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!

Google To Support Windows XP Longer Than Microsoft

samzenpus posted 1 year,8 days | from the if-it-aint-broke dept.

Google 154

An anonymous reader writes in that Google plans to support XP longer than Microsoft. "Microsoft will officially retire its Windows XP operating system early next year, but Google on Wednesday announced it will continue to support its Chrome browser for the platform through at least early 2015. The Mountain View, Calif., Web giant announced it will keep sending out updates and security patches to the Windows XP version of Google Chrome 'until at least April 2015.'"

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

not news. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#45149377)

also doesn't matter.

Re:not news. (1)

Joining Yet Again (2992179) | 1 year,8 days | (#45151105)

Yeah, but, "The Mountain View, Calif., Web giant announced..." according to an "anonymous reader".

Re:not news. (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#45151151)

I like how the sensationalist title tries to imply that Google is going to be publishing patches and updates for Windows XP just like Microsoft has for the past 10 years.

Google WTF are you doing? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#45149381)

Just let XP finally die...

Re:Google WTF are you doing? (5, Insightful)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | 1 year,8 days | (#45149411)

Just let XP finally die...

Why? My retired parents have a Gateway PC that runs perfectly fine and runs XP perfectly fine. Doesn't crash, doesn't blue screen, they just turn it on and it works. If it ain't broke don't fix it.

Re:Google WTF are you doing? (5, Insightful)

Neo-Rio-101 (700494) | 1 year,8 days | (#45149441)

The trouble is that unless it's going to stay disconnected from the internet, one day it's going to get owned, and then you'll need a upgrade plan and you won't be in any position to make a transition because your PC is toast.

Re:Google WTF are you doing? (5, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | 1 year,8 days | (#45149467)

If I hadn't already commented, I'd give you +1 Funny for using the future tense when describe when the system is going to get owned.

Re:Google WTF are you doing? (0)

Neo-Rio-101 (700494) | 1 year,8 days | (#45149525)

Yeah I guess I was a little optimistic there wasn't I?

Re:Google WTF are you doing? (1)

avandesande (143899) | 1 year,8 days | (#45149811)

I hope he has a disaster plan for when the basement floods...

Re:Google WTF are you doing? (1)

AHuxley (892839) | 1 year,8 days | (#45149909)

That self updating, free, XP friendly, 2013 aware anti virus software will save them :)

Re:Google WTF are you doing? (3, Interesting)

thsths (31372) | 1 year,8 days | (#45150381)

Not really. The OS does not protect you against the internet, because it has only minimal contact with it. Most attacks will not come through the router, and client based attacks should be prevented by the browser. Using XP with Chrome throughout 2014 may not be a dangerous as some people fear, as long as Google includes workaround for relevant flaws of the OS such as font handling.

Re:Google WTF are you doing? (1)

JohnnyMindcrime (2487092) | 1 year,8 days | (#45150705)

Most attacks will not come through the router

Erm, explain?

Attacks that aren't coming from the router could only be on the local network by implication, so that possibly means locking down wi-fi and making sure any devices on the local network are locked down with secure passwords on all accounts.

But the above would apply to computers running *ANY* OS, not just XP...

Re:Google WTF are you doing? (1)

Noughmad (1044096) | 1 year,8 days | (#45150767)

Most attacks will not come through the router

Erm, explain?

Attacks that aren't coming from the router could only be on the local network by implication

They could also be between keyboard and chair.

Re:Google WTF are you doing? (1)

The Pirou (1551493) | 1 year,8 days | (#45152105)

I understood it to mean 'Most attacks will be thwarted by the router setup,' as it is less likely that he was implying there would be a greater amount of physical or local threats.

Re:Google WTF are you doing? (4, Insightful)

JohnnyMindcrime (2487092) | 1 year,8 days | (#45150799)

Rubbish!

For any PC to get owned that is tucked behind a NAT router, it's the user that has to do something stupid first.

If all you ever do is use a web browser to go to well-known sites and you know how to read and interpret a URL, then unless one of those sites has been hacked and some malware has been injected into it, nothing will happen to you. In my experience in computer and Internet security, it's going to dodgy sites for pr0n or warez that opens the doors to something nasty.

Likewise for email - don't use a client like Outlook that has deep hooks into the OS, use a lighter client and always delete emails that are from sources you don't trust.

Security has very little to do with what's built into the OS, it is far more about educating users to understand what the likely attack vectors are and to moderate their own behaviours to mitigate their risk of being exposed to those vectors.

Re:Google WTF are you doing? (1, Insightful)

Aqualung812 (959532) | 1 year,8 days | (#45151993)

Your experience is wrong.

Cross-site scripting has allowed ads on very normal sites (MSN.com, CNN.com, etc) to infect XP computers that are fully patched.

Re:Google WTF are you doing? (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | 1 year,8 days | (#45150863)

Not really. Keep it behind safe firewall and OS itself is unlikely to become a vector.

At which point other vectors become important. One of them being web browser. Which google is going to keep up to date.

Re:Google WTF are you doing? (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#45151199)

You are implying that:
1) there is no firewall
2) that the firewalls won't be updated
3) they are stupid
4) they don't have a computer(s) before the XP machine that has cutting-edge hardware and software that is all up to date and is cleaning up anything before it even reaches the XP machines.

I've never had a single virus since early 90s when I started using computers. I started when I was basically 15-ish.
Most viruses are a user problem (even ones that use very easily seen exploits). The rest actually are stealth exploits that have 0 visibility to the user and require no actions. And those are still small.

That makes me wonder why one of these security software companies hasn't made a Sanitisation Proxy that cleans up files for you as you browse through it.
Would be great for crappy machines, of course everyone would Panic and collectively begin to crap their pants because "onoz privacy". (while they post using a VPN...)

Re:Google WTF are you doing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#45151369)

The trouble is that unless it's going to stay disconnected from the internet, one day it's going to get owned... ...which is why MS shouldn't EOL it yet. It's one of the most popular OS's, even 10 years after it was introduced.

Re:Google WTF are you doing? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#45149479)

XP is 2001 technology. It is trying to fight against the intruders of 2013. With a 12 year edge on the OS technology. At best XP has had improvements in security strapped on, and even then, XP isn't that different from Windows 2000.

Then there is the energy use. That Gateway is an electricity hog compared to even a cheap modern day PC.

XP is fine for an OS you toss in a virtual machine to run for Web browsing, but as something for day to day use, I'd just bite the bullet and go with Windows 7, or perhaps 8.1. 8.1's UI sucks, but it has a lot of under the hood security improvements that make it worth the Tetris change.

for most retired people, up-to-date Chrome (no IE) (4, Insightful)

raymorris (2726007) | 1 year,8 days | (#45149535)

These retired parents probably aren't playing massive online games, so approximately all of their online activity will be through the browser.

As long as the browser is a) up-to-date and b) not tightly coupled with the system shell, that's almost an up-to-date system as far as the internet is concerned. What I mean regarding coupling is that if Explorer gets exploited, the system is owned because Explorer the browser ~ Explorer the desktop ~ Explorer the file manager. If Chrome gets exploited, the worst that can happen is that web pages get messed with, not the system.

Re:for most retired people, up-to-date Chrome (no (4, Insightful)

VortexCortex (1117377) | 1 year,8 days | (#45149775)

Hell, if that's use the case, install GNU/Linux. Did that for lots of old folks at the community center who were in the same boat. Few, if any complaints. Wine can run most old programs -- Even re-united a guy with a few of his old DOS games via DOSBox. Most folks are surprised the system can actually run faster in most cases, and that it's free... So are the updates. "Why would anyone pay for Windows if this is free?" I just shrug. Beats the hell outta me. Going from XP to XFCE or Mint/Cinnamon is far less of a shock than Windows8 or Unity. Chrome and Firefox work the same.

Throw in a spare RAM sim from my junk cache to top it up and you're good to go for as long as the hard drive holds out -- Laying down a new format track gives 'em a bit more life, and in most cases I can leave the XP partition there for dual booting into if they really need to run windows for some odd reason afterwards.

Also, sure Chrome may be updated, but it talks to the OS and its that OS interface that'll get exploited through chrome whether the browser is up to date or not. Just ditch the OS, and learn your lesson: Don't use an OS you don't have the source for or be prepared for planned obsolescence.

Re:for most retired people, up-to-date Chrome (no (-1, Flamebait)

readeracc (3385797) | 1 year,8 days | (#45150087)

Going from XP to XFCE or Mint/Cinnamon is far less of a shock than Windows8 or Unity. Chrome and Firefox work the same.

How did this bullshit get modded Insightful? An operating system is more than just the UI - it's the applications, it's always the applications. Going from XP to Windows 8 might take some learning how the new interface works, but at least the extreme majority of your programs you know and love will continue to work just fine. Unless you're using predominantly open-source or cross-platform programs to being with, moving from one OS to another is always going to be more of a shock than going from one version of the OS line to another. Only a Linux zealot would say something so stupid.

Re:for most retired people, up-to-date Chrome (no (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#45150457)

How did this bullshit get modded Insightful? An operating system is more than just the UI - it's the applications, it's always the applications.

By starting with "if that's the use case", with "that" being web browsing. In which case the application is the browser, and assuming any relevance to the discussion, we are talking about Chrome, but he did also mention Firefox.

So which web browsing application do you feel is missing on Linux, that you can still keep up to date on XP for the foreseeable future.

Re:for most retired people, up-to-date Chrome (no (1)

JohnnyMindcrime (2487092) | 1 year,8 days | (#45150803)

Only a Linux hater would reply so stupidly also...

Someone who is still running XP probably isn't that interested in modern games or modern leading-edge applications. Maybe they still run XP because they don't like paying for software upgrades that they consider pointless for their own use. Maybe they even run a hacked copy of Microsoft Office, for example.

Very few people actually need the majority of features in big heavy applications like Microsoft Office or Photoshop, for most of them it's just a case of getting accustomed to a new UI, LibreOffice or The GIMP.

I'm the tech geek for a large circle of friends and family and have moved a number of them over to Linux Mint after they came to me wanting something better than XP now that it's going out of support. I've had a few calls and done a few house visits but all of them are pleased with what it does, none of them needed to do heavy macro work in documents or heavy graphics editing.

If you're going to hate then at least do so from a position of knowledge and experience rather than one based on FUD. I myself run XP and Windows 7, I like both of them and use them for stuff that is more difficult to do than it is Linux. Yes, I'm mostly Linux user but a computer is merely a collection of tools to get jobs done and I don't believe in "cutting my nose off to spite my face" - I just use the best tool for the job and really couldn't give a toss what OS it ultimately runs on.

Re:for most retired people, up-to-date Chrome (no (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#45151253)

> An operating system is more than just the UI - it's the applications.

It is neither.

Ok I get what you were trying to say. You're still wrong. Even minor changes to one guy's estabilished workflow is a PITA. If I can avoid it, I do.

Re:for most retired people, up-to-date Chrome (no (1)

OhANameWhatName (2688401) | 1 year,8 days | (#45150255)

Going from XP to XFCE or Mint/Cinnamon is far less of a shock than Windows8 or Unity.

That's the benchmark. Even next to Windows 8, Unity is shocking.

Re:for most retired people, up-to-date Chrome (no (1)

jones_supa (887896) | 1 year,8 days | (#45150967)

This. My favorites are XFCE and KDE for the performance, but Unity and Compiz really are complete shit in terms of performance. It's sad that the mainstream Ubuntu desktop performs so badly. Opening and navigating in Dash is laggy, dragging shortcut icons from Dash to taskbar is very laggy. Opening the settings manager takes a second or two (not that you could configure almost anything there anyway). On low-end (Atom/Bobcat) hardware even the basic window animations are choppy and the desktop practically completely unusable.

Re:for most retired people, up-to-date Chrome (no (1)

couchslug (175151) | 1 year,8 days | (#45151365)

Puppy Linux BTW works very well for many old machines because it's so easy to configure and install. Boot a live CD or USB key, and you can install to hard disk or make more USB keys or live CDs, or remaster with included tools. Runs fine from USB and doesn't require a hard disk. It's available in Chrome and Firefox flavors, and Slacko is based on Slackware so what's not to like?

Re:for most retired people, up-to-date Chrome (no (1)

hsa (598343) | 1 year,8 days | (#45150609)

Please, don't trivialize things.

Sure, you can only use browser to access the internet. Secure browser will not compromise your system. But it will give the hacker your IP address.

Using the IP address the hacker can do a number of things. He can exploit vunerability on some service, that is not protected by the firewall. Or exploit a problem in the firewall software itself. These vunerabilities are not so common, but it is naive to think, that if you only use the browser, only thing that needs to be secure - is the browser.

The whole XP OS is getting compromised, because hackers had so much time to work on it. And soon, the exploits will not be fixed. Please upgrade to an OS that gets regular security updates or disconnet yourself from the internet.

Re:for most retired people, up-to-date Chrome (no (3, Insightful)

JohnnyMindcrime (2487092) | 1 year,8 days | (#45150839)

Sorry, you do not know what you are talking about.

In the *MAJORITY* of home installations, people access the Internet via a NAT router that "translates" the internal *NON-ROUTABLE* IP address of the user's PC to the *ROUTABLE* IP address of the router's Internet interface, as assigned by the user's ISP. Note that the router's IP address is not usually a static one and will change as a result of DHCP on a reasonably regular basis anyway.

A hacker will therefore only ever see the IP address of the router, not the IP address of the user's PC. Yes, the hacker *COULD* attack the router and *IF* the router has a security hole he/she could exploit then an attack is possible. However, unless the router has crappy firmware, has an administration interface with a crackable password exposed to the Internet, and/or an open incoming port that routes into the internal network, then any attack is extremely unlikely.

If you get a piece of malware on your computer then, yes, it can have the ability to open a connection to a hacker and allow him/her to do what he/she wants. But in a home environment, that malware will exist because the user has done something stupid - either gone to a dodgy web site and dowloaded it or installed it as part of some warez the user has got hold of.

Hackers are not particularly interested in wasting their time on "small fry" home users. They prefer to attack bigger targets like corporations and usually leave it to bots and scripts to find ways of owning user PCs that can then be used as owned machines in mass attacks on those bigger targets.

There are millions and millions of devices on the Internet, scripts and bots have limited intelligence and therefore if you know some of the basics about Internet security (essentially not opening unnecessary ports on your router, turning off Internet-exposed router admin interfaces, not installing dodgy software, not visiting dodgy sites, not opening dodgy emails) then you are reasonably secure no matter what OS you run.

Re: for most retired people, up-to-date Chrome (no (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#45151975)

Most of those Nat routers will after opening a connection pass most things back straight to the machine when it initiates the connection, otherwise Nat wouldn't work.

It's one of the ways Skype used to punch through nat routers, having both try to connect, so the routers let both talk, vs one side. If you are not firewalled/natted... You've got for a brief Window and a chance to connect to almost all ports on the target.

Re:for most retired people, up-to-date Chrome (no (1)

The123king (2395060) | 1 year,8 days | (#45151861)

Internet explorer != explorer Sure, they're fairly tightly coupled, but they are still 2 very different applications

Re:Google WTF are you doing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#45149559)

"8.1's UI sucks" - which is why I'll be sticking with XP.

Re:Google WTF are you doing? (0)

atlasdropperofworlds (888683) | 1 year,8 days | (#45149715)

But it's dead simple to install a 3rd party start menu. Also, 8.1 boots to desktop, so now you don't need to see the new interface.

Re:Google WTF are you doing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#45150467)

But it's dead simple to install a 3rd party start menu.

Which one works fully? When I tried Classic Shell, I still got the tablet UI in some situations, e.g. when I needed to get to the Control Panel.

Re:Google WTF are you doing? (1)

Daimanta (1140543) | 1 year,8 days | (#45150687)

But it's dead simple to install a 3rd party start menu.

Which one works fully? When I tried Classic Shell, I still got the tablet UI in some situations, e.g. when I needed to get to the Control Panel.

Using Windows 8 + Classic Shell. I have configured Classic Shell in such a way that it never shows the tablet UI. And it's nothing more than checking some boxes in the configuration, easy as pie.

Re:Google WTF are you doing? (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#45149617)

XP is fine for an OS you toss in a virtual machine to run for Web browsing

If XP is fine for browsing in a VM, then XP on a physical machine should be just as fine for browsing if you simply put a hardware firewall between it and the Internet. Since ISPs tend to deny inbound connections on consumer-grade plans, chances are the ISP's firewall is sufficient already.

Re:Google WTF are you doing? (1)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | 1 year,8 days | (#45149787)

Since ISPs tend to deny inbound connections on consumer-grade plans, chances are the ISP's firewall is sufficient already.

Really? I've been receiving incoming connections on my consumer-grade plan for a decade or more. I've seen plenty of others do the same. In fact, I've never heard of a consumer plan having inbound connections blocked.
I've heard of carrier grade NAT, but only in theory. Never seen it actually implemented. What ISPs actually do this?

Wikipedia Blocks Qatar (January 2007) (1)

tepples (727027) | 1 year,8 days | (#45149859)

I've heard of carrier grade NAT, but only in theory. Never seen it actually implemented. What ISPs actually do this?

Mostly mobile ISPs and ISPs in less-industrialized countries. See what happened a few years ago when Wikipedia blocked the proxy that the whole country of Qatar was behind [slashdot.org] .

Re:Google WTF are you doing? (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#45149675)

You cannot be sure that it is an energy hog. It might have a lower performance per watt, but its overall power usage is not necessarily higher than a modern PC which is what actually matter when we are talking about a lightly used single personal system.

Re:Google WTF are you doing? (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#45149493)

I hate when people say "If it ain't broke don't fix it" as that has so many bad applications.

1. Windows would still use IE6 (it still renders webpages, so it clearly ain't broken - hell, we could go back to mosaic with this)
2. We wouldn't have spoked wheels (it's not like the original design of the wheel was broken)
3. Fiber internet connections wouldn't exist (did dial-up ever actually break?)

Even if you were to counter something like "things move on" or "improvements don't mean it was broken" well couldn't the same thing be said about XP to virtually any newer OS?

Are you against software updates that add features too? (because clearly a bug fix update is for something that is broken)

Re:Google WTF are you doing? (1)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | 1 year,8 days | (#45149561)

You're seriously going to use IE6 as a bastion of standards?!?!

The concept of the wheel has been around for *thousands* of years. The *implementation* is what has been modified and improved upon.

Re:Google WTF are you doing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#45149615)

And XP has been modified and improved on. Using "If it ain't broke don't fix it" in this case is stupid.

Instead, you can say that you have no incentive to move onto a newer version because it currently fulfils the needs of the user.

That is completely different than the off-hand and dismissive "If it ain't broke don't fix it".

Re:Google WTF are you doing? (4, Insightful)

Lisias (447563) | 1 year,8 days | (#45149671)

1. Windows would still use IE6 (it still renders webpages, so it clearly ain't broken - hell, we could go back to mosaic with this)

Are you nuts? IE6 was utterly broken since the very beginning!!!

2. We wouldn't have spoked wheels (it's not like the original design of the wheel was broken)

The original wheel design was broken for the use the guy that invented the spoked wheels had in mind. He needed a big but lightweighted wheel, and solid wheels couldn't be properly used that way - so, it was broken! =P

3. Fiber internet connections wouldn't exist (did dial-up ever actually break?)

Are you kidding? I jumped out dial up in the very instant I could afford broadband! :-)

Constant "no carrier" breakouts, slow speed, busy lines... Dial up was used just because it was what we could afford in the time.

On the other hand...

I still have an old Athlon XP box here at my side for some retro-gaming, and guess what? It's running Windows XP. WIth all the security measures I implemented here to protect my inner network, the fact is that my XP box is secure as never it was before.

I simply don't have the slightest incentive to throw it away and waste more money on a "newer" box, as the current one is fullfilling perfectly the computational niche it plays now.

Of course I use another box to day to day computing (a Mac Mini), but why bother setting up a virtual machines if I can play my games perfectly on a 3GHz Athlon XP with a Soundblaster Audigy and an ATI Radeon 4670 with 1GB?

Until this machine is dead, I don't have a single unique reason to buy another (it handles the games I play, and that's all).

Re:Google WTF are you doing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#45150569)

Are you nuts? At the time it was released, IE 6 was the best browser around. There was seriously not a better option in 2001.

Now, between 2001 and 2006 (when IE 7 was finally released), other browsers overtook it and IE 6 was no longer very good compared to the state of the art. But to say it was never good is either delusional or you are too young to actually remember browsers in 2001.

No right thinking person would run IE 6 today. But similarly, no right thinking person would run Netscape 6 today. Or fvwm95 on Linux kernel 2.0.

Re:Google WTF are you doing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#45150827)

I'm running 2.0.36 with an uptime of 15 years, you insensitive clod

Re:Google WTF are you doing? (2)

JohnnyMindcrime (2487092) | 1 year,8 days | (#45151137)

Or fvwm95 on Linux kernel 2.0.

I do wish people would remove from their minds the notion that "newer always is better".

There is absolutely NO reason to not be running a Linux kernel 2.0 with fvwm95 if it delivers what is required on the system on which it is running - why would you upgrade a system which is perfectly happy running this set up?

Re:Google WTF are you doing? (1)

FuzzNugget (2840687) | 1 year,8 days | (#45149523)

Just wait until April of next year and see if you can say the same thing.

Re:Google WTF are you doing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#45149613)

People who comment this stuff: are you stupid or trolling?

If you're trolling, congrats, you got me.

If not trolling, I'm sorry to break it to you, but you're just dumb.Someone above already explained this. Using 2001 technology in 2013 is just not a smart move. You said your parents are retired. Are they also poor? It seems mean that you can't afford to buy them a new PC. Christmas is coming up you know. Don't be a scrooge. Windows 7 is pretty good. Or like, Ubuntu or something. But surely you love your parents enough to give them a bit of an upgrade. Do you also wear the same underwear for 12 years? It lasts but at some point, you gotta buy fresh undies.

Re:Google WTF are you doing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#45149643)

Using 2001 technology in 2013 is just not a smart move.

Windows XP + Patch Tuesday October 2013 = 2013 Technology, dumbass.

Re:Google WTF are you doing? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#45149817)

I'm going with "I must be stupid", because I don't see anything wrong with continuing to use something that's perfectly functional and doesn't have any issues. I'm waiting until it *actually* breaks. Windows XP has been updated ever since 2001. Is it old and creaky? Yes. But it's been maintained. Does it have all the neat new OS security features? No. That probably does make it more vulnerable overall, and I certainly wouldn't recommend it in a business or shared environment where security issues are particularly important. But properly configured it's fine for plenty of uses.

Am I cheap? Hell, yes. So, no, I won't be upgrading to Windows 7. I run Win 7 on some higher-end machines that I have, but XP on my home machine has run for years without issues. I don't see any significant advantage to Windows 7 other than 64-bit support. It runs slower on the same hardware. So, why spend more than $100 for something that is marginally better in some ways and worse in others? When the security updates are demonstrably becoming an issue because of lack of updates for XP, *then* I will install a Linux distro. For now it's only a hypothetical, and by the time significant problems crop up I'm expecting that the hardware will have been retired or failed anyway.

Don't get me wrong. If there's a good reason I'll spend plenty of money on hardware and software. But I don't see the point if the gain is this minimal and things are working well as-is.

Re:Google WTF are you doing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#45150257)

I'm waiting until it *actually* breaks. Windows XP has been updated ever since 2001. Is it old and creaky? Yes. But it's been maintained.

Come April next year, it won't be maintained anymore, and at that point Google would be supporting an unmaintained OS.

I don't see any significant advantage to Windows 7 other than 64-bit support. It runs slower on the same hardware.

It may run slower on the same slow hardware, but it actually runs faster on the same fast hardware.

Re:Google WTF are you doing? (5, Funny)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | 1 year,8 days | (#45149645)

If it ain't broke...

If it weren't broke, they wouldn't be getting new fixes every second Tuesday.

Re:Google WTF are you doing? (1)

antdude (79039) | 1 year,8 days | (#45150167)

And sometimes fourth Tuesday of the month. Once in a while, out of bound!

Re:Google WTF are you doing? (1)

Stormwatch (703920) | 1 year,8 days | (#45149693)

That same PC might also run a fully modern (more secure) lightweight Linux distro.

On the other hand, parents...

Re:Google WTF are you doing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#45149731)

And if it does break, my first step would be to dump Windows entirely, not upgrade it to a newer version.

In that sense I don't really care whether Microsoft continues XP support or not. When/if lack of XP updates becomes an actual security issue rather than a hypothetical one, it's getting dumped. Problem solved.

It's not like security updates stop people from clicking "Yes" to everything anyway.

Re:Google WTF are you doing? (2)

mixmasta (36673) | 1 year,8 days | (#45150229)

I agree with the sentiment, but XP is a bit dangerous and will get worse.

My advice... back up the important files and install Xubuntu.

Re:Google WTF are you doing? (1)

OhANameWhatName (2688401) | 1 year,8 days | (#45150237)

Doesn't crash, doesn't blue screen

How does such blatent trolling get a +5 Insightful?

Re:Google WTF are you doing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#45150711)

Because someone funner than the troller had mod points?

Re:Google WTF are you doing? (1)

cbope (130292) | 1 year,8 days | (#45150513)

If it ain't broke, then why does MS still keep pushing out patches for XP? Because there are exploitable holes, that's why.

The whole thing falls apart after April 2014 when MS stops pushing out any patches for XP. Zero-day exploits will undoubtedly appear shortly thereafter, and now black hat hackers will have a huge incentive to target XP machines because they know that once they are in, a patch is not coming to close the hole. Think about that for a moment...

The only way to keep an XP machine safe from attacks after April 2014 is to unplug it from the internet completely.

Please let it die, it's had a good run. It's time to move on.

Re:Google WTF are you doing? (1)

agentgonzo (1026204) | 1 year,8 days | (#45151419)

Just let XP finally die...

Why? My retired parents have a Gateway PC that runs perfectly fine and runs XP perfectly fine. Doesn't crash, doesn't blue screen, they just turn it on and it works. If it ain't broke don't fix it.

I see that you're typing these slashdot posts on your abacus then?

Re:Google WTF are you doing? (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | 1 year,8 days | (#45149461)

Just let XP finally die...

Probably betting that they can score some IE6 marketshare that might otherwise turn into IE9/10 marketshare by telling risk-averse microsoftie corporate admins that, while they aren't Microsoft, they are your best chance if you still want to cling to XP after MS hangs you out to dry. I'm assuming that the job will not be a plum assignment on the Chrome team; but it isn't necessarily an illogical strategy.

Re:Google WTF are you doing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#45149497)

There is no IE 6 market share.... at least not outside of China. For that matter there is very little IE 7 market share. The best they could hope for is to pick up some IE 8 market share.

Re:Google WTF are you doing? (1)

sd4f (1891894) | 1 year,8 days | (#45150601)

It's simple, Microsoft doesn't make any money from WinXP anymore, so support is pointless, whereas, google still does make money from it.

Re:Google WTF are you doing? (2)

TractorBarry (788340) | 1 year,8 days | (#45150893)

I have a machine running XP. It runs my music software beatifully. The associated, expensive, not optional to replace hardware has no drivers for 7 and above. Additionally Windows 8 is a total pile of shit.

XP is staying on this machine.

Flip side of monopolizing (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#45149395)

When we all worried about MS bundling IE, the flip side is their incremental cost and surface area make supporting IE for example untenable past the OS date, because it is so intertwined

The headline should be (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#45149405)

Google To Support Windows XP Longer than Its Own Fucking Products

Really, who cares about this kind of marketing Gotcha stunt. It's for the likes of eweek and cnet to analyze.

Re:The headline should be (1)

bondsbw (888959) | 1 year,8 days | (#45149413)

Yeah, by the headline you'd think Google is providing support for Windows XP itself. You know, if you take any headline coming from this site without a grain of salt.

Priorities (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#45149437)

Nice one Google. I really appreciate how you are keeping support for XP when there will soon have been four new releases and 13 years since XP was released, and yet you dropped support for the latest version of RHEL.

yeah, but we can still ./install_chrome.sh (2)

raymorris (2726007) | 1 year,8 days | (#45149577)

I hear you. On the other hand, Red Hat and Centos users can still install the latest Chrome:

# wget http://chrome.richardlloyd.org.uk/install_chrome.sh [richardlloyd.org.uk]
# chmod u+x install_chrome.sh
# ./install_chrome.sh

That's about 10 times too complex for most XP users.

Re:yeah, but we can still ./install_chrome.sh (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#45149867)

You download a script from the internet and run it as root? WTF.

Re: yeah, but we can still ./install_chrome.sh (2)

jopsen (885607) | 1 year,8 days | (#45150235)

Sure you run script of the internet as root, just like on Windows XP :)

Version Number (1)

dysmal (3361085) | 1 year,8 days | (#45149451)

Maybe this is is just a ploy by Google to keep their Chrome version number larger than FF's.

because Windows Server 2003, obviously (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#45149463)

Microsoft will support Windows Server 2003 until July 14, 2015. Windows Server 2003 is basically the server edition of Windows XP. So in actual fact, XP is not really retiring until 2015 anyway.

Not surprising (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#45149485)

I'd imagine their cost to do this is very low. What exactly is different about Chrome for XP from Chrome for Vista? Not much, I bet.

Furthermore, Google makes recurring income from their browser in the form of ads and data. If there were a reasonable amount of users who wanted to pay by the month to continue using XP, I'm sure that Microsoft would support it for longer.

Big deal... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#45149563)

It isn't a hard job to make updates to a single application that is already buildable on some existing operating system. It's much harder to keep an entire operating system patched and updated. So, it isn't surprising that Google - or anyone else - will keep applications updated on XP long after Microsoft's own support for XP itself ends. I plan to do the same thing for my own Windows applications: since XP is still so widely used, the benefits of a larger user base for my applications easily justifies the minimal differential cost of providing updates for it.

Wine or ReactOS Opportunity (4, Interesting)

digitaltraveller (167469) | 1 year,8 days | (#45149571)

It would be hugely amusing if one of these projects announced (even in jest) that they were would continue to issue patches for XP after EOL.

Re:Wine or ReactOS Opportunity (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#45149723)

I'm going to probably sound retarded here, but how hard would it be to harden an XP install? You know, drop a proper firewall in there, install Chrome, get rid of Outlook and put Thunderbird or some other email client on there that doesn't promiscuously execute attachments, lock down all unnecessary services, close open ports, install some good anti-virus and anti-spyware, etc. I heard tell that the Chinese who use XP use a product called "360" that does something like that. I mean, yeah, end to service patches, but so what if you close off any obvious means to infiltration? "How hard can it be?"

Re:Wine or ReactOS Opportunity (1)

AHuxley (892839) | 1 year,8 days | (#45149915)

SP2, Avast?

Simple! (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#45150045)

Turn off the computer.

Re:Wine or ReactOS Opportunity (1)

OhANameWhatName (2688401) | 1 year,8 days | (#45150267)

how hard would it be to harden an XP install?

It's easy. You setup a headless linux system with VirtualBox and script it to load an XP Virtual machine on boot. Take a regular backup of the virtual machine, if it gets owned .. roll back.

Re:Wine or ReactOS Opportunity (1)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | 1 year,8 days | (#45150753)

You can't get rid of Outlook. This was a source of monopoly abuse lawsuits with Microsoft, it's woven into the OS too deeply to gracefully remove and replace completely. You can't keep Java updated for it. Hardening the remainder is infeasible if you have other computers inside the same home network or if the host is exposed to the Internet, because another host that is infected even temporarily inside your local network can spread worms and viruses to such an old host quite easily.

I've worked with people to try to secure such environments, but it becomes so labor intensive and so limiting so quickly,and so vulnerable to becoming a zombie and a security risk inside even a small network, the time and work are better spent setting up a new host in almost all cases. Even VM;ing it in a way that offers a "golden snapshot" that can be re-activated at whim and hae the active system deleted on a weekly basis can help, but the time and work exceed the cost of a new license or switching the host to a handy small Linux server for something useful.

Good news (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#45149681)

This is actually good news, because people can start dropping support for IE8, and XP users still have an option in Chrome and FF. If Microsoft doesn't even support it, why should anyone else?

Developers can tell customers to use Chrome, Firefox or upgrade to Win7 (and therefore making IE9 and 10 an option).

Hurray!

Re:Good news (1)

Tridus (79566) | 1 year,8 days | (#45151153)

IE 8 is the base version in Windows 7 and used by a lot of corporate installs of that.

Don't expect it to go away anytime soon, unfortunately.

how long will EOL last? (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#45149813)

Wouldn't it be hilarious, if by June or July of 2014, Microsoft resumes pushing out the Malicious Software Removal Tool and patches for Windows Firewall again, after all the world's XP machines get malware at the same time?

Re:how long will EOL last? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#45151505)

They won't do that.

Re:how long will EOL last? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#45152193)

Microsoft will do what is best for Microsoft on any given day. If that means reversing course they will do that. Maybe they will maybe they won't and nobody here knows for sure.

Why is this even news? (1)

ksemlerK (610016) | 1 year,8 days | (#45150155)

I can still download modern software that will run perfectly fine on Windows NT4 SP6a. I wouldn't run that POS OS, but if I were to do so, I could run pretty much everything that I wanted to and be able to have modern software on my machine that fills every conceivable need.

Re:Why is this even news? (2)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | 1 year,8 days | (#45150637)

that fills every conceivable need of mine.

FTFY. Some people's computing needs may be fulfillable with DOS. People are different from each other.

Re:Why is this even news? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#45151239)

This.

Microsofts problem is that they have based their company around reselling basically the same OS with some new paint and annoying re-arranged interfaces (or scrapped and replaced with literally dog shit for an interface, wooo Vista interface...!)

If they actually supported all of the OSes to a minimum extent and focused on the main, they'd likely actually retain more customers over those switching to Linux.
That is future money they burned by doing absolutely minimum patchwork every month. Hire people, pay people for bugs, etc.
They could have done it. But nope, gotta win by version locking people out of new stuff.
No problems there in Linux guys, you should use Linux, every version works and is updated(ish), a hundred different kinds for whatever the weather.
And they wonder why people switch to Linux? No fuss with new versions, no uncertainty, once setup, it Just Works. (until an update shits out a universe and the sysadmin goes in to a trance)

Re:Why is this even news? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#45151069)

The problem is that an important way that Microsoft deprecates the old OS versions is by removing support from them in Visual Studio. For instance, VS 2005 was the last one that could compile for Windows 2000, and I think VS 2008 is the last one that supports XP.

And somehow still no Google Drive (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#45150397)

Client for Linux.

Sudo Chrome-OS (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#45150613)

I wonder if they will try and turn XP into a form of Chrome-OS, push the brand forward with their windowed apps from Chrome as they are doing on Windows 8, then start advertising to the users about Chrome books. Then when their poor old XP machines fail, the users will already be familiar with the Chrome ecosystem, look at the cost of a Chromebook and think "why do I need a full blown desktop".

Re:Sudo Chrome-OS (1)

mrbluejello (189775) | 1 year,8 days | (#45151511)

You are the only person here who gets it. Check out my other comment for details.

Re:Sudo Chrome-OS (1)

jones_supa (887896) | 1 year,8 days | (#45151533)

I wonder if they will try and turn XP into a form of Chrome-OS, push the brand forward with their windowed apps from Chrome as they are doing on Windows 8, then start advertising to the users about Chrome books. Then when their poor old XP machines fail, the users will already be familiar with the Chrome ecosystem, look at the cost of a Chromebook and think "why do I need a full blown desktop".

It is indeed possible that they have thought about the upgrade path which you described.

Common Practice (1)

chrpai (806494) | 1 year,8 days | (#45151221)

They aren't supporting XP, they are supporting Chrome on XP. I don't see how this is so shocking as software companies have long done this. We develop applications that are expected to work on XP / 2003 through Windows 8.1 and it wasn't really that long ago we were still targeting Windows 2000. It constrains some of your choices and increases your testing surface but if the business thinks there is money to be made going after a customer segment, we do it.

All of you are missing the point... (1)

mrbluejello (189775) | 1 year,8 days | (#45151499)

Google is doing this to build a migration path for users XP to Chrome OS.

By 2015 Google will have a mature Chrome OS, and a huge number of XP users that have no migration path. This is a huge opportunity for Google to win these people over as users -- first as Chrome users, then as Chrome Apps start becoming plentiful through Chrome, XP users will have a way to use modern services while skipping over WIndows XP and the non-existent modern services that will be available for it.

The next step for Google is to get Windows to boot directly into Chrome instead of WIndows XP loading the Explorer Desktop. This is a trivial configuration. Every Windows XP box can be converted into a Chrome OS box once Google gets all the right pieces in place. This is a path to wean users off of Windows and onto Chrome OS.

Of course, when users have to purchase another machine, they will already be familiar with Chrome OS.

does firefox still support it? (1)

buddyglass (925859) | 1 year,8 days | (#45151885)

When there are zero browsers supporting updates on XP maybe people will finally migrate elsewhere.

wasted time and money (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | 1 year,8 days | (#45151935)

Let's look at Windows 98. A study posted on slashdot found that if you connect a Windows 98 computer to the internet (with no AV and no SPI firewall on the modem) it caught a virus in 11 seconds on average. That's while sitting idle at the desktop. April 9th 2014 will be similar for XP. Nobody will have a functioning online XP machine past the 8th.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?