WIndows XP Ultimate edition (By Johnny), Can I upload?
I am aware that you can not upload windows XP yet, but Windows XP ultimate edition is a hacked version of XP, Almost like Longhorn, as it is part Vista, and that is available. It is at from 2007, but got updated all the way to 2010, when production stopped. It was rarely used, and most users have now abandoned it, other than some fun on VPC's. This version is now only downloadable through insecure torrents, due to the lack of people who actually downloaded it before it vanished off the face of the earth. I am one of the few who owns a copy from 2008, when the OS was relatively stable, and i wanted to share it with the WinWorld. Considering that Microsoft no longer cares about XP, and there are more than a few sites to get a clean download, I think that it should be allowed to upload.
Comments
We don't want hackjobs of any sorts. I've even purged out all-in-one ISO's to comply with this. There's no reason to preserve this because few people ever use these hack jobs anyway. They're not usable for any day to day, contain very little the average user can not install afterwords and can be broken with who knows what due to random modifications by usually inexperienced people.
I keep the DOS 7.1 thing around because it's an easy standalone but I can probably fulfill that with various bootdisks.
I don't like garbage. On that note, cdintray, I'm pretty sure I know exactly what dumb BA kid you are so guess what I think of you? If I see even one dumb bitmap topic come out of you I will tie you to a jet-ski, tie a brick to the accelerator and send you down the river of dumb that way.
History does not care about some Windows 2000 CD that some kid hacked up to look like Windows 7.
Someone trying to demonstrate NT 4 on a DEC Alpha machine will probably have no use for some "custom" cd, that likely strips out all non i386 versions. And even if it didn't, when some problem crops up, you can't reliably compare issues from existing knowledge bases, because there could be unknown issues with the custom image.
Occasionally, a modified version can serve some important function to the community. But in those cases differences should be well implemented and documented so that it is not really a "hackjob".
Now there are some that are great but they're mostly aimed for custom hardware or a special software spec for say business use so a tech doesn't have to carry and use a stack of CDs or jump drives to restore/install.
Honestly, why does everyone want XP? As much as I didn't want to migrate from XP I had no choice to update to 7 because the software and hardware I use/need doesn't like XP unless im lucky enough to find a Open Source version that works in Linux.
WinWorld goes by true Abandonware specs. We only issue copies that are from the manufacturer and if there is a updated version from the manufacturer we host it as well as long as it is listed as Abandonware.
It serves no purpose here, but the "Ghost XP" things that are big in china are somewhat amusing to poke around with, merely to see how much mangling is done to make the installation process as automated as possible.
It is certainly a poor quality hack job and we will not be carrying this or anything like this. If it's Windows it better come directly from Microsoft or an authorized 3rd party (Citrix, Mainsoft, etc).
Windows XP Ultimate Edition is only a cracked version of Windows with what appears to be a free Windows Vista transformation pack preinstalled, and a some broke registry keys and missing files/programs.
Well, WinXP/2003 is the very last Windows version that could be easily tweaked and modified into being safe. Anything afterwards the NSA has it's filthy paw in.
Just look how Vista removed the classic network traffic icon from the bottom-right corner of the screen; they didn't want people to notice phantom connections going on and off all the time.
There's also the problem of useless, potentially dangerous, perpetually open ports that can't be shut down without sacrificing system usability and stability. XP has none of it.
Newer Windows' were also designed to be unnecessarily sluggish on purpose. It's no longer "how can we make this thing more efficient to allow users to get the best out of their hardware?" but "how can we make this thing slower so that people throw away perfectly functional, powerful-enough hardware and blow a bunch of money on a newer PC manufactured by a company that sealed a backdoor deal with us".
Lower level access to certain devices such as floppy disk drives is impossible in newer Windows', and compatibility with legacy XP/9x software is worthless and achieved only by exceeding poor emulation.
The list goes on and on.
Fortunately all the software I need runs ok on XP, so I cling on to it.
Nevertheless, these modified XP distributions have no reason to exist and are aimed towards people who shouldn't be allowed near computers to begin with.
Indeed, and that's why I specifically stated "that could be easily tweaked and modified into being safe".
That's not even technically possible because of the minimum system requirements. E.g. I have an ancient 1.5ghz Celeron-powered laptop with 192mb of RAM which's perfectly responsive and capable of displaying smooth SD youtube video from Opera 12.14; go ahead, install Win7 on that thing and watch it smoke.
You could make the case with a fresh, clean, fine tuned Win7 installation against a WinXP's plagued with viruses, spyware and all matter of junk cluttering up the startup, but that's as far as I'm going.
I have many reasons to stay away from any Windows OS past XP/2003, some of them already listed above, but the bigger one: WinXP still does everything I need it to do and does it well.
If you're actually concerned about things phoning home, you're better off actually looking for it, as the network icon would blink for trivial events like IM/SSH/omgwtfbbq clients, network participation, and such. Even then, why would they make it obvious and detectable, and hide it in something like a rootkit? If you're that concerned, why are you running proprietary software in the first place?
XP was shit then, and it'll always be shit. Newer Windows do everything XP does, better. Simple as that.
Um... no.
By default, Vista disables the activity lights on the network icon, but the network icon is still there and you can easily re-enable the activity lights by simply right clicking on the icon and clicking on "Turn on activity animation"
It's worth noting that this feature was introduced with Windows 2000 (I don't believe ME had it, but I could be wrong) and disabled by default with XP as well. So you really only had like 3 versions of Windows that even had this feature and only 1 that had it on by default and even then I'm not sure it was enabled by default with 2000.
Windows 7 was the first to switch it to a static icon, but you can easily re-add the functionality with third party applications like this: http://www.itsamples.com/network-activi ... cator.html
While I agree the feature shouldn't have been removed, it was also completely useless for indicating anything like backdoors. The best it could do is tell you something was talking on the network and if you weren't doing anything that required a network connection, you would then have to investigate with other tools to figure out exactly what program was talking and to what.
As far as performance goes, Windows 8.1 outperforms 7 greatly. People keep bitching about the missing start menu and avoiding it like the plague, but they're missing out on some really nice performance increases. The whole OS feels much snappier on the same hardware vs Windows 7.
I agree with the philosophy of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" and could understand not wanting to upgrade, but the fact of the matter is, XP *is* broke and newer versions of Windows fix it.
Back when XP came out, everyone hated it... it was a dog compared to 2000, but we were eventually forced to use it for the application / game support it offered. After a while, we learned to beat it into submission and updates and service packs made it more tolerable, but it's still a piece of shit compared to 7/8.1.
I'm not saying 7 / 8.1 are perfect, but they're better than XP for sure.
That's not the point. The Celeron is not my main rig, but I've made mention of it in the example to the intent that you may understand that WinXP, as stable and powerful as it is (once you have performed the necessary tweaks and modifications, and even without doing so, if the install's still fresh and not polluted), remains so light it will run fast on that older piece of hardware, as opposed to this mammon of sluggishness that you claim runs sprightly on your P3, a claim you couldn't possibly utter with a straight face even if your life depended on it.
You'd do foolishly to trust a mere icon for your security. I have firewalled and wiresharked this thing shut and not a single bit leaves or enters this computer without me knowing about it.
I'm not concerned, it's all under control. However, open source, non-proprietary software is theoretically safer only if you can corroborate it so by studying the thousands of lines of code yourself (or trusting someone else to do it, which again, it's all a matter of trust), and I don't have time for that, so I choose to trust WinXP, based on my own experience, after having used it and abused it for 14 years now.
Yeah right
It was available in WinME as well.
Yep, that must have been it. Guess I had it mixed up with Vista.
Correct, but I don't think anybody in his right mind would trust this feature alone for anything other than what you yourself have described. It's merely a handy indicator, but it was sufficient to raise some red flags, so they did away with it.
I'd have to agree on the performance part, provided it's a modern computer. As for the menus, I couldn't even stand the looks and layout of the post-XP start menus anyways.
I don't personally believe that would classify as an upgrade. The truth is, I leave everything to third party applications and the OS is there just as a platform, to provide the file system, the api and the gui, and that's about as much of it as I have use for.
Also XP allows me to have full control of what goes on behind the curtains, and can hide nothing from me, so if a useless service has to die, it dies. Newer Microsoft OS', on the other hand, make a lot of uneducated decisions and compromises that affect performance, specially on my single core computer which greatly benefits from being able to assign the 100% of the available speed to a single yet demanding application, and the CPU usage here is a perfect, round 0% when nothing's running (try that on Win7, even Win8, and see how well it goes)
It was all over with after SP1. That's the upgrade that made WinXP not only usable, but enjoyable for me, and I have not looked back ever since.
Let's just agree to disagree there
I also happen to agree with you, as there has not been a Windows version that wasn't bad to some degree or another, but I do certainly miss the freshness of Win31. As bad as it was, there's something to it that's just enchanting...
I think if you value security as much as you do, then a lack of these multimedia-oriented APIs shouldn't matter.
My Windows 8.1 machine boots in like 5-10 seconds, has never BSOD'd and handles pretty much everything I ever did on XP.
You really shouldn't run 7 on such low specs, but 8.1 would definitely run better than 7 on that hardware.