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!

Windows XP SP2 Support Ends Tomorrow

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the better-get-patching dept.

Microsoft 251

Vectormatic writes "As can be seen on the product page for Windows XP, support for SP2 ends tomorrow, while the majority of Windows XP users still haven't upgraded to SP3. This could open up millions of users/businesses to exploitation, since security updates for SP2 will stop coming in while security fixes to SP3 may clue hackers in to vulnerabilities."

cancel ×

251 comments

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

Cool (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32873860)

Will it be available in blue?

Re:Cool (2, Informative)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 4 years ago | (#32874004)

Blue, Silver, AND Green [wikipedia.org] !

You get the best from Fisher-Price! Er... Microsoft.

Re:Cool (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32874734)

I quite like the green variant, yet for some reason it wasn't on the default install that shipped with my Dad's Dell (that was about 8 years ago now) and I didn't discover it until I did a reinstall after the machine got infected with some virus.

I shall now surelyupgrade... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32873870)

...from XP SP2 to Ubuntu

Heh... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32873888)

That's like saying you're upgrading from 'ass rape' to 'prison blowjob'.

Re:Heh... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32874168)

See, the difference is, with Windows, you're the one getting his ass raped, with Ubuntu, you're the one getting the blowjob.

Re:Heh... (0, Flamebait)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 4 years ago | (#32874546)

Man, you fanbois are going just a little too far trying to convert others to your distro!

Note (5, Informative)

segin (883667) | more than 4 years ago | (#32873872)

It should be noted that XP SP2 x64 has support until whenever XP SP3 x86 runs out. There is no XP SP3 x64

Re:Note (5, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#32873916)

Luckily, XP x64 was always basically immune anyway. It's pretty hard to get 0wn3d when you can't find a NIC driver...

Re:Note (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32873980)

Any piece of hardware from a company worthy of your business will surely have drivers for XP x64. Or, you're using an old device. If you're using an old device, why the hell are you running an x64 OS?

Re:Note (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32874670)

Device makers largely skipped XP64 because the driver model changed drastically between XP and Vista, and XP64 had a vanishingly small marketshare and was released not particularly long before Vista was. If you want a 64-bit operating system, XP64 was always a poor choice.

Re:Note (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32874022)

It should be noted that XP SP2 x64 has support until whenever XP SP3 x86 runs out. There is no XP SP3 x64

Despite the name, XP x64 is actually the same codebase as win2003 server x64.

Re:Note (1)

lennier1 (264730) | more than 4 years ago | (#32874476)

Exactly, which is why tying its support timeframe to XP SP3 x86 instead of the server OS doesn't make much sense.

Re:Note (2, Informative)

BigDish (636009) | more than 4 years ago | (#32874758)

XP x64 is really Server 2003 "Workstation Edition" - it's compiled from the Server 2003 code, thus uses the same patches (and has the same lifecycle) as Server 2003, not XP.

Oh Noes!!! (5, Insightful)

B5_geek (638928) | more than 4 years ago | (#32873882)

The sky is falling!!!

If these people/companies don't care enough to have upgraded to SP3, they won't care that support for the OS has ended either.

Listen you ignorant slut (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32874010)

There, now that I have you sluts attention, why not come on down to my place and I'll show you a good time. Diggy-diggy!

Re:Oh Noes!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32874424)

What a BS! I tried SP3, but it messed up my website. For some strange reason all the text I entered got posted twice :(

Re:Oh Noes!!! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32874580)

It turned me into a newt!
 
Well I got better...
 

Re:Oh Noes!!! (2, Funny)

localman57 (1340533) | more than 4 years ago | (#32874748)

What a BS! I tried SP3, but it messed up my website. For some strange reason all the text I entered got posted twice :(

Crap! Is that what causes that?
Crap! Is that what causes that?

Re:Oh Noes!!! (1)

confused one (671304) | more than 4 years ago | (#32874830)

What a BS! I tried SP3, but it messed up my website. For some strange reason all the text I entered got posted twice :(

Then you didn't try very hard. Type faster

If XP SP2 isn't supported, why have the copyrights (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32874676)

If XP SP2 isn't supported, why have the copyrights? Microsoft isn't making any money off it. Microsoft don't WANT to make money off it. Microsoft don't want to have to pay to fix problems in their code. So why are they refusing to let anyone else do it?

If someone breaks the copyrights of XP SP2 or earlier, Microsoft has lost NOTHING since they aren't selling or supporting it even any more.

Re:If XP SP2 isn't supported, why have the copyrig (1)

click2005 (921437) | more than 4 years ago | (#32874884)

Because that doesn't sell copies of Windows 7.

Re:Oh Noes!!! (0)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#32874912)

Odd that I can get support for my 2002 automobile, and if there's a flaw found they'll issue a recall, but an OS from the same year gets no support. I could get parts for a classic car easily, but try getting a PC game from 1995 to run well.

This is especially stupid since software has no moving parts to wear out, and is one reason I hate Windows and love Linux. When support stops for a Windows distro you're out of luck, but Linux support is always there.

xp and _win2k_! (5, Interesting)

aradnik (1831756) | more than 4 years ago | (#32873890)

what's more important is that win2k support is withdrawn as well... and quite a few major organization still rely on it...

Re:xp and _win2k_! (2, Informative)

Theoboley (1226542) | more than 4 years ago | (#32874226)

I know the company i currently work at freaked out about 2 months back as the deadline approached for the Win2k Cutoff. Spent a crapload of money to ugrade to server 2008.

Re:xp and _win2k_! (1, Interesting)

TheLink (130905) | more than 4 years ago | (#32874300)

Why'd they freak out? If it doesn't keep falling over (and it shouldn't), it's not as if it'll suddenly fall over tomorrow just because Microsoft stops supporting it.

Re:xp and _win2k_! (5, Insightful)

PPalmgren (1009823) | more than 4 years ago | (#32874420)

Liability. Its kind of hard to say "we tried to be as secure as possible but got owned anyway" when you're using an outdated OS out of its support cycle. Now they can shift the blame back on Microsoft's swiss-cheese.

Could you imagine the damage done if said company makes headlines for losing tons of sensitive customer data, and then has a follow-up headline showing their security practices?

Re:xp and _win2k_! (2, Informative)

antdude (79039) | more than 4 years ago | (#32874702)

Also, there seems to be no updates for W2K SP4 for tomorrow as well that I read. :( So last month's updates were the last ones!

Noob question. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32873894)

If I just update my Windows XP, I'm on SP3?

I hardly ever boot into it, except for updating firmware on some old phones that can't do that in Linux, for example. Since I hadn't yet left the dark side when I bought it bundled and now have a legit copy, I keep it around just in case.

Re:Noob question. (1)

stevenh2 (1853442) | more than 4 years ago | (#32875008)

did you try using wine (http://www.wine.org/) to update the firmware on your phone?

Astonishing (5, Insightful)

jsnipy (913480) | more than 4 years ago | (#32873902)

It is amazing that an service pack would even be supported up to 2 years after the next service pack.

Re:Astonishing (1)

Errol backfiring (1280012) | more than 4 years ago | (#32873962)

Unless that next service pack breaks the OS. Which was exactly what happened to me. SP3 brought my machine to a near halt. After a full three days search how to repair it, I got a new machine.

Re:Astonishing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32874006)

Why didn't you just do a fresh install of XP?

Re:Astonishing (1)

Errol backfiring (1280012) | more than 4 years ago | (#32874100)

I was afraid of actively loosing quite an amount of data. Instead, I made it dual-boot and read the disk from Xubuntu when needed. A full-blown rescue operation was more expensive than a new machine.

Re:Astonishing (1)

tibit (1762298) | more than 4 years ago | (#32874406)

Decently designed XP applications store data in user's profile. This can be very easily backed up and restored. So I don't know how would you "lose quite an amount of data" simply by doing an XP reinstall.

Of course as an administrative user you can store your stuff all over the place, but if you do -- so what, presumably you remember where you put stuff. Simple suggestions: shell $50 for a new HD, plug the existing one as secondary or via a USB enclosure, and reinstall. Then move your data. If anything fails, you swap the HD and are back to where you left.

This seems like system admin 101, and I really can't quite see how SP3 would "bring your machine to a near halt". Halt HOW? You must have something messed up pretty badly -- malware?

Re:Astonishing (-1, Troll)

Cwix (1671282) | more than 4 years ago | (#32874484)

Halt HOW? You must have something messed up pretty badly -- malware?

Didnt you hear him.. of course he installed malware.. Windows XP SP3

lol

Re:Astonishing (2, Insightful)

Mad Merlin (837387) | more than 4 years ago | (#32874854)

Decently designed XP applications store data in user's profile.

So... none of them?

Re:Astonishing (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32874474)

Well, if it was loose, you should definitely corral it. Having loose data running around is dangerous. You could lose an eye or something.

Re:Astonishing (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32874398)

I got the problem (SP installation trashed the OS) on Vista rather than on XP, but the same principles apply: Windows installation is not dual-boot friendly. You have to install Windows first, or else. If I had simply reinstalled Vista (a pain by itself), that would have wrecked havoc with my other 10 operating systems installed across altogether three disks.

Instead, I restored an older backup of the Vista partition. SP 1 still trashed the OS. Finally, after I restored an ancient backup from directly after original Vista activation, SP 1 installed.

Of course both that procedure and Windows reinstallation share another problem: before the security patches has been reapplied, the system is in a very insecure state.

Overall, I wish to thank Microsoft for thoroughly wasting my time. I had absolutely no other important work to do, and I really appreciate the experience.

Re:Astonishing (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32874684)

The Windows installation writes a new master boot record. That is surely an anoyance but totally harmles. And your favorite boot manager should be able to fix this with a single command.

Re:Astonishing (-1, Troll)

Binestar (28861) | more than 4 years ago | (#32874586)

Windows XP SP3 requires 1GB of memory in the system, SP2 required about 512MB. This is not mentioned anywhere in the SP3 notes that I could find.

Re:Astonishing (4, Informative)

LinuxIsGarbage (1658307) | more than 4 years ago | (#32874856)

Windows XP SP3 requires 1GB of memory in the system, SP2 required about 512MB. This is not mentioned anywhere in the SP3 notes that I could find.

That's because it's a figure you made up by yourself. Without any third party tools, the system requirements of Windows XP remain the same as when RTM rolled out in 2001. 64 MB bare minimum (which means it will basically boot), 128MB recommended (which means it will boot in under a day). I have several PIII machines with 256MB RAM that hum along with XP-SP3 quite well. The problem with requirements isn't so much Windows as third party software. Websites have richer and richer content (flash, Javascript) that can take an old machine to it's knees, on-access AV solutions considered "light" on new machines can have a huge performance hit on an older machine. Yet Office 2007, and even Office 2010 still perform better on these machines than Open Office.

Re:Astonishing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32874876)

Probably because it doesn't seem to be true at all. I can run XP SP3 perfectly fine on 386 Mb of RAM in VirtualBox (I think even 256 works, but slowly), so surely the memory requirements didn't jump to 1 GB for the core OS.

WRONG! (1)

BUL2294 (1081735) | more than 4 years ago | (#32874910)

There's a reason why you can't find that--because it's not true. XP-SP3 still only requires 64MB RAM, just like SP2 did. How do I know this? I've got a Toshiba Libretto 110CT w/64MB RAM running XP Pro-SP3 just fine... (Granted, I run it in Classic mode, shut down a bunch of services, and I don't run more than 1 app on it at once--but it works).

Re:Astonishing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32875020)

Windows XP SP3 requires 1GB of memory in the system, SP2 required about 512MB. This is not mentioned anywhere in the SP3 notes that I could find.

That's funny, cause I have Win XP SP3 running on a machine with 64MB RAM. I'm not kidding (no, it's not my primary machine, naturally).

Huh? (5, Insightful)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 4 years ago | (#32873904)

"while the majority of windows XP users still haven't upgraded to SP3"? Citation needed. SP3 is delivered via Windows Update. I had it before I switched to 7, my company it using it. It's been out for quite a while. I don't see why the majority of XP users would not be using it...

Re:Huh? (3, Interesting)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 4 years ago | (#32873940)

Because lots and lots (and lots and lots) of people don't see the Genuine Advantage? That's how you get SP3 via Windows Update.

Re:Huh? (1)

williamhb (758070) | more than 4 years ago | (#32874506)

Because lots and lots (and lots and lots) of people don't see the Genuine Advantage? That's how you get SP3 via Windows Update.

So you mean there really is a Genuine Advantage then ... not being owned by hackers tomorrow! My goodness, Slashdot just discovered a Microsoft slogan is right after all. Has the world gone mad?

Re:Huh? (1)

hodet (620484) | more than 4 years ago | (#32874562)

This is not true. Windows Automatic Update still works on illegitimate copies of XP. SP3 would have gotten blown down regardless. I have seen unlicensed copies receive SP3 and IE8. All friends of mine of course....not me....ahem...no.

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32874008)

Maybe they're made up of people like me with an Asus Eee who updated without thinking about how small the memory is and fubared their computer by "upgrading". I like linux but I need a computer that runs on the same OS that 90% of the world uses.

Re:Huh? (5, Insightful)

malignant_minded (884324) | more than 4 years ago | (#32874032)

While I can't vouch for the majority of windows xp users I know a bunch of companies that are still at SP2. Also I would guess that many home XP users have found their computer infected enough times to find that it was cheaper to buy a new one than it was to pay a shop three hours to clean it up, thus they ended up with Vista or 7 eliminating them from the statistic. This leaves companies that are making a decision to stay at XP and IE6 since it breaks their hack code Intranet, many of those may be for similar reasons at SP2.

Re:Huh? (1)

Inda (580031) | more than 4 years ago | (#32874710)

SP2 here. 3,000 people in this building alone. 20,000 people company wide.

I look forward to the next infection. Blaster was a blast.

Re:Huh? (2, Interesting)

soupforare (542403) | more than 4 years ago | (#32874218)

Over half of the machines I see at the shop that are running XP, are still running SP2. The problem is that even if the machine is genuine, people don't interact with the WUA. Of those that do, many are running software that prevents it from being installed, Norton, Trend, HPcrapware, etc. There's a lot of things out there that screw up an sp3 install.

Re:Huh? (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 4 years ago | (#32874362)

Most companies progressive enough to upgrade to XP SP3 have probably already upgraded to Win7. Companies with special needs that SP2 provides (read: poorly written specialty software that takes advantage of holes in SP2) will still be using SP2. Of course, they probably don't use these machines on the internet or at least they're heavily firewalled.

Re:Huh? (1)

Cwix (1671282) | more than 4 years ago | (#32874498)

Of course, they probably don't use these machines on the internet or at least they're heavily firewalled.

Umm Yea... right...

Re:Huh? (5, Funny)

fyngyrz (762201) | more than 4 years ago | (#32874792)

"you can't firewall stupidity"

Re:Huh? (1)

confused one (671304) | more than 4 years ago | (#32874890)

Not true. We have all our machines on SP3. We can't move to Win7 yet for various reasons (only 3 of us are on Win7 -- and we're either IT or developers)

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32874588)

Our company has some 2500 desktops and laptops with XP+SP2 (and some 30 servers running 2000 with or without lastest Service Pack). I asked personally that I could upgrade to SP3 and luckily I got the permission. We are planning to stay using SP2 until some time in next year when we upgrade to 7.

Re:Huh? (1)

hvdh (1447205) | more than 4 years ago | (#32874798)

My company desktop was upgraded from XP SP2 to XP SP3 just today. The standard Windows Update UI is disabled by IT department.

Is SP3 the one with the bigger GBs? (4, Funny)

GigsVT (208848) | more than 4 years ago | (#32873906)

Is it 3G and does it have the wifis?

Re:Is SP3 the one with the bigger GBs? (2, Insightful)

phoenixwade (997892) | more than 4 years ago | (#32874110)

Is it 3G and does it have the wifis?

yes, yes, you can still get your inter-webs. on a more serious note: SP2 can still be exploited? after 6 whole years in the wild? Who would have ever thought that could have happened?

so what? (3, Interesting)

l2718 (514756) | more than 4 years ago | (#32873910)

Business and private people have had years to evaluate SP3 and plan for its deployment, or in the alternative to switch to other operating systems. The summary seems to assume an implied responsibility of Microsoft to support SP2 simply because the public likes it.

It is true that had XP+SP2 been free software, there would be an option of obtaining patches and support from other vendors, but this is not a complaint against Microsoft but rather against those that chose to use Microsoft's software.

Re:so what? (1)

GigsVT (208848) | more than 4 years ago | (#32873934)

It's just a practical observation... a lot of people are going to be using something that's going to be very exploitable very soon. I don't get the feeling that the summary is implying any kind of moral imperative.

Re:so what? (4, Interesting)

Vectormatic (1759674) | more than 4 years ago | (#32873990)

submitter here,

I didnt mean to imply MS has any kind of responsability to keep support going for SP2 longer, i much more agree with cmdrTaco's stance "from the better-get-patching dept". My goal wasnt to start a whole new thread of MS bashing, more to just notify people about the end of SP2 support, which i think is significant for most nerds/geeks, even if they moved themselves to *nix ages ago, their parents/siblings/friends might still run SP2 somewhere.

Not to mention that SP2 made XP actually good, sp1 was OK as well, but SP2 was a pretty big thing.

Re:so what? (1)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 4 years ago | (#32874018)

...My goal wasn't to start a whole new thread of MS bashing...

You must be new here! Shame on you!

Re:so what? (1)

Vectormatic (1759674) | more than 4 years ago | (#32874076)

oh yes i know, "hand in you geek-card", "judging from his high UID" and all that, with some hot gritts and a naked and petrified natalie portman thrown in..

i just found it noteworthy that starting tomorrow, SP2 is no longer actively supported, i should have known anything MS related wont work for a reasonable discussion on /.

Re:so what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32874060)

The summary seems to assume an implied responsibility of Microsoft to support SP2 simply because the public likes it.

Stupid market demand, stop being so demanding!

ten years (3, Insightful)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 4 years ago | (#32873924)

I wish Apple or Linux supported a base system for ten years.

$1.20 says they'll continue releasing critical updates as they've done for a while for "retired" service packs in the past.

while the majority of windows XP users still haven't upgraded to SP3

Evidence?

Re:ten years (0)

profplump (309017) | more than 4 years ago | (#32874098)

I wish MS updated their base system more than once every 10 years.

It's quite possible that Apple provides less longevity than MS in terms of OS updates, and I suspect that the future will bear out that supposition, but you can hardly compare the XP->Vista stretch to competitors that released several major updates in the same period.

Microsoft base system release lifecycle (5, Informative)

DragonHawk (21256) | more than 4 years ago | (#32874390)

I wish MS updated their base system more than once every 10 years.

Win95 (1995) -> Win98 (1998) [3 years] -> Win98SE (1999) [1 year] -> WinME (2000) [1 year]

NT 3.1 (1993) -> NT 3.5 (1994) [1 year] -> NT 4.0 (1996) [2 years] -> Win 2000 (2000) [4 years] -> XP (2001) [1 year] -> Vista (2006) [5 years] -> Win 7 (2009) [3 years]

Even the longest release drought, XP->Vista, was 6 years, not 10. The mean is 2 years; the median 2.5 years.

(I detest FUD, even FUD directed at a target I happen to dislike.)

Median brainfart (1)

DragonHawk (21256) | more than 4 years ago | (#32874502)

Yes, the median is 3.5 years, not 2.5 like I originally posted.

Upper bound = 6
Lower bound = 1
Span = Upper - lower = 5
Median = (Span / 2) + Lower bound = (5 / 2) + 1 = 2.5 + 1 = 3.5

Re:Median brainfart (1)

Zironic (1112127) | more than 4 years ago | (#32874706)

Uhm, that's not how you calculate median.

The median(the middlemost number) would be
1,1,1,1,[2],3,3,4,5

Re:Median brainfart (1)

amorsen (7485) | more than 4 years ago | (#32874788)

The median is the middle value. Of the values 1 1 1 1 2 3 3 4 5, the median is 2. I'm also somewhat confused whether you consider XP -> Vista to be 5 or 6 years. That doesn't affect the median, though. The mean is 2.3 years.

Re:Microsoft base system release lifecycle (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32874592)

And you have to remember that Windows Vista was never intended to be released so far removed from Windows XP. Project "Longhorn" was meant to be a minor revision of Windows XP, which was called project "Whistler", Longhorn being the name of a tavern near the Whistler ski resort. What happened was that all new Windows development was completely halted after a number of very public exploits and all efforts were focused on Windows XP SP2 and Windows 2003 SP1 as well as a lot of internal process changes. This started the time delay which gave rise to the expectation that "Longhorn" would be more of a major upgrade. Because of this MS took a couple of technologies being developed and decided to try to ship them in that release, which slowed the progress even further.

Vista was a project management nightmare but I think that MS is smarter for the experience and honestly, despite the hiccup, I think that the Windows market is better off for it.

Re:ten years (1)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 4 years ago | (#32874450)

I wish MS updated their base system more than once every 10 years.

2000 or 2001 (XP) to 2007 (Vista) is only 6-7 years. If you choose not to update after MS updates their base system, that's your problem, not theirs.

It's quite possible that Apple provides less longevity than MS in terms of OS updates, and I suspect that the future will bear out that supposition, but you can hardly compare the XP->Vista stretch to competitors that released several major updates in the same period.

This is one of those situations where your damned if you, damned if you don't.

People complain you update too often (Apple OSX updates in general, MS Windows updates other than XP -> Vista) or not often enough (MS Windows XP -> Vista). There doesn't appear to be any middle ground.

Re:ten years (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32874234)

Linux offers support all the time, and the old kernel series are usually maintained for a long time (I think 2.4 is still maintained). The difference is that the only obstacle to upgrading is yourself when it comes to Linux, not money or licensing.

Now, for Apple, that's a different story with which I'm not familiar.

Re:ten years (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 4 years ago | (#32874372)

The difference is that the only obstacle to upgrading is yourself when it comes to Linux, not money or licensing.

Could be your hardware, too. 2.6 is a HUGE kernel, and some small embedded systems (like routers) can't be upgraded to a 2.6 kernel due to memory constraints.

Microsoft support lifecycle practices (3, Informative)

DragonHawk (21256) | more than 4 years ago | (#32874302)

I wish ... Linux supported a base system for ten years.

Linux isn't a person or organization and thus can't support anything.

The best organization I know of (in terms of length of support for a given Linux configuration) is Red Hat, which supports RHEL for seven years. Still not as good as Microsoft's ten year policy.

Microsoft will support you even longer, if you pay for a custom support agreement. I'm told prices start around $40K.

I suppose, for that price, you could pay someone to maintain your Linux configuration for you. You do have the source code. But you'd have to start doing it sooner.

$1.20 says they'll continue releasing critical updates as they've done for a while for "retired" service packs in the past.

Can you cite specific examples? In my experience, support for Microsoft products starts to be curtailed near end-of-life, not extended past it. NT4, 2000, XP have all had security vulnerabilities discovered which Microsoft did not fix, but which were fixed for later releases of Windows. MS09-048 for 2000/XP. Another I can't recall right now for NT4. Yah, they had their reasons, but the fact remains that once the successor products arrive, support starts to degrade for the old releases.

Re:ten years (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32874312)

I wish Apple or Linux supported a base system for ten years.

AFAIK, you can still patch your own damn linux system from ten years ago, or pay someone else to do so. That's the definition of _Freedom_. Also, Linux is not a company like Apple or Microsoft. What a ridiculous thing to say.

Will SP2 users even notice... (0)

dimethylxanthine (946092) | more than 4 years ago | (#32874030)

or care? After all they've stuck with outdated, almost obsolete technology, for so long - they must have a good (even if subjective) reason for it. Not a big deal there's still plenty of holes to find in SP3, 2008 and 7, so what? It's only through education people will learn to make proper choices in the first place...

Citation on the 50% number (4, Informative)

Vectormatic (1759674) | more than 4 years ago | (#32874044)

http://laws.qualys.com/2010/05/end-of-life-for-windows-xp-sp.html [qualys.com]

That article states SP2 is still used on 50% of XP machines

Re:Citation on the 50% number (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32874264)

be nice if we could get a citation on the citation, since they just show a graph with no explanation of where they got the numbers they used for it.

Re:Citation on the 50% number (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32874360)

Nice to know that 50% is a "vast majority" :)

[citation needed] (0, Redundant)

Tim C (15259) | more than 4 years ago | (#32874054)

the majority of windows XP users still haven't upgraded to SP3

Yeah? Says who?

SP4???? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32874144)

I already have SP3 for Windows XP. I'd like to see an SP4 for Windows XP
I have SP4 for Windows 2000 and would like an SP5 which would be up to the last day they
stopped supporting windows 2000. This would help to get rid of all the files beyond SP4.

Re:SP4???? (0, Offtopic)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 4 years ago | (#32874388)

XP SP4 is available. It's simply pronounced 'Vista'.

No biggie, it still keeps running (2, Interesting)

petes_PoV (912422) | more than 4 years ago | (#32874170)

Just like my virtualised version of W2K. Just 'cos the supplier won't provide any more updates doesn't mean anything bad will happen. Since I have automatic updates switched off and the machine is secure and doesn't get bugs, virues, trojans it makes very little difference whether the vendor supports it any more or not.

BTW, on a related note. Since the machine runs in a secure environment, it neither has nor needs AV. It's surprising how fast a 256MB P3 is without all that overhead.

XP SP2 supports ends tomorrow? (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#32874222)

Joke's on them, I'm still running Windows 98SE!

Re:XP SP2 supports ends tomorrow? (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 4 years ago | (#32874314)

Funny thing is, you're probably safer at this point with Win98 than an old version of XP.

Majority of users wont do it. (0)

unity100 (970058) | more than 4 years ago | (#32874250)

with the enormous hidden 'call back home' shit sp3 and on brings, majority of users and sysadmins will not upgrade to it. they are not stupid.

for any stragglers who would jump in and say 'which' at this point ; i cant summarize 2 years of slashdot article history to you. just do searches. we discussed all of these here before.

Re:Majority of users wont do it. (2, Insightful)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | more than 4 years ago | (#32874328)

with the enormous hidden 'call back home' shit sp3 and on brings, majority of users and sysadmins will not upgrade to it. they are not stupid.

Because the majority of users and sysadmins are aware of any of that? Get real.

I'm sure a lot of people won't upgrade, but seriously, a majority of users probably can't even change their screen resolution without help.

um yes they are (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32874682)

plus 23 breaks all kinds a apps, games you name it

oops (1)

X10 (186866) | more than 4 years ago | (#32874308)

For a moment, I thought it said "Windows XP ends tomorrow".

Re:oops (1)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 4 years ago | (#32874440)

For a moment, I thought it said "Windows XP ends tomorrow".

Just wishful thinking.

Funny story... (1)

HerculesMO (693085) | more than 4 years ago | (#32874602)

I had to roll out SP3 to our entire company using WSUS, but create rules and exemptions because some applications *still* don't work under SP3.

I liken it to asking a doctor to operate without a scalpel, or a construction worker to build a house without a hammer or wood.

Lots of fun in this day and age in corporate america.

the 5billion inthe bank is not enough (-1, Troll)

hesaigo999ca (786966) | more than 4 years ago | (#32874898)

I have to say, M$ decides to not support and leave all the sp2 users open to vulnerability because they choose to, not because they have to, as the patch works as well for sp2 as it does for sp3, so the fact they are cutting off the sp2 users is only because they want to make more money, and the people that have sp2 and have decided to not keep shelling out money for a product they purchased, means
that now they are vulnerable and because they do not want to keep shelling money out, have to be content with a faulty product....

I just don't understand...if M$ really wanted to keep linux out for the count, they would just have to allow users to get security patches for free, and allow the internet to be a whole lot safer overall....just my 2cents

Re:the 5billion inthe bank is not enough (2, Insightful)

Joe U (443617) | more than 4 years ago | (#32875000)

I have to say, M$ decides to not support and leave all the sp2 users open to vulnerability because they choose to, not because they have to

I can see why a company would not want to do regression testing on multiple service packs when the fix is to update to SP3 and it's been out since April 2008. There comes a time when you have to stop support, testing is expensive and there's still support for SP3 until 2014.

You can buy a support contract if you want SP2 support.

Win 98 (0, Redundant)

confused one (671304) | more than 4 years ago | (#32874920)

I guess I better hurry and upgrade our Win98SE machines then...
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>