Jump to content











Photo
- - - - -

Rufus 2.0 has been released

rufus

  • Please log in to reply
95 replies to this topic

#26 TheHive

TheHive

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 4137 posts

Posted 10 September 2015 - 06:23 AM

Good question. Since youre leaping to v3 later, it would make sense to use v2 as a stop point for XP.

 

simplify the sourcecode and allow the global use of modern Windows APIs, which will make Rufus easier to maintain and should ultimately increase its stability

:fine:



#27 Wonko the Sane

Wonko the Sane

    The Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 13649 posts
  • Location:The Outside of the Asylum (gate is closed)
  •  
    Italy

Posted 10 September 2015 - 08:43 AM

Good question. Since youre leaping to v3 later, it would make sense to use v2 as a stop point for XP.
:fine:

No, it won't make any sense whatever (by itself).

It's simply a balance between the amount of additional work keeping the XP compatibility requires and the expected outcome (popularity, appreciation, *whatever* drives Akeo's to develop and maintain the nice tool), and of course only Akeo knows exactly that.

If all in all the Rufus is a "finished" product (almost as nothing is ever finished) then it makes little sense to continue developing the "XP branch" as the added features/whatever in 3.0 will anyway be related or connected to NT6 or later and thus an XP user will have no use for them and will keep using the 2.0 alright.
On the other hand, if the planned features/whatever in 3.0 could be of use for a XP user then failing to provide a working new version may affect the "good name" of the tool and most people will resolve to have both a 2.x and a 3.x version, which will additionally make matters more complex.
If this is the case, inevitably the people still using XP will feel somehow "orphaned" :( or "betrayed" by yet another developer.


:duff:
Wonko



#28 Akeo

Akeo

    Frequent Member

  • Developer
  • 301 posts
  •  
    Ireland

Posted 10 September 2015 - 10:04 AM

If this is the case, inevitably the people still using XP will feel somehow "orphaned" :( or "betrayed" by yet another developer.

 

<rant>

Betrayed? For an OS that is missing so many features, such a security risk if connected to a network, and such a pain to develop for these days that you are actually doing its users a favour by asking them to upgrade?

 

Don't you think that your sense of entitlement might be a little off to complain about "betrayal"? Or if you do, then why, for instance, aren't you in arms about limited warranties for hardware. I mean, shouldn't you feel betrayed that most manufacturer's warranty and support last a couple of years... 5 tops. Or how about all the UEFI motherboards from just a few years ago? Aren't you gonna complain to the manufacturer that they should be dedicating resources to release an UEFI version of their firmware (instead of working on new hardware)? Heck, I'll gladly lend you a pitchfork if you want to go there. Why should Microsoft be treated any differently?

 

As far as I am concerned, the sense of entitlement from users who deliberately put both themselves and others in danger by continuing to use XP, when it has been dropped by its manufacturer more than a year ago, is nothing short of astonishing... That OS is more than 14 years old now, and is missing so many features it's not even funny. Yet, some users seem to believe that it's more than "good enough" and that the decision to retire it was oh-so-unjustified, apparently because they see backporting features as a no-brainer...

 

But I think what pisses me off most is that you guys, who want to continue to XP against all odds, are exactly the kind of people who should be switching to Linux (or some other Free Software OS - how about helping those ReactOS guys, whose struggle actually give you a very good idea of the insane amount of resources, effort and dedication it takes to develop and maintain something similar to XP, even when you have a model) and help make it as prominent a force as it should really be, especially as you are much less likely to depend on a manufacturer deciding your software has ran its course, or, at the very least, if that happens, all you need to have, to do something about it, is a few developers that are sympathetic to your cause.

 

But no, you're still gonna insist on getting into the chokehold of proprietary software, and find nothing better but to complain when it does exactly what proprietary software is meant to do: decide when it's unprofitable and, as opposed to Free Software, leave you with no recourse whatsoever to do anything about it.

 

But hey, just shift the blame on the very people who are trying to do something about the proprietary abomination (your computer should be under your full control... and you can only have control if you can both see and alter what it is doing) by at least giving you the option to do something about it, by freeing the source code they produce, which, to get back to this overblown XP issue, has the other benefit of letting everyone see plain and simple whether you actually have critical mass to get people interested in maintaining that software, or if, as all software does one day or another, it has run its course and it is high time to move to something else.

</rant>



#29 Wonko the Sane

Wonko the Sane

    The Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 13649 posts
  • Location:The Outside of the Asylum (gate is closed)
  •  
    Italy

Posted 10 September 2015 - 05:58 PM

Hey, Akeo :), maybe you need a chill pill. :dubbio:

 

There was noone blaming anyone else.

 

I simply attempted to explain what is likely to happen,in that hypothesis, whether it is:

  1. fair
  2. appropriate
  3. smart

OR:

  1. unmotivated
  2. absurd
  3. stupid

(or whatever else) is an altogether different thing.

 

I claim however the right to be free (as in freedom) to recklessly put myself (just myself and noone else) in danger, knowingly or unknowingly, through using this (or that, or that other down there :w00t:) OS, including, but not limited to, ReactOS, Linux, BSD and even  *any* MS OS[1].

 

:duff:

Wonko

 

[1] With the obvious exclusion of Windows 10 :whistling:



#30 Zoso

Zoso

    Silver Member

  • Advanced user
  • 640 posts
  •  
    Isle of Man

Posted 10 September 2015 - 10:23 PM

hi Akeo,


such a security risk if connected to a network, and such a pain to develop for these days that you are actually doing its users a favour by asking them to upgrade?

regurgitated MS BS. the XP diehards (self included) are more than likely to be competent enough to use XP in a way to reduce risks to levels below that of a current OS. I certainly am, and that is only one of the many reasons I prefer XP.

and what new features? I havnt found any that I cant live without or fireup a closed system of W7+ limited to specific purpose if needed.

with each new OS MS offers things become more and more obvious of their agenda. not all of us see a random lone hacker as much of an adversary as a huge corporate conglomerate with access to ever bit of data on a system using their OS.

its all perspective (and level of archonic influence)

FWIW
  • remey likes this

#31 Akeo

Akeo

    Frequent Member

  • Developer
  • 301 posts
  •  
    Ireland

Posted 11 September 2015 - 01:38 AM

regurgitated MS BS.


Are you a Windows developer?

Else, you may want to actually try to develop for the OS to find out whether we, poor brainless Windows developers, need to take our cues from Microsoft, instead of trying to form an educated opinion from direct experience.
 

the XP diehards (self included) are more than likely to be competent enough to use XP in a way to reduce risks to levels below that of a current OS.


Yet apparently not competent enough to switch to a free, supported and more secure OS, such as Linux...
 

and what new features? I havnt found any that I cant live without

I'm not sure you're not using your OS or hardware for much then. GPT support absent from XP 32 bit (but hey, you're gonna tell that, while it's not okay to ask people to upgrade from XP, every XP users should really move to the 64 bit version so that they can access large modern drives). Or maybe you only ever used English/Latin glyphs in the applications you run, and didn't realize the jumping through hoops that XP requires if you want apps that display non latin glyphs to look as good as the ones that do. Then there's also disjoint file/folder selection handling APIs, and a whole bunch of APIs that were designed with 32 bit in mind, when they should really have been 64 bit (and were mostly fixed by Microsoft in Vista). Oh and if you have a lot of time to waste as a developer of a bootable USB installer creation app, the fact that XP was NEVER EVER designed to be installed from USB, and will choke no matter what you try on some computers, is sure to be a lot of fun as well.

 

or fireup a closed system of W7+ limited to specific purpose if needed.

 

That looks awfully inconvenient...
 

with each new OS MS offers things become more and more obvious of their agenda.

 

Yes, and you can do something about it RIGHT NOW, by moving to a non proprietary OS, one where every single feature can be controlled by you.

Anything less means that you aren't a man of your words. I mean, if you can't trust later versions of Windows, then you'll have to explain the logic that makes you somehow magically trust XP. And I say magically, because, since you haven't studied its source code, you're basically just putting faith that a corporation that has some kind of nefarious agenda didn't have it before releasing a central piece of software. Wishful thinking much?

 

Moreover, if you really want to be worried about an entity pursuing a very pervasive agenda over multiple version of Windows, you might want to look towards a much more Nefarious Set of Assholes...
 

not all of us see a random lone hacker as much of an adversary as a huge corporate conglomerate with access to ever bit of data on a system using their OS.

And yet, clearly, you're not gonna do a single thing about it.

I mean, it sure is going to make Microsoft revise their views when you proudly tell them that you have decided to continue using Windows X instead of Windows Y...



#32 ady

ady

    Frequent Member

  • Advanced user
  • 130 posts

Posted 11 September 2015 - 01:19 PM

The proposed plan is to drop both the ability to run Rufus 3.x and later on Windows XP...


Instead of subjective preferences and opinions, the decision whether to continue supporting XP within RUFUS could be (also) based on use-case (in addition to whatever (else) Pete might be willing to consider, obviously).

A potential/hypothetical user has a(n old) PC. In one partition, there is Windows XP installed. Other partition(s) contain some Linux distro(s), which might very possibly be the "main" OS in use. XP is there, "just in case", or for some infrequent need.

Once in a while, this hypothetical user likes to try some new Linux distro, or he might want to prepare his USB key with some distro so to show / teach some friends / family members, on their own computers.

This user might (or might not) have the necessary knowledge to do it all under Linux. But hey, there's RUFUS. Let's prepare the USB under the old, rarely used XP, and then back to Linux to the normal daily use of this computer.

The following hypothetical conversation takes place then:

- OK, you showed me some Linux distro. How can I do it myself if I want to try another one in my own system?
- I used RUFUS, under my Windows XP. It will work in your Windows Vista/7/8.x/10 too.
- Are you still using XP?
- Only rarely, as in this case. Now I use Linux mainly.
- Why don't you upgrade to a newer Windows version?
- Because my PC is not new enough. Spending (more) money on a new Windows version (and probably on a new computer) is something I'd rather avoid, or at least postpone; things have been tight during the last few years, and my main OS is Linux nowadays.
- You remind me of another friend. He has some old hardware too. Perhaps he might also want to use RUFUS (in his XP) and try/install Linux in his old system, instead of throwing that (still usable) hardware to the trash.

***

Why not just use an older version of RUFUS that would still support XP?
Well, because of compatibility between (such hypothetical older version of) RUFUS and (some hypothetical) newer versions of SYSLINUX / GRUB / some other supported boot method / some Linux distro...

Of course, learning how to use a manual procedure, instead of RUFUS, is also possible. And if RUFUS can actually gain some new features that are much desired/appreciated/expected by users, then maybe dropping XP would be justified from user's perspective (too).

This hypothetical use-case – whether a common one or not for RUFUS' users, I wouldn't know – might not change any opinions or decisions in this topic about RUFUS under XP, but I thought it _might_ show some slightly-less-subjective perspective.

#33 Akeo

Akeo

    Frequent Member

  • Developer
  • 301 posts
  •  
    Ireland

Posted 11 September 2015 - 02:16 PM

Instead of subjective preferences and opinions.

 

Sorry, but I think you are missing the point here. There's nothing subjective about my push to drop XP altogether.

 

As any other developer will tell you, submitting to the demands of XP users, with regards to continuing to supporting running an app with that OS, is exactly akin to requiring to asking someone to take an ever increasing load, without ever giving them any chance to remove any part of it. Sooner or later, something's gonna break. From being a major contributor for Syslinux, Ady, I expect you to be well aware of what happens when the lead developer of a project starts to be unable to spare enough time for it...

 

So, once again, in case it's not clear, I'm developing Rufus in my limited spare time, and even before the Windows 10 release, I was already close to breaking point with regards to how much more additional work I could take. As a result of this, I've actually had to drop my longtime involvement in the libusb project altogether earlier this year. And I could add a whole paragraph about the status of other projects as well.

 

What this all means is that demanding that developers support Windows XP (including 64 bit), Windows Vista, Windows 7, Windows 8/8.1 AND Windows 10 is simply NOT REALISTIC, especially for a free product. You can huff and puff all you want, but even with Microsoft's goal of backwards compatibility, there are more than enough differences in these OSes and the toolchains to make supporting any new version of Windows a non-trivial operation that MUST be compensated with the removal of an older version.

 

In other words, the only thing you are going to gain from thinking that developers should just submit to unreasonable demands with regards to supporting obsolete platforms is that, at some stage, those developers are going to say "screw it" and move to something where they can actually exert a reasonable amount of control when it comes to adding and removing features.

 

What's more, the source of Rufus is free. If you're unhappy about my decision to drop XP support in Rufus 3.x, you're entirely free to take matters in your own hands and create your own version. But of course, you'll first have to find a developer who thinks that investing time to continue supporting a long retired OS is actually worth their time...



#34 ady

ady

    Frequent Member

  • Advanced user
  • 130 posts

Posted 11 September 2015 - 02:43 PM

Sorry, but I think you are missing the point here. There's nothing subjective about my push to drop XP altogether.

Apparently I wasn't clear enough.

@Pete, your reasons are not subjective. But, it seems to me – and I could be wrong in my interpretation – that asking for a poll / opinions / comments, or the recent posts in this forum topic, are more subjective (their contents, I mean); they are more about opinions, likings / wishes / desires / expectations (and I would tend to think that they are probably not investing their own resources; just a guess).

To be clear, I was not pushing for nor against; just presenting a different perspective. As I said before, it might (probably) not change anything nor anyone's point of view / opinion about the matter.

#35 Akeo

Akeo

    Frequent Member

  • Developer
  • 301 posts
  •  
    Ireland

Posted 11 September 2015 - 02:56 PM

Understood.

 

The poll was not my idea. The people at mydigitallife.info asked for a poll, which I didn't think was too great an idea (because it leads to people thinking that the developer has a lot of latency with regards to adding or removing features), but I gave them one. And thought I might as well give the good people of reboot.pro a chance to voice their opinion as well.



#36 Wonko the Sane

Wonko the Sane

    The Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 13649 posts
  • Location:The Outside of the Asylum (gate is closed)
  •  
    Italy

Posted 11 September 2015 - 04:31 PM

The poll was not my idea. The people at mydigitallife.info asked for a poll, which I didn't think was too great an idea (because it leads to people thinking that the developer has a lot of latency with regards to adding or removing features), but I gave them one. And thought I might as well give the good people of reboot.pro a chance to voice their opinion as well.

The real issue with the poll is IMHO (besides the actual results/opinions expressed in it) that - as often happens - the amount of people actually taking part to it is so little that the only meaningful data coming out of it is that less than <put here a percentage, knowing how many downloads Rufus had> % of users actually has an actual opinion on the matter or wants to express it.

 

So, if you feel that keeping support for XP is "morally wrong" :w00t: or simply would take too much time/effort, the right thing to do is to remove support for the upcoming version, you surely are the only one that knows the actual balance, while evidently a large part of Rufus users (at least the ones members of either reboot.pro and MDL) seem like pretty much indifferent to the decision.

 

As a side note, you might appreciate how posting on this thread - since it makes the thread "float" at the top of reboot.pro - helps in making the poll as much "visible" as possible :).

 

:duff:

Wonko



#37 Akeo

Akeo

    Frequent Member

  • Developer
  • 301 posts
  •  
    Ireland

Posted 21 September 2015 - 10:26 PM

Well, since there are bugs to fix, it's time for Rufus 2.4 BETA, which comes with the following:

  • Allow some settings and cheat modes to be persisted
  • Fix multiple issues with flash drive detection
  • Fix removal of drives that contain no media
  • Fix cheat mode to save the current USB to uncompressed VHD (Alt-V)
  • Update most of the translations

Available at the usual place...

 

And since I guess people might ask about the settings that are now being saved between sessions, these persisted settings are:

  - Advanced mode (UI)
  - Timestamps preservation (Alt-T)
  - Proper unit Display (Alt-U)
  - USB debug (Alt-.)
  - Fake drives detection (Alt- B)
  - Dual UEFI+BIOS for Windows images (Alt-E)
  - Force Large FAT32 formatting (Alt-L)
  - VMWare Disk Detection (Alt-W)

 

Whereas settings that are NOT persisted include:

  - UDB HDD listing (too dangerous!)
  - NTFS compression (Alt-N)
  - ISO/Joliet/Rock-Ridge (too confusing if not reset)
  - Disabling of size limits (Alt-S)



#38 Akeo

Akeo

    Frequent Member

  • Developer
  • 301 posts
  •  
    Ireland

Posted 27 September 2015 - 07:35 PM

And Rufus 2.4 has now been released.

 

The final ChangeLog is as follows:

  • Allow some settings and cheat modes to be persisted between sessions
  • Fix multiple issues with flash drive detection
  • Fix listing of drives that contain no media
  • Fix cheat mode to save the current USB to uncompressed VHD (Alt-V)
  • Fix an UI scaling issue with high DPI displays for non English languages
  • Update most of the translations
  • Additional cosmetic improvements


#39 Akeo

Akeo

    Frequent Member

  • Developer
  • 301 posts
  •  
    Ireland

Posted 26 October 2015 - 07:45 PM

Rufus 2.5 has now been released, with the following changes from last version:

  • Add SHA-256 checksum verification
  • Add a cheat mode to disable exclusive USB drive locking (Alt-,)
  • Add digital signature check on update downloads
  • Add Azerbaijani translation, courtesy of Elvin Məlikov
  • Add Persian translation, courtesy of Seyed Zia Azimi (ziaa)
  • Fix an issue where the update settings dialog may not display properly
  • Report Windows build number in the log (Windows 8 or later)
  • Many localization improvements and fixes, especially for right-to-left languages
  • Additional translation updates

Enjoy!


  • sbaeder likes this

#40 sbaeder

sbaeder

    Gold Member

  • .script developer
  • 1334 posts
  • Location:usa - massachusettes
  •  
    United States

Posted 31 October 2015 - 06:00 PM

First (and not to open an old wound), I agree 100% with drop of XP going forward.  I was shocked to see that I had to add to my VS2015 the "XP" stuff to compile it...  Now to the real reason to post -

 

THANK YOU for making the source available,  "clean" to compile in community edition of VS, and for the  recent updates to support VS2015...

 

I ran into a situation where I needed a x64 version of the tool.  I happen to have a commercial repair suite that recently shifted to a x64 based "winpe".  Needless to say, without the 32 bit subsystem code, the provided executables wouldn't run.

 

I searched around for awhile and didn't find a "ready made" solution, so I thought I'd just clone the code and compile it myself!  Usually, this is not just a single press of the button - and can be quite messy...BUT your solution was totally PAINLESS...Just flip the flag in VS, and compile!   AWESOME!  So, again, thanks!!!

 

Now if I am running my PE, I can (if necessary) easily load an ISO onto a USB Flash drive without any worries...

 

Scott

 

 

 

p.s. Might be nice to have a real x64 build to download on your sight for just such a use case...



#41 Akeo

Akeo

    Frequent Member

  • Developer
  • 301 posts
  •  
    Ireland

Posted 31 October 2015 - 06:13 PM

You're welcome.
 

I have a commercial "winpe" repair suite that recently shifted to x64 base, and your provided executable wouldn't run


I find it surprising that a repair suite would choose to shoot themselves in the foot by disabling 32 bit compatibility (which, AFAIK, is not exactly possible - but you can remove 32 bit DLLs, which will likely break 32 bit apps), because then you will run into exactly the kind of problem you've mentioned. With drives being more than large enough these days, removing WOW64 content doesn't make much sense.

As to providing an official 64 bit version, I am not planning to do that. You're the only person I've had reporting an issue from using 32bit, and from what I gather, yours is a very special case where people who built their own Windows distribution deliberately chose to break 32 bit compatibility. Therefore, it's just not worth the effort providing a 64 bit version.

#42 Wonko the Sane

Wonko the Sane

    The Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 13649 posts
  • Location:The Outside of the Asylum (gate is closed)
  •  
    Italy

Posted 08 November 2015 - 05:35 PM

If I may :unsure:, maybe there is an underlying misunderstanding (just to make things as clear as possible and put the blame -if any - on the actual culprits).

 

A "default" (as the good MS guys provide it or related tools) WinPE made from 64 bit source contains not WOW64, only some "third party" builders/projects (like as an example Win7PE_SE or Win8PE_SE) manage to add the subsystem to the build (and have it actually working), in other words the good guys making the Commercial recovery suite did not actually remove anything, they more simply failed to add the WOW64 to the build (and BTW the procedure to add the subsystem is not exactly easy-peasy, seemingly).

An additional issue is that (AFAIK, but the last check was made a few months ago, so that the situation may have changed in the meantime):

http://reboot.pro/to...pe/#entry195312

http://reboot.pro/to...e-7#entry193559

there is not yet a known way (or a successful project) to add WOW64 to Windows 10 based PE's.

 

So, the push for "64 bit computing only" comes seemingly from MS and the guys from the "Commercial recovery suite" are only responsible for having switched (I would presume without a real reason) to the 64 bit PE, i.e. "following the trend", without fully considering the implications in the (admittedly UNcommon, but still IMHO well within the foreseeable) cases such as the one sbaeder happened to experience with Rufus.

 

:duff:

Wonko



#43 paraglider

paraglider

    Gold Member

  • .script developer
  • 1716 posts
  • Location:NC,USA
  •  
    United States

Posted 11 November 2015 - 01:18 PM

If you have a 64 bit uefi based computer then, unless you disable secure boot which is not always an option, you are forced to use a 64 bit PE. Most new computers will be 64 bit uefi based.



#44 paraglider

paraglider

    Gold Member

  • .script developer
  • 1716 posts
  • Location:NC,USA
  •  
    United States

Posted 11 November 2015 - 01:25 PM

Given that wow64 support in 64 bit pe requires patching of system files I think it is best avoided in commercial products.



#45 Akeo

Akeo

    Frequent Member

  • Developer
  • 301 posts
  •  
    Ireland

Posted 10 December 2015 - 01:01 PM

Well, as the year 2015 is coming to an end, bugs certainly aren't... :geek:

...which means it's time for a new BETA!

 

Rufus 2.6 BETA:

  • Add Serbian (Latin) translation, courtesy of Ivan Strugar
  • Add a cheat mode to zero a device (Alt-Z)
  • Fix dual BIOS/UEFI mode not being disabled once enabled (Alt-E)
  • Fix a crash when Syslinux downloaded files are modified by a firewall
  • Fix FAT32 not being disabled for Windows ISOs in BIOS/CSM mode
  • Additional translation updates


#46 Akeo

Akeo

    Frequent Member

  • Developer
  • 301 posts
  •  
    Ireland

Posted 22 December 2015 - 08:36 PM

Rufus 2.6 has now been released. Same changelog as above.



#47 Akeo

Akeo

    Frequent Member

  • Developer
  • 301 posts
  •  
    Ireland

Posted 05 February 2016 - 11:14 PM

Rufus 2.7 BETA is now up, which brings the following changes:

 

  • Add Thai translation, courtesy of Sippapas Wangsri
  • Add Drag and Drop support, courtesy of SeymourApps
  • Add a retry for most write operations
  • Update UEFI:NTFS, ms-sys and Grub4DOS to latest
  • Dual sign Rufus with both SHA-1 and SHA-256
  • Fix 2nd line of SHA-256 being hidden on some platforms
  • Fix shutdown prevention issues
  • Additional small fixes

Now, since I'm never gonna miss a good reason to chastise people still using XP in this day and age :chair: , the reason why Rufus is now SHA-256 signed (also improperly called "SHA-2" by Microsoft because, apparently, confusing people is just something that Microsoft does) is due to this, i.e. applications that are digitally signed with SHA-1 (which was the case for Rufus up to now) and downloaded from the web, are now blocked by default on Windows 7 and later, effective 2016.01.01.

 

But of course, one thing Microsoft did NOT do on XP and Vista in all the years and months they've had (and still have in the case of Vista, though time is fast running out), was update their damn PKI algorithms to bring them up to speed with the rest, which means that neither XP or Vista will ever know anything about SHA-256.

 

This of course is a massive PITA for diligent application developers like yours truly, who want to offer some form of assurance to all their users that, yeah, that app that runs elevated and does low level stuff with drives and boot records, is probably not going to do anything nasty, because now, if we want to also keep XP and Vista people happy, we have to sign using both SHA-1 and SHA-256, and of course have 2 set of credentials to do so. But of course, not every developer out there is going to go through this kind of bother, especially if they never had a multi-year SHA-1 certificate in the first place. So, once again, the security risk for anybody running XP has been increased significantly (even more so as SHA-1 should be considered unsafe, which is precisely what prompted MS to upgrade their signature checks for newer Windows platforms in the first place)...



#48 Wonko the Sane

Wonko the Sane

    The Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 13649 posts
  • Location:The Outside of the Asylum (gate is closed)
  •  
    Italy

Posted 06 February 2016 - 09:40 AM

 

Now, since I'm never gonna miss a good reason to chastise people still using XP in this day and age :chair: , the reason why Rufus is now SHA-256 signed ... 

Sure :), and of course I cannot exempt myself from stating how, since Windows 7 is out since 2009 and according to the (failed) theory that it is so much safer (actually also Vista should be safer than XP, but the numbers are too low to build upon any meaningful statistics) in these last almost 7 (seven) years this much safer OS (and its involutions as 8/8.1/10) with their numberless security updates should have by now  pushed out of the market a lot of people, mainly virus writers/hackers, antivirus firms and a large part of computer shops.

More than that, everyone still running XP should have had his/her machines infected tens or hundreds of times and their data would have been either leaked or destroyed several times.

 

Seemingly this did not happen. :dubbio:

 

Of course anyone running XP in this day and age is a reckless mindless jerk, but probably they got so used to be called out for so many years that they are not anymore sensible to this kind of argument.

 

:duff:

Wonko



#49 Akeo

Akeo

    Frequent Member

  • Developer
  • 301 posts
  •  
    Ireland

Posted 06 February 2016 - 01:37 PM

I must admit that I find it interesting how you attempt to twist a comment that simply states that:
 

the security risk for anybody running XP has been increased significantly


into:
 

everyone still running XP should have had his/her machines infected tens or hundreds of times


This is not what I am saying (or even implying at all). I also didn't say anything about 8-10 being unimpregnable.

Finally not all malware will try to steal data or make itself known. The last major malware occurence I got (On Windows 8.1 if I might add) was designed to remain inconspicuous and steal CPU cycles to harvest bitcoins...

 

So, once again, and using an easy to understand car analogy, let me restate that using XP in this day and age is like using a car that is known for having a lock system that is easy to pick (how "easy" is difficult to quantify, but the fact is that it becomes easier and easier as time passes) and no alarm. That doesn't mean that it's going to be broken next time you go shopping, because as with everything, probability comes into play here. But you significantly increased the probability of having something bad happen, and even more so if you ever happen to park it into a bad neighbourhood (which may be tricky to recognize, even if you are actively trying to avoid them).



#50 Wonko the Sane

Wonko the Sane

    The Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 13649 posts
  • Location:The Outside of the Asylum (gate is closed)
  •  
    Italy

Posted 06 February 2016 - 02:07 PM

I never hinted that you said that, I said that the theory about newer Windows OS being much safer than XP should have reasonably led to a number of expected phenomenons, that seemingly did not happen.

 

If you prefer, the theory is nice, most probably is correct, but we have not (yet) as much evidence as expected that it applies to practice.

 

Since you declared in your post about your intention to chastise other people, you shouldn't be so touchy if someone (who recklessly insists on using insecure OS's ) posts some comments on the matter.

 

So let me state (for the first time ;)) how using XP in this day and time is like using a car that is known for having a lock system that is easy to pick and no alarm.

Still actual car theft statistics lead to believe that these very old, simple, rudimentary vehicles are not stolen with greater frequency than later models coming with safer locks, electronic immobilizer and/or satellite anti-theft system.

Parking any of them overnight into a bad neighbourhood is something anyway not particularly smart and better if avoided, as it increases the probability of vehicle theft, but there is no meaningful data about the bad guys preferring to steal the old cars over the new, shiny ones.

 

:duff:

Wonko







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: rufus

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users