That's certainly what MS would like you to think so that you are encouraged to move on. Whether, objectively, it is true is quite another matter. My own suggestion would be to ditch MS security stuff in favour of, say, AVG+ZoneAlarm or Avast+ZoneAlarm (free versions), though the firewall component of MSE is better (in a number of labs' opinions) than the AV component. Coming back to the original query, if using XP for FH exclusively, there is very little danger from external nasties *provided* the firewall is secure. The only way in to a machine without some sort of action by the user is via unguarded 'ports' and it is precisely this that firewalls prevent. If you use a router of some sort, then you've a second firewall between you and the outside world. If you use wifi to connect to the router then you *must* use one of the security systems. Any of the usual providers supply their routers set up for secure connections, so that should be ok. Bob ================================quote======================== The problem with the lack of XP Windows Updates is nothing to do with reliability or new features, but plugging its security holes, and XP has more than the more recent versions of Windows.

The "spurious button-pressing options" I mentioned were in regard to users being invited to download Trojans. With an unfamiliar Web site, a button may execute any amount of script behind the scenes, and depending on your settings they may install software that isn't obviously malware and may not be noticed. Tony Proctor ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob Margolis" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2014 2:48 PM Subject: Re: [FHU] XP's demise > That's certainly what MS would like you to think so that you are > encouraged to move on. Whether, objectively, it is true is quite another > matter. > My own suggestion would be to ditch MS security stuff in favour of, say, > AVG+ZoneAlarm or Avast+ZoneAlarm (free versions), though the firewall > component of MSE is better (in a number of labs' opinions) than the AV > component. > > Coming back to the original query, if using XP for FH exclusively, there > is very little danger from external nasties *provided* the firewall is > secure. > The only way in to a machine without some sort of action by the user is > via unguarded 'ports' and it is precisely this that firewalls prevent. > If you use a router of some sort, then you've a second firewall between > you and the outside world. > If you use wifi to connect to the router then you *must* use one of the > security systems. Any of the usual providers supply their routers set up > for secure connections, so that should be ok. > > Bob > > ================================quote======================== > The problem with the lack of XP Windows Updates is nothing to do with > reliability or new features, but plugging its security holes, and XP has > more than the more recent versions of Windows. > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Bob said: "...the firewall component of MSE is better (in a number of labs' opinions) than the AV component." Can you explain, as I was unaware of any Firewall component in Microsoft Security Essentials. Regards, Mike Tate