Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Microsoft Kills Support For XP SP2

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the too-soon? dept.

Windows 315

Trailrunner7 writes "Microsoft's announcement this week that it is preparing to end support for machines running Windows XP SP2 not only represents a challenge for the thousands of businesses still running SP2, but also is the end of an era for both Microsoft and its customers. It wasn't until 2004 that the final release of XP SP2 hit the streets, but when it did, it represented a huge step forward in security for Windows users. It wasn't necessarily the feature set that mattered as much as the fact that the protections were enabled by default and taken out of the users' hands."

cancel ×

315 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

So what? (5, Insightful)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 4 years ago | (#32197390)

What's wrong with SP3?

Re:So what? (4, Informative)

Andorin (1624303) | more than 4 years ago | (#32197442)

Way back when I had XP SP2, installing SP3 borked my machine. Had to do a System Restore.

Just sayin'.

Re:So what? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32197642)

Way back when I had XP SP1, installing SP2 borked *my* machine. Had to do a full reinstall.

Just sayin'.

Re:So what? (-1, Redundant)

antdude (79039) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198348)

Way back when I had original XP, installing SP1 borked *my* machine. Had to do a full reinstall.

Just sayin'.

Re:So what? (5, Funny)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198412)

Way back when I had 2k, installing XP borked my machine. So I switched to Linux.

Just sayin'.

Re:So what? (0, Offtopic)

antdude (79039) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198642)

Way back when I had 9x (including Me), installing 2000 borked my machine. Had to do a clean install.

Just sayin'.

Re:So what? (0, Offtopic)

elashish14 (1302231) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198496)

Way back when I had Win98, installing WinME borked **my** machine. Had to do a full reinstall - and buy a toupee.

Just sayin'

Re:So what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32197924)

I had the same problem going from XP SP1 to SP2.

Later, I tried installing SP3 clean to the same machine. It blue screened every time during the progress bar part of the install sequence.

Re:So what? (2, Insightful)

Backward Z (52442) | more than 4 years ago | (#32197944)

I had the same problem going from XP SP1 to SP2.

Later, I tried installing SP3 clean to the same machine. It blue screened every time during the progress bar part of the install sequence.

Re:So what? (1)

ls671 (1122017) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198188)

Same when trying to go from SP2 to SP3, the machine wouldn't boot after installation, I had to use System restore. Oh well, my machine configuration has changed since so I guess I have a couple months yet to give it another try.

Machine is HP Pavillion a1450n - AMD Athlon 64X2 Dual Core 4200+ running in 32 bit mode. Anybody else experienced the same with this specific setup ?

Re:So what? (1)

Mr. DOS (1276020) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198306)

There was an issue with AMD processors right after release. AFAIK, they fixed it within a couple weeks of release. Still, do all other available updates before trying it, and you might want to try the offline installer [microsoft.com] - I've had better luck with that than the Windows Update site.

Re:So what? (2, Insightful)

mollog (841386) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198494)

Microsoft has no incentive to support older operating systems, especially the really good versions of older operating systems. Indeed, they have every reason to be careless about 'updates' to those older operating system and ignore problems caused by those 'updates' because their policy is to recommend their newest product. Obviously, the policy of recommending customers buy their newest product to fix problems with their previous product is a profitable policy.

The reason that this article is newsworthy is because so many corporate customers balked at the Vista upgrade cycle. XP was known to work better with fewer resource requirements. Many of the PC's built that were claimed to be 'Vista Ready' (TM) were dogs with Vista but were perfectly usable with XP. Imagine, an 'upgrade' to a line of operating systems that performs worse than its predecessor. So, corporate customers demanded, en masse, that Microsoft continue to offer XP as an alternative to Vista.

For the first time in my memory Microsoft blinked, and extended its support of the XP revision despite the obvious disadvantage to its profits. Its customers had learned to put their foot down and refuse Microsoft's self-serving upgrade recommendations.

To my mind, XP is the most stable release of an operating system since MS-DOS 5. Everybody hailed it as uncharacteristically stable and usable.

Re:So what? (1)

WaroDaBeast (1211048) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198044)

It is recommended that you slipstream the service pack(s) along with the OS onto a blank disc using software such as nLite instead of installing the OS and the service pack(s) separately.

My €0.02.

Re:So what? (4, Insightful)

westlake (615356) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198212)

Way back when I had XP SP2, installing SP3 borked my machine. Had to do a System Restore.

The plural of anecdote is not data. How many upgrades to SP3 were successful on the first attempt?

Re:So what? (0)

pilgrim23 (716938) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198318)

You take a typically crap MS opsys. loose it on a unsuspecting world. 6 months later you issue a patch, you then patch the patch. 7 years later it is a mass of duct tape, band aids and spot welds. but MAN it is robust! Windows 7: rinse and repeat 'tiss the Redmond Way.....

Re:So what? (2, Insightful)

Mister Whirly (964219) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198486)

And this is different from any other operating systems how exactly?

Re:So what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32198658)

OK, but at our corporation we deployed SP3 to 80,000 machines and nary a handful were "borked". Just sayin'

Re:So what? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32197452)

It has WGA in it.

Re:So what? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32197558)

It has WGA in it.

But the "A" stands for "advantage", dude!

Re:So what? (1)

RobertLTux (260313) | more than 4 years ago | (#32197810)

ya know that bit is "fixable"

Re:So what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32197468)

really, you can download it for free and on even "old" machines it takes what 20 min?

Re:So what? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32197548)

Nothing wrong with SP3. Just another "security columnist" trying to make headlines by exaggerating a minor event. Title of his article? "End of Support for XP SP2 is End of an Era", give me a break.

Re:So what? (1)

iamhassi (659463) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198400)

"Title of his article? "End of Support for XP SP2 is End of an Era", give me a break."

It is the End of an Era. XP was the first Microsoft OS that didn't suck. If XP wasn't released and Apple became the dominate player they have become, there's a good chance 50% of PCs would be Macs and Linux would be fair more popular than it is today.

I remember the daily struggle with 95/95b. OS was such crap I did nightly backups to a $250 1.6/3.2gb TR3 tape drive [wikipedia.org] and could restore 95 and all data in a few hours. It was like a old car that's always breaking down when you need to be somewhere. 98 wasn't much better, and we all know the jokes about ME. 2000 was amazing, but couldn't run games. In 2001 XP finally brought everything together, [wikipedia.org] 2000's stability and 98's gaming, and we could finally stop buying a new OS every 2-3 yrs because XP worked! Then, 6 yrs after XP was released, M$ gives us the flaming hunk of poop called Vista. [apcmag.com] It was such poo that M$ returned to it's old development schedule and replaced Vista in 2 years with 7. [wikipedia.org]

So anyone who felt the daily pains of working with 95/98/ME thank God everyday for XP and it really is the End of an Era. I will use XP until new programs don't work on it anymore.

Re:So what? (1)

dwiget001 (1073738) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198528)

"2000 was amazing, but couldn't run games"

Uh, I had a Win 2000 Pro system that I used for gaming back in the day, no problems, solid as a rock.

It (Win 2000) was a better OS than XP ever was as far as stability in my direct personal experience with both OSes.

Re:So what? (1)

Bobfrankly1 (1043848) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198554)

2000 was amazing, but couldn't run games.

It *could* run games, but every time you went to update something, you ran the risk of the update hosing the whole system. Fun times!

Re:So what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32198600)

Uhmm, no offense, but 2k could run games just fine after they got around to the DirectX update (which I think was probably '01). How do I know this? Because I'd been using it for the last 5-7 years on a series of computers ranging from 2nd gen Pentium 4 up to a 2nd gen C2D :)

Honestly as long as you avoid games for windows, and did some hunting for the right windows updates you can run 9/10s of 'XP only' software on 2k, and the best part is: If you've got a dual core instead of hyperthreading, there was no need for XP, because hyperthreaded cpu support was the only major thing it added :D

Re:So what? (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#32197622)

More like, why would you need support for SP2?

In any case, I'm sure most Microsoft employees will tell you "Did you do the Windows Updates? Do you have all of them installed? No? Bye"

Re:So what? (1)

strayant (789108) | more than 4 years ago | (#32197858)

Yessir.... that's in the part of their script that starts off: "Is it plugged in? Well plug it in first..."

Re:So what? (4, Interesting)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 4 years ago | (#32197640)

MS never released it for XP64, this kinda leaves XP64 w/sp2 users going wtf.

Re:So what? (3, Funny)

spidercoz (947220) | more than 4 years ago | (#32197688)

all 3 of them

Re:So what? (1)

sa1lnr (669048) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198536)

Ok, who are the other two?

Re:So what? (5, Funny)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 4 years ago | (#32197696)

Anyone using XP 64bit has pretty much been doing that since the day they installed the OS anyway.

Re:So what? (1)

Ephemeriis (315124) | more than 4 years ago | (#32197828)

Anyone using XP 64bit has pretty much been doing that since the day they installed the OS anyway.

Indeed.

XP64 was always a mess. The only reason I liked Vista at all was the mainstream support for 64-bit systems.

Re:So what? (1)

yeshuawatso (1774190) | more than 4 years ago | (#32197982)

Yeah but the advantage of Vista for x64 users was XPx64 users got 64-bit drivers without the annoyance of Vista. Since the kernels were the same, you could use Vista drivers on your system. But honestly, if you were using x64 it was for RAM purposes and your machine most likely had support directly from the manufacture. What sucks is a few of those manufactures stop supporting drivers for their systems beyond XP x64 (I'm looking at you SUN MICROSYSTEMS!)

Re:So what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32197880)

No, XP64 SP2 remains supported per the MS policy. This change only affects 32-bit SP2.
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=fh;[ln];lifesupsps

Re:So what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32198004)

Not exactly from TFA, but Microsoft's documentation on end of support and its ramifications:

"There's no SP3 for the 64-bit version of Windows XP. If you're running the 64-bit version of Windows XP with SP2, you have the latest service pack and will continue to be eligible for support and receive updates until April 8, 2014."

Re:So what? (1)

TheLink (130905) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198202)

I'd go "WTF" at people who install XP64 for nonexperimental use.

Hard for me to say which is worse: XP64 or vista. Like choosing which way to be tortured slowly to death.

FWIW, I use Windows 7 64 bit at work (boss's bright idea), and I still prefer Windows XP SP3.
Windows 7 had this annoying problem: "Windows Explorer may stop responding for 30 seconds when a file or a directory is created or renamed after certain applications are installed."
It sure was longer than 30 seconds for me. I hope it's really fixed now: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/980408 [microsoft.com]
There are lots of other annoyances: it still takes a while to display certain folders, you can probably press Esc or something. You can't quickly close windows by right clicking on the task button and pressing C. And I currently can't think of any way it helps me do things faster or be more productive. The only thing that might be useful is the per app volume control, however this is a work machine so I normally just mute the sound or have everything at a low sound level.

Re:So what? (2, Informative)

Ralish (775196) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198436)

That's because XP x64 isn't actually XP (NT 5.1), it's Windows Server 2003 (NT 5.2). That is, it's really only XP in name as it is built off the Windows Server 2003 codebase. It has all the server functionality of its counterparts removed as well as some minor functionality present in XP but absent from the server releases included. Consequently, they share the same service packs and updates, with the latest service pack for Windows Server 2003 being SP2. Unless of course, you meant the original "XP" Itanium release, which really is built off of XP, but support for that was discontinued a long time ago.

Re:So what? (1)

confused one (671304) | more than 4 years ago | (#32197722)

Its death has also been foretold. Three years hence... tick. tick. tick.

Re:So what? (2, Insightful)

Ephemeriis (315124) | more than 4 years ago | (#32197780)

What's wrong with SP3?

At my previous job they were still using a piece of software that did not like SP3 - only ran happily on SP2 and older systems.

This wasn't a problem at the time because Microsoft still supported SP2 installs.

Re:So what? (1)

yotto (590067) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198104)

My job has a couple OS/2 machines, because a piece of software we rely on only runs on OS/2. We don't expect IBM (Or that program's creator, who has since moved on to operating systems made in the past decade) to support it. We support it ourselves.

Move on with technology or be ready to work on it yourself.

Re:So what? (1)

BigDeek (1805030) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198242)

mY dOOD. iM ALL tOtALLY DoWn wItH SP3. Rock on man.

Too late, Redmond (5, Funny)

Dystopian Rebel (714995) | more than 4 years ago | (#32197426)

I ended support for Microsoft products a few years ago.

Re:Too late, Redmond (1, Interesting)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 4 years ago | (#32197720)

wow ... aren't you witty and trendy.

Re:Too late, Redmond (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32198472)

wow ... aren't you witty and trendy.

No, no. The word you're looking for is "smug".

Who the hell cares? (1, Informative)

westlake (615356) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198096)

I ended support for Microsoft products a few years ago.

OS Market Share [hitslink.com]

Windows XP 63%
Vista 16%
Win 7 12%
OSX 10.6 2%
OSX 10.5 2%
Linux 1%

Windows ME 0.03%
iPad 0.03%

OS Share Trends [hitslink.com]

Jun 2009 Win 7 1%. Linux 1%.
Apr 2009 Win 7 12% Linux 1%

nooooo (1)

Mekkah (1651935) | more than 4 years ago | (#32197456)

NooooooooooO OOOOOOOOOOOoooooo

XPSP2? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32197462)

I know this is a nerd site, but still. Is it really that hard to write Windows XP SP2? Or at the very least, put a fucking space between XP and SP2?

LOL (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32197480)

canicuminyourass?

Re:XPSP2? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32197516)

I know you're just trying to be annoying but is it really that hard to write Microsoft Windows XP SP2?

Re:XPSP2? (3, Insightful)

spidercoz (947220) | more than 4 years ago | (#32197610)

I know you tried to make the OP look foolish but is it really that hard to write Microsoft Windows XP Service Pack 2?

Re:XPSP2? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32197668)

Yadda yadda... Microsoft Windows eXPerience Service Pack Two?

Re:XPSP2? (1)

strayant (789108) | more than 4 years ago | (#32197926)

You FOOLS! You forgot the build number... now no one will have any idea what you're talking about!

Re:XPSP2? (1)

coniferous (1058330) | more than 4 years ago | (#32197522)

See, You misunderstand. Microsoft and Sony have teamed up to create a new portable gaming device called XPSP2. This is just part of their viral advertising campaign designed to shock and confuse people! You fell right into it!

Re:XPSP2? (1)

kirk444 (513147) | more than 4 years ago | (#32197654)

a new portable gaming device called XPSP2

With a name like that, it seems more likely to be a Dell/Sony combination, XPS P2.

Re:XPSP2? (1)

Pentium100 (1240090) | more than 4 years ago | (#32197938)

No, it's still wrong. The only way to write it is:

Microsoft(R) Windows(R) XP Service Pack 2

Or are the spaces before "(" also needed?

Re:XPSP2? (1)

spidercoz (947220) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198150)

close, should be Windows(TM)

Re:XPSP2? (1)

Pentium100 (1240090) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198308)

thanks :)

"Kills" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32197492)

Why not say "Murders"? Or is that a little too over the top for /.?

Re:"Kills" (4, Funny)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 4 years ago | (#32197582)

MS bludgeons XPSP2 to death like a small defenseless kitten.

Re:"Kills" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32197660)

Mod Parent Up!!

- the Slashdot Hivemind

Re:"Kills" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32197756)

MS bludgeons XPSP2 to death like a small defenseless kitten.

Then Steve Ballmer eats the corpse raw (amirite Slahsbots?)

Re:"Kills" (1)

halivar (535827) | more than 4 years ago | (#32197812)

With a candelabra. In the Library.

Re:"Kills" (2, Funny)

spidercoz (947220) | more than 4 years ago | (#32197638)

"assassinates" would be better

Re:"Kills" (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198408)

Just because it's got the word "ass" twice in it doesn't make it better, you know.

Re:"Kills" (2, Funny)

LoverOfJoy (820058) | more than 4 years ago | (#32197644)

Why not say "Murders"? Or is that a little too over the top for /.?

I prefer decapitates.

Re:"Kills" (1)

powerlord (28156) | more than 4 years ago | (#32197954)

Considering this IS Microsoft and Windows we're talking about, I prefer:

MicroSoft Defenstrates XP SP2 from From Support. Users told to take a flying leap.

Re:"Kills" (1)

FreonTrip (694097) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198564)

Or defenestrates. Eviscerates?

Rediculous (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32197612)

No excuse to be running XP SP2 still.

Upgrade to Windows 7 or install SP3.

Thousands of business still running SP2? Your kidding right, what do they login to their NT 4 Server and connect to the network using token ring?

Re:Rediculous (1)

risinganger (586395) | more than 4 years ago | (#32197750)

I know of large companies that are still using NT so I wouldn't joke about that too much if I were you.

Re:Rediculous (1)

BigDeek (1805030) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198592)

Yah dude... Win2000sp4 ftw... Rock on!

Cost effectiveness (2, Interesting)

copponex (13876) | more than 4 years ago | (#32197754)

I bought my copy of XP in 2002 for $150. My cost per day is down to about 5 cents, and since it's only a VM now, there's no compelling reason to upgrade to 7. All of the apps work just fine.

I used to wonder why all of these huge businesses were still on Windows NT in the early naughties. It's because it worked, and the smartest CIOs know the real truth about IT: if it ain't broke, don't try to fix it. There will be unforeseen costs and bugs, and if there's not a "killer app" you're gaining for some competitive edge, you're just wasting time and money.

Re:Cost effectiveness (1)

spidercoz (947220) | more than 4 years ago | (#32197894)

There's a line between cost effective and fucking obsolete crap. Like the federally mandated software one department where I work has to use, designed for use in Windows 3.1, that they refuse to update or replace. And I have to support the shit. It barely runs in XP. We're trying to move to 7 and this fed shit is holding up the whole works.

Re:Cost effectiveness (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198446)

Run it inside a virtual machine, on the OS the program is expecting.

Re:Cost effectiveness (1)

denis-The-menace (471988) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198440)

In IT the "if it ain't broke, don't try to fix it" rule only works if your systems do not need to connect to other computers OUTSIDE of you company and do not need/want changes.

Re:Rediculous (1)

spidercoz (947220) | more than 4 years ago | (#32197760)

dude there's plenty of businesses still running 2000, and probably more than you want to think about running 98

Re:Rediculous (1)

EdtheFox (959194) | more than 4 years ago | (#32197766)

Thousands of business still running SP2? Your kidding right...

That's probably fairly accurate. Lot's of smaller businesses don't have paid IT support.

Re:Rediculous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32198032)

I just don't see what SP2 has that gets lost as soon as SP3 is applied. It isn't like the PS3 where a major feature goes away permanently. The biggest issue I see is the migration, and of course, I highly recommend doing a backup (image based if you can) before doing this.

Long term, XP as a whole going away (other than legacy hardware of course) is a good thing. Newer versions of Windows have a lot more inbuilt security, and are able to handle the threats of 2010 and newer, as opposed to being architected around what were bad issues in 2001, then explicit patches added to fix things (pop-up blockers, enabling the firewall by default, etc.) Don't forget that even though the OS needs may not change, security always is moving, and unless the machine is physically disconnected from the Internet, people have to either upgrade their operating systems to keep with the times, or use third party hardware/software that can defend against the latest threats, be it a bug with a Web browser add-on that allows untrusted code to run, an ad-rotating service which allows malformed Javascript feign an antivirus check and to get a user to download and run a Trojan, or some new incoming attack on the IPv6 stack that nobody expected (similar to land/ping of death/smurf in IPv4.)

Re:Rediculous (3, Interesting)

Dog-Cow (21281) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198106)

Ford Motor is still running SP2.

Re:Rediculous (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198428)

Thousands of businesses still use IE6. That should tell you how much they care about new versions, upgrades and service packs.

Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32197620)

The summary appears to be a bunch of random, disjoint sentences from the article. Which is OK, since the article itself appears to be just a bunch of sentence fragments cut and pasted together from more reputable news sources.

Was this really the best article and submission Slashdot received on this topic?

64bit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32197626)

Can somebody tell if this covers 64bit version which only has SP2 ??

News? (5, Interesting)

toleraen (831634) | more than 4 years ago | (#32197708)

Microsoft has had their end of life policy available on the web for ages now. Sp2 has been well known to be going EOL. If this threw any sysadmins off-guard...then wow.

The only reason I can see sticking with SP2 is that SP3 hasn't gotten an EAL rating.

Re:News? (3, Informative)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198142)

FYI: EAL ratings [wikipedia.org] I had never heard of this before.

Re:News? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32198312)

Microsoft has had their end of life policy available on the web for ages now. Sp2 has been well known to be going EOL. If this threw any sysadmins off-guard...then wow.

The only reason I can see sticking with SP2 is that SP3 hasn't gotten an EAL rating.

I agree with toleraen (831634),

If any admins get surprised over this one, they're not really admins (well at least not current with MS Technology!)

obviously... (1)

alien9 (890794) | more than 4 years ago | (#32197716)

said that, is also necessary to state that the millions of XP desktops and ATMs and botnets will not stop working today nor anytime soon.

end of MICROSOFT support only (1)

Skarecrow77 (1714214) | more than 4 years ago | (#32197772)

if you call microsoft asking for support for something that they have EOL'd, they will be very happy to point you towards a microsoft-trained and microsoft-certified consultant tech in your area who has the expertise to help you.

Trust me, MS is still getting their money, one way or another.

Typical MS forcing their customers to be slaves (0, Troll)

Dex1331 (1810146) | more than 4 years ago | (#32197836)

The reason why this is a bad thing is because certain companies may have app compatibility issues with SP3 which is why they didn't install the upgrade in the first place if they were smart and discovered the incompatibilities during a beta phase of testing in their environment. Although I doubt there a many like that, they shouldn't be ignored and cut off simply because they have reasons to not upgrade their SP, especially when you consider the cost of MS corp licensing. This is the same reason why a LARGE majority of companies did not move to Vista and even now Win07 due to their 3rd party apps not working on those OS's. I've seen it first hand with financial software that costs literally millions of dollars to obtain corp licensing for. The developers of this software simply aren't ready on their end and there is no reason why a company should HAVE to upgrade just because MS wants more money or compliance (read slavery) from their customers.

Re:Typical MS forcing their customers to be slaves (2, Insightful)

mister_playboy (1474163) | more than 4 years ago | (#32197942)

The developers of this software simply aren't ready on their end and there is no reason why a company should HAVE to upgrade just because MS wants more money or compliance (read slavery) from their customers.

If you don't like the rules of Microsoft's game, then don't run their software. Other options exist.

Re:Typical MS forcing their customers to be slaves (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32197970)

Maybe they should contact the company that supports their multi-million dollar financial software to get off their asses and fix their software.

Microsoft, for all their faults, maintains their OS API quite well. You do not see this sort of API stability from almost any other vendor. API that worked in Windows 95 still works, more or less.

Re:Typical MS forcing their customers to be slaves (2, Insightful)

macbiv (1695966) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198622)

Please tell us then, how long should a company support old software? Forever? Until the last user logs off? XP has been out since 2001. Are there other companies that offer support on products almost a decade old? A few of my clients run businesses on Macs, and I can tell you for damn sure that they don't. Maybe you should find fault with the 3rd party vendors that won't release software that works on new platforms. Vista has been out since 06 or 07 are you telling me that 3 years is too little time to get with the program?

July 13th, default option when booting up. (1)

The Assistant (1162547) | more than 4 years ago | (#32197908)

Dear former Windows XP SP2 user:

Please choose one of the following Linux Alternatives, since we will no longer be supporting Windows XP SP2:

1) Linux Menu (Offers several effective Alternatives)

2) Shut off computer, unplug and install you well tested door stop on the door of your choice.

Thank You,

Microsoft

So, does that make it Abandonware, Legal to Crack? (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32197928)

"..the Library of Congress yesterday approved six exemptions to US copyright. The one most pertinent to gamers is that, for archival purposes, copy protection on software no longer being sold or supported by its copyright holder can be cracked.."

- http://www.joystiq.com/2006/11/23/us-copyright-office-grants-abandonware-rights/ [joystiq.com]

if not, why not? Seriously, interested..

BOOM HEADSHOT (1)

angelwolf71885 (1181671) | more than 4 years ago | (#32197968)

BAM!.. shot through the heart

Re:BOOM HEADSHOT (1)

spidercoz (947220) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198252)

and you're to blame

Re:BOOM HEADSHOT (1)

denis-The-menace (471988) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198498)

you give love

it's on life support (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32198100)

I was in a meeting yesterday where I was told that we didn't have to go to sp3 because we got extended support for sp2 till 2012 so we just wait for win7....

When you are not in an office environment things work differently.

Hell we are still running NT4! but not for long hopefully...

Oh, Noes! (2, Funny)

lbalbalba (526209) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198340)

Next thing you know, they'll be dropping support for my MSDOS systems too!

SP2 support is not dead... (1)

fortapocalypse (1231686) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198558)

It's merely a flesh wound!

The Curse of the Installed Base (1)

NicknamesAreStupid (1040118) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198604)

Microsoft and Intel created a distinct competitive advantage by keeping so much software "backward compatible." I can still run DOS on my computer, but of course the only reason I do is to brag about it on /. Now, they are stuck with the monster they created, a giant albatross on their businesses, slowing every step and darkening every decision. Such is life.

Do you know how God created the universe in six days? He did not have an installed base.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?