DECREASING LEVELS OF SECURITY:
1. Running Microsoft Windows.
2. Running out-of-support Microsoft Windows.
3. Running out-of-support Microsoft Windows and having it report itself to a server of unclear provenance and security (which could be efficiently indexing such insecure machines, and possibly even exploiting vulnerabilities during this simple interaction).
4. Running out-of-support Microsoft Windows and updating its system software from a server of unclear provenance and security (which could install malware, possibly even defeating any outdated vendor signing).
SUGGESTIONS:
* If your important science/medical/industrial/etc. equipment is stuck on ancient Microsoft Windows, probably you want to keep it airgapped and treat it gingerly, while planning to upgrade to more sustainable equipment (and hopefully it doesn't fail abruptly before convenient).
* If you're playing with Microsoft Windows for personal use, that's fine, but maybe consider whether you'd prefer to spend your time and energy instead learning and creating atop an open source software platform.
* For many business and personal purposes, Debian Stable is a good OS platform, and this is one installer for it: https://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/current/amd64/iso-dvd/
https://zerodium.com/program.html
Getting a Windows exploit is higher value than any linux exploit. Given how many servers use Linux, it makes me wonder if Linux 0 click are easier than windows.
There are a bunch of counters like 'there are too many distros', or 'a personal computer of a VIP is higher value than some corporations'. But I'm not sure its fair to include your point number 1.
I like to give people credit where its due, I imagine it took lots of work to make windows as secure as it is. (Giving Android OS the most credit for their 2.5M payout)
Recommending Debian to the retrocomputing community is possibly the most tone-deaf thing I've seen today.
1) doesn't even a domestic router block all inbound connections?
2) is there any evidence of unpatched remote vulnerabilities for windows 98?
Is Windows 11 with all of the default security settings really that insecure? Like Windows Defender, Windows Firewall, anything that needs admin needed you to click "yes, elevate to admin" through UAC
Old OT is actually pretty easy to take care of aside from sourcing replacements for some secret sauce PCI card that is no longer made. New OT blurs the line with IT in a really difficult way however, you can no longer rely on a dead simple airgap to solve your security concerns because everything and its mother wants to be on the internet.
Open source does not address my need or desire for Windows, regardless outdatedness.
Seriously, it's annoying that fReE and oPeN sOuRcE are thrown around like they will solve all the problems in the world. Spoiler alert, they don't. Especially if that problem involves a practical need that most libertarian neckbeards wouldn't care about.
Yes I run Windows, and yes I happily run EOL Windows because they are required to run something reliably. And yes, I happily run unpatched Windows because updates break shit and waste my time compared to the dangers posed by hypothetical threats outside my practical threat model.
Something being free or open source does not in any way fundamentally address my needs and desires. No, Wine is not a panacea (unless we're talking about the drink). No, I'm not going to waste even more time getting Linux to work just so I can get on with life.
It was common in the Windows XP days for many users to never install updates and it really contributed to Windows's reputation for being incredibly insecure. Forcing updates became the only option to ensure Windows users remain secure.
It definitely was after 2011.
Windows 3.1, 95, 98, Me are less easy to emulate.
Note that that seems to have impacted the preservation of old games and programs. Plenty of dos games are all over the web and still quite popular, yet most stuff from the Win 9x era has almost entirely vanished due to the difficulty of running it on modern hardware.
Archivists take note - if you want something to live for a long time, it needs to be easy to emulate. And in turn, that means it needs to be both very common, and have simple API's so someone in the future can be bothered to make and maintain an emulator.
The tricky part is that this applies even if you're using a VM. I learned the hard way that Windows 98 isn't compatible with Ryzen CPUs, even through VirtualBox. I had to try again on another PC with an older Intel CPU.
You can technically get Windows 9x software running in a VM, but not without laggy video/audio in my experience.
how do archivists have a say in this?
[1]: https://www.catalog.update.microsoft.com/Search.aspx?q=SP3+X...
Otherwise, in the 95 era, I believe you'd likely be finding out through a software vendor or otherwise that a certain fixpack from Microsoft might fix an issue and you should go grab an update then.
Wikipedia:
> Windows Update was introduced as a web app with the launch of Windows 98 and offered additional desktop themes, games, device driver updates, and optional components such as NetMeeting. Windows 95 and Windows NT 4.0 were retroactively given the ability to access the Windows Update website and download updates designed for those operating systems, starting with the release of Internet Explorer 4.
(Sent from a ThinkPad x41 running Windows XP)
Struck me as a bit unsafe?
BTW this also exists or did exist for "Fix Windows Update on Windows XP, Vista, Server 2008, 2003, and 2000"
Couldn't they collect and systematically 'slipstream' every patch and fix that would exist on Windows Update into a "Final Edition" ISO?
Or is the scope broader than a naive reading of the headline, and non-OS packages (drivers, third party software) were also relayed through WU?
> This website requires a minimum of Internet Explorer 5.0 or above, but we recommend Internet Explorer 5.5. To download Internet Explorer 5.5, Click Here