and it does at least protect their business
>since as they add new functionality (like remote chat, VOIP, additional
>recording features, etc) if you need that functionality you pay for a new
>license. One feature we wish we did have was the ability to control our
>machines via an iPad, but TeamViewer only introduced iOS support in v6,
>which means we'll need to buy a v6 license if we want to make use of this
>feature. Who knows, we may just do that...

I've noticed that the bit I use (to do the controlling) does have a
tendency to upgrade itself with little (though not no) warning. I just
hope I never let one through that will suddenly no longer work with the
QS bit my various friends have.

>
>Our once-off 1,500 euro license fee has been a massive bargain over the last
>4-5 years and I'd recommend TeamViewer to anyone tempted. They've done a an
>excellent (German-like?) job.

(-:
>
>Alain
[]
I'm always impressed with how well it works - even on this machine on
which Skype (even audio-only) is very flaky and sometimes drops out,
TeamViewer is rock-solid. (When I first installed Skype on here, I think
it did work well enough - I think it's something I've done/installed
since then, but I don't know what and CBA to find out. Or Skype itself
could have been upgraded to something that'll no longer work here, but I
can't really believe that of the audio-only side.)

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Imagine what a paradise Earth would be if we'd made the same kinds of advances
in politics as we have in physics. - Andrew Marr in RT, 22-28 September 2012