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!

Chrome Will End XP Support in 2015; Firefox Has No Plans To Stop

timothy posted about a year ago | from the dragged-into-the-same-grave dept.

Windows 257

Billly Gates writes "Microsoft is ending support for Windows XP in 2014. Fortunately for its users who want to keep browsing the web, Google is continuing to support Chrome until at least 2015. Firefox has no current plans to end support for XP. Hopefully this will delay the dreaded XPopacalypse — the idea that a major virus/worm/trojan will take down millions of systems that haven't been issued security patches. When these browsers finally do end XP support, does it mean webmasters will need to write seperate versions of CSS and JavaScript for older versions if the user base refuses to leave Windows XP (as happened with IE6)?" Update: 10/29 17:31 GMT by S : Changed headline and summary to reflect that Mozilla doesn't have plans to drop XP support any time soon.

cancel ×

257 comments

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

From my cold dead hands... (3, Funny)

Kell Bengal (711123) | about a year ago | (#45268293)

They'll take my XP when they put me in the ground. Warning: this post may contain traces of levity.

Re:From my cold dead hands... (5, Funny)

brain159 (113897) | about a year ago | (#45269015)

Will you drop some loot as well?

Article says the opposite? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45268305)

The article says they have no plans to end support for XP, how in the world did the summary end up saying exactly the opposite?
Or is now even blatant lying ok as long as it might work as clickbait?

Re:Article says the opposite? (2)

KIFulgore (972701) | about a year ago | (#45268325)

I had to read it 3 times just to make sure I wasn't losing my mind...

Re:Article says the opposite? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45268617)

Timothy is on duty.

Re:Article says the opposite? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45268763)

It might not be intentional. If the criterion for publication is (EditorAmazement(SubmitterWriteup(news)) > threshold), then it tends to select in favor of writeups with errors that make the news amazing.

Re:Article says the opposite? (1)

Zontar_Thing_From_Ve (949321) | about a year ago | (#45268853)

The article says they have no plans to end support for XP, how in the world did the summary end up saying exactly the opposite? Or is now even blatant lying ok as long as it might work as clickbait?

It happens all the time around here, unfortunately. Reading comprehension is rather poor for some of our article submitters.

Re:Article says the opposite? (2)

dreamchaser (49529) | about a year ago | (#45268925)

Not to mention the editors don't do any editing.

Re:Article says the opposite? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45268915)

TIMMAY!

Re:Article says the opposite? (5, Informative)

unixisc (2429386) | about a year ago | (#45268951)

The Chrome article states that support will end in 2015 - a year after Microsoft ends its support. The FireFox article states that their support will continue (indefinitely).

More basic than the browsers - will the antivirus guys like Norton, Kaspersky, ESET, et al continue to support XP?

Re:Article says the opposite? (5, Informative)

Derek Pomery (2028) | about a year ago | (#45269239)

My initial guess was the article submitter was unclear on "continuing support indefinitely" but then I RTFA'd and I saw:
  "We have no plans to discontinue support for our XP users."

I mean. How much more clearer can you get? Yeesh.

Someone could fork the project (1)

jfdavis668 (1414919) | about a year ago | (#45268307)

I know there are versions of Firefox for older systems maintained by other parties.

Re:Someone could fork the project (5, Informative)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year ago | (#45268505)

No need, the linked article says they're going to keep on supporting it.

(In a huge headline font...)

Linked article says exact opposite (5, Informative)

arobatino (46791) | about a year ago | (#45268313)

The linked article, posted 20 hours ago, actually says

Neowin asked Mozilla, the creator of Firefox, if it has any plans to end support for XP and Johnathan Nightingale, VP of Firefox at Mozilla stated, "We have no plans to discontinue support for our XP users."

and basically the same for Chrome.

Re:Linked article says exact opposite (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45268497)

1. You're not supposed to read TFA, only TFS.

2. There is such a blatant contradiction between the two that it's actually funny.

3. But TFS has to be true... I just read it on Slashdot!

Re:Linked article says exact opposite (1)

interval1066 (668936) | about a year ago | (#45268743)

I read the headline and came away with "Lou Reed Just Died". I'm gonna miss that guy.

Re:Linked article says exact opposite (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45269179)

Microsoft would like us all to "Walk on the Windows 8 Side".

Re:Linked article says exact opposite (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45268619)

Hmm, the confusion is rapidly happening fast!

Re:Linked article says exact opposite (2)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about a year ago | (#45268621)

Well when the summary compared IE6 CSS situation to Firefox and Chrome, that might have been the first clue about the quality. Webmasters don't have to write separate versions for IE6 because it's no longer supported. They have to write them because IE6 didn't support standards like CSS when it was still maintained by MS. Firefox and Chrome have supported those standards.

Re:Linked article says exact opposite (5, Funny)

Thanshin (1188877) | about a year ago | (#45268659)

The funniest thing is that, because of the headline being in the address, you can put your mouse over
"Firefox plans to end support for XP"
and read
"mozilla-to-support-firefox-on-windows-xp-after-microsoft-ends-support-for-the-os".

We should have that feature on presidential speeches!

hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45268319)

I thought i read not too long ago on /. that Chrome support would outlast Microsoft's support?

Re:hmm (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45268409)

I thought i read not too long ago on /. that Chrome support would outlast Microsoft's support?

Article: "Both Mozilla and Google said they WILL continue to support XP"
Slashdot: "OMFG NOBODY WIL SUPPRT XP NE MOAR"

Seriously timothy, Fuck you.

fp! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45268323)

first post!

Hopefully (1)

Threni (635302) | about a year ago | (#45268331)

The lack of patches mean all these old boxes get taken out; there'll be no need to write web apps which run on them as they'll be too busy serving up DDOS/malware to people using slightly more recent versions of Windows!

Re:Hopefully (1)

crymeph0 (682581) | about a year ago | (#45268993)

That's what I came to say. A massively vulnerable installed base of computers is a self-solving problem, once the computers get so slow and unusable that their owners just give up. Sure, some of them will pirate XP or miraculously recover their decade-old installation media to wipe their computer and start fresh, but once it gets to the point where you can't even put XP on the internet without it getting trashed within minutes, even those die-hard fans will be forced to see the writing on the wall.

Enough is Enough (0)

XPeter (1429763) | about a year ago | (#45268335)

It's been over a decade, guys. I understand there are legacy software needs, but you've had ample time to find a replacement.

Re:Enough is Enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45268461)

> It's been over a decade, guys.

Why would you need to replace THE ENTIRE OS after 5 or even 10 years?
It's a business plan, not a good tech stack.

Re:Enough is Enough (2)

confused one (671304) | about a year ago | (#45268583)

They replaced the entire OS because the kernel stack was a tangled mess of spagetti that had numerous dependencies that made absolutely no sense. It was an unholy merger of Win9x and WinNT/2k with bells and wistles added throughout it's life (and three service packs).

Re:Enough is Enough (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about a year ago | (#45268701)

It was an unholy merger of Win9x and WinNT/2k

Actually I would say that Windows 2000 (one of the best OS's MS has made) was the merger of consumer and business lines (Win98 and WinNT4). Windows XP was developed from the 2K base and made it more bloated, more unstable and more unsecure.

Re:Enough is Enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45268871)

Here's the major differences between 2k and XP:
UI theming support.
Added some "helpful" wizards.
Different default settings for several things.
Updated NDIS stack so windows could natively configure 802.11 WLAN adapters.

Re:Enough is Enough (1)

Xest (935314) | about a year ago | (#45268601)

You're not replacing the entire OS any more than you do when you do a Linux kernel upgrade or an update to Mac OS X, you can still upgrade Windows, though most people prefer to take upgrade time (seeing as it only comes infrequently) as an opportunity to start afresh and clear out the plethora of applications they don't use any more and so forth.

If you mean "Why do I have to pay for a whole new OS?" then the answer is instead simply that Microsoft make things easy for people and you'd never get end users to put up with needing to pay for an upgrade to the kernel one week, the networking stack a few months later and so forth. End users would get sick of doing it in bits and pieces and paying each time.

If you're asking why does it cost anything to update at all, well, that's Microsoft's business model, a different discussion that's been well had over the years.

But both Linux and MacOS have changed at least as much since 2002 as Windows has, if not more. So it's silly to pretend there's something unusual about upgrading Windows after 11 years. Most people upgrade their OS in that timeframe whatever their preferred OS is. You wont find many people sat on MacOS from 2002 or Linux from the same era. Most will have upgraded substantially at some point.

F$CK UNITY! err, wait, what?!... (4, Insightful)

Thud457 (234763) | about a year ago | (#45268527)

As soon as Micr$oft comes up with a better version, we'll start using it.

Lousy goddamned Fisher-Price tabletized piece of crap. This is a real big-boy computer I use to get real work done on, not some damn device for consuming BookFace and MeToobe videos. Plus there's no signed W7 driver for the lab control interface card. Mabel II would be very unhappy if that stopped working.

Re:F$CK UNITY! err, wait, what?!... (2)

couchslug (175151) | about a year ago | (#45268739)

"This is a real big-boy computer I use to get real work done on,"

I hear ya, but it shouldn't need a web browser. I support XP boxes for my buds machine shop. He doesn't need to buy a newer CAM program ($$) and what he has barfs on Windows 7. We don't connect those machines to the internet. If I need to I can boot Puppy Linux off USB, do whatever, then reboot into XP.

Ubuntu isn't a replacement for XP as its a RAM hog by comparison. I quit distro-churning long ago and use CentOS because it just works.

XP machines will be around for decades, but they can live in isolation.

I don't know if W7 Ultimate XP mode will work with your lab control card but it might be worth a look for giggles.

The more things change... (2)

Cid Highwind (9258) | about a year ago | (#45268805)

Funny, when XP launched the Slashdot consensus was that it was 'goddamned Fischer-Price crap' for consumers who didn't care about the lack of signed drivers for (your favorite obscure ISA card here), and real big boy computers ran Linux, UNIX, or Win2k if you really needed Microsoft software.

Re:Enough is Enough (3, Informative)

realityimpaired (1668397) | about a year ago | (#45268561)

It will adversely affect the virtual machine I use to watch Netflix. That's about it... I have a legal license for XP and run it in a VM. I no longer have a valid license for 7, and would not touch 8 with a 10-foot pole, even if you paid me to do it. But I still need something modern to support Windows XP, because that's how I access Netflix from my desktop PC.

Admittedly, with the number of devices I have with native Netflix clients (tablet, phone, smart TV, game consoles, etc.), that will become less of a problem, but I do still find time/reason to watch it on the desktop, and the Linux-native attempts do not work very well in my experience.

Re:Enough is Enough (1)

cyber-vandal (148830) | about a year ago | (#45269197)

I haven't tried it but Android-X86 might be a viable replacement. I can't see whether Netflix works on it but given that there are some Atom based tablets about I would've thought Netflix would've ported it.

Re:Enough is Enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45268637)

XP has always had these application compatibility issues. That's why I'm sticking with Windows 98.

Re:Enough is Enough (3, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | about a year ago | (#45269145)

It's been over a decade, guys.

Windows XP was still being sold on new PCs until two or three years ago, guy. Those PCs are still perfectly capable of doing most things that most of their users want to do. Why should they dump them just because Microsoft won't support its products?

Re:Enough is Enough (1)

XPeter (1429763) | about a year ago | (#45269249)

What software company is still actively supporting products from 2003?

WinXP in a VM for VPN clients (3, Insightful)

mathew42 (2475458) | about a year ago | (#45269313)

I've found WinXP running in a VM the sanest way to connect to the VPNs of various clients that I work with. Many VPN clients attempt to take over the entire network stack and direct all your traffic through their VPN which creates havoc with accessing company servers.

With WinXP I can clone a VM for different clients. I tried this with Windows7 and ran into activiation nightmares. Possibly not strictly legal, but I refuse to fork out cash just because different VPN clients won't play nicely with each other on the same instance.

lemme tag it for ya buddy (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45268341)

diealready

Finally (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45268343)

XP shoulda been EOL years ago yet people still are facing same challenges as they did when upgrading to XP.. When will people learn

If they kept supporting it, I'd still use it. (2)

Strawser (22927) | about a year ago | (#45268351)

I only use Windows for dual booting when I need Windows for some reason, which is rare, but XP was a solid and decent version of the Windows family. I'd have kept it if it weren't being sunsetted. I now have Windows 8 on my other partition. I hate the interface, passionately, but luckily I don't have to use it often. I felt like I had to move to 8 just to have software support.

Sad to see it go. It was the first decent OS Microsoft made.

You'll probably hate Classic Shell less (3, Informative)

tepples (727027) | about a year ago | (#45268581)

I now have Windows 8 on my other partition. I hate the interface, passionately

You'll probably hate Classic Shell less. It adds a proper Start Menu to Windows 8, which you can configure to look like Windows 9x, Windows XP, or Windows 7.

Re:You'll probably hate Classic Shell less (1)

Strawser (22927) | about a year ago | (#45268647)

Thank you. I know there are 3rd party tweeks, but I hadn't gotten around to figuring out which, if any, are worth while. I'll take a look at that next time I have to boot Windows.

Firefox is continuing support (5, Informative)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year ago | (#45268353)

From the fine article:

Neowin asked Mozilla, the creator of Firefox, if it has any plans to end support for XP and Johnathan Nightingale, VP of Firefox at Mozilla stated, "We have no plans to discontinue support for our XP users."

Chrome would support XP till 2015 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45268361)

2015 is soon? It is more than a year away.

64 bit Firefox (1)

jfdavis668 (1414919) | about a year ago | (#45268363)

Does this mean that Firefox will finally go 64 bit?

Electrolysis for 32-bit Windows Vista and 7 (1)

tepples (727027) | about a year ago | (#45268629)

There are still plenty of 32-bit machines running Windows Vista and netbooks running Windows 7 Starter, so probably not. A 32-bit app on a 64-bit operating system is perfectly fine unless a single process needs more than 2 GB, which isn't quite the case for web applications. Firefox will more likely follow Chrome in splitting the user's browser session into multiple 32-bit processes [mozilla.org] .

Re:64 bit Firefox (2)

julesh (229690) | about a year ago | (#45268703)

No. Firefox is 32-bit because it has to support NPAPI plugins, which are mostly (if not all) 32-bit DLLs, and Windows can't load a 32-bit DLL into a 64-bit process.

All right (2, Insightful)

trifish (826353) | about a year ago | (#45268377)

Only an idiot would run a browser on an OS with unpatched vulnerabilities. Windows XP will not get any security issues fixed after April 2014. If you ignore those simple facts, you deserve becoming a part of a botnet, sending your passwords and credit card numbers to the botmaster.

Re:All right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45268491)

Once you get beyond the home user realm you'll start to understand the complexities of sunsetting something with the history that XP has associated with it. I supported an OS/2 Warp system until 2006-2007. I supported several MS-DOS systems during Y2K, but mind you MS-DOS was still technically supported by MS at the time. These things happen and it's not always as easy as saying "just install teh Linux!!!!1111!!!!"

Re:All right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45268801)

Then install Windows 7 and run XP Mode [microsoft.com] for stuff that absolutely must run in XP.

Wow. Hard.

Re:All right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45268879)

Wow. XP Mode is different from XP.. Wow.. breakage.. Wow.. unemployed much?

Re:All right (3, Interesting)

interval1066 (668936) | about a year ago | (#45268829)

Well... Linux works for me, I run 7 in a vm for those rare times I need it, but as a posix/Foss developer Linux is indispensable. It may not work for you, perhaps, but it is a viable alternative, a better one in my opinion, d00D.

Re:All right (1)

Merk42 (1906718) | about a year ago | (#45268929)

It may be more complex, but IT departments have had ample time to figure out said complexities. April 2014 has been known about for YEARS.

MS should make Windows 9 look exactly like XP (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45268379)

Exactly. Like. XP. With classic window option and all. Just change the stuff under the hood. Instant top seller. Instead they're trying to sell me a cellphone for my desktop. Bloody idiots.

Re:MS should make Windows 9 look exactly like XP (1)

just_a_monkey (1004343) | about a year ago | (#45268903)

> Exactly. Like. XP.

Shut up and take my money!

Thank God for AOL... (1)

BUL2294 (1081735) | about a year ago | (#45268385)

It will keep my computer from 2002 on the Inter-webs via dial-up...

Microsoft is missing an opportunity here. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45268399)

So lots of people are willing to continue using XP. Why doesn't Microsoft simply support them? XP is plenty good enough for most people, so Microsoft could easily provide ongoing support for a small yearly fee. Multiply a "small yearly fee" by a "boatload of users" and you're talking real money. Especially when you consider that a lot of businesses are going to be very happy to stay with XP if they can: Their costs for retraining and replacing systems will be reduced and that's an opportunity for Microsoft to get in there and claw back some of those savings for "support" charges.

Re:Microsoft is missing an opportunity here. (1)

Custard Horse (1527495) | about a year ago | (#45268467)

Have you ever visited the planet earth?

Re:Microsoft is missing an opportunity here. (1)

Tridus (79566) | about a year ago | (#45268667)

Microsoft's own tools don't even work on XP anymore. It's a highly obsolete codebase for them.

If people want to keep using it, then can take those machines off the net and use them until they die without problem. But at some point Microsoft wants to devote its time to building better stuff, not infinitely supporting the old stuff because corporate IT still thinks that their IE6 only web app is good enough.

Re:Microsoft is missing an opportunity here. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45268741)

But those IE6-only web apps are largely Microsoft's fault.
They should accept responsibility for them.

Re:Microsoft is missing an opportunity here. (1)

interval1066 (668936) | about a year ago | (#45268837)

Not a viable business strategy for Microsoft.

And where does it say this? (5, Informative)

R.Mo_Robert (737913) | about a year ago | (#45268413)

The first link says that Mozilla plans to continue supporting Firefox on XP; it gives no end date, so they presumably mean indefinitely (though practically probably not much longer than a few years--for example, they supported Windows 2000 until Firefox 12 in April 2012, a bit over 2 years after its EOL; on the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if they went a bit longer with XP given its larger user base). The second link says Google plans to continue Chrome support on XP into at least 2015. Neither one of these links talks about Firefox or Chrome ending support for Windows XP. In fact, both mention the exact opposite, at least for the foreseeable future, so I'm really wondering where the author of this summary got this information.

Re:And where does it say this? (1)

intermodal (534361) | about a year ago | (#45268653)

Unlike Microsoft, there's no incentive for these projects to drop XP until the number of users gets too low to justify continued development. I'm phasing it out of the office before the EOL, but that doesn't mean home users will. Microsoft wants users to buy newer versions of their products.

Free software projects supporting XP or not supporting XP is a matter of providing your users with what they will actually use. As long as enough XP users are using Firefox, Mozilla has no reason to drop it. Microsoft's decisions are basically irrelevant to that decision except in their effect on OS market share.

Re:And where does it say this? (1)

penix1 (722987) | about a year ago | (#45269115)

This summary aside, there is at least one valid reason a project should drop support after EOL. Namely reputation. When a flaw in the OS gets exploited via the browser, people tend to blame the instrument that first started the failure. It happens all the time today even on patched systems. The browser will catch the blame for the failure in the OS since it is where the trouble started.

Hell, we've all seen it with granny getting infected because the pre-installed version of Norton's timed out and hasn't seen an update in years. Does Symantic get blamed for the failure? Does granny blame herself for not purchasing the updates? No. To granny it is the computer that is bad.

User Experience (1)

prefec2 (875483) | about a year ago | (#45268419)

User experience will degrade for XP in normal desktop environments. In other use cases nothing will change much, as these systems do not use browsers. They control some weird machinery and the day the hardware fails, they have to be replaced. As long as the new hardware is able to run the old setup, these system will remain in that state. At the very day, the user/company is unable to acquire a replacement unit able to run the old stuff, they either migrate to a new OS or they collapse trying. As a company you should get rid of un-maintained software stacks. As a desktop user, you will migrate when it hurts more to stay with XP then migrating to something else.

IE6 Support (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45268427)

Does this also mean webmasters will need to write seperate versions of CSS and javascript for older versions of Chrome and Firefox like they did with IE 6 if the user base refuses to leave Windows XP?

Are you being paid to do so?
Can you afford to not be paid if you decide not to support it because you believe supporting it would be bad for ?

To be honest... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45268443)

Actually I'm in really bad shape finacially. I pay money to my ex-wife as part of our divorce settlement, amongst other bills.

I just have no choice to use an old XP laptop because I can't afford a new one.

captcha: trapped

Re:To be honest... (1)

couchslug (175151) | about a year ago | (#45268767)

Puppy Linux is one excellent option for older hardware and is wonderfully easy to configure. Even if you want to retain XP for some things, Puppy runs nicely off live USB keys (and you want one of those if you ever have to rescue your lappy).

I use it to setup basic PCs for friends. No malware, good performance, easy for them to use with no Linux expertise.

Re:To be honest... (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about a year ago | (#45268941)

You could put Xubuntu on that machine or, get a slightly newer refurbished laptop for $150 and put Windows 7 on it (use MSDN image [mydigitallife.info] and Daz's Windows Loader [mydigitallife.info] ).

Mandatory recommendation to switch to Arch Linux. (1)

Bogis (3026207) | about a year ago | (#45268455)

Snarky reference to "Winblows", and link to text-only browser.

End of Life for XP in General (2)

ironicsky (569792) | about a year ago | (#45268483)

As of April 8th, 2014, Microsoft is ending all support for their 12 year old operating system. We can't continue to support legacy systems because people refuse to upgrade. There has been THREE full OS versions that have come out since XP. There are people still using Windows 98 and Windows ME, doesn't mean we still provide support for them.

Re:End of Life for XP in General (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45268567)

Yeah, three full OS versions: Vista sucked a lot, Seven sucked a little less, Eight breaks the suck-meter. When they're supposed to pay extra for something that sucks, people don't easily part with their money.

Re:End of Life for XP in General (1)

denis-The-menace (471988) | about a year ago | (#45268831)

LOL: "Eight breaks the suck-meter."

Once the XP-lovers get burnt by a XP-only exploit and it becomes big news, they will switch.
But something tells me that MS will not be happy with their choice.

IMHO: Metro exists to give MS' marketing dept the ability to says that MS has the same look and feel regardless of the device.
If MS made cars and trucks, both would have air breaks, a rolling back door (like you see on rigs) and attachments for child seats.

Re:End of Life for XP in General (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45268945)

Seven does not suck, in fact it's marginally(not a lot, but somewhat) better than XP, provided you run it on a powerful enough machine.

Re:End of Life for XP in General (2)

sfm (195458) | about a year ago | (#45268623)

> There has been THREE full OS versions that have come out since XP

Don't you mean 2.5 ? Remember, Vista was on that list.

Re:End of Life for XP in General (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45268953)

Vista (NT 6.0), Windows 7 (NT 6.1), Windows 8 (NT 6.2), and Windows 8.1 (NT 6.3)

THERE. ARE. FOUR. VERSIONS. (Cool trick: Slur your speech like Picard did, and it sounds like "virgins".)

Then again, the GP did say "full" versions, which means that there's actually only one version in the last 12 years (NT 5.x -> NT 6.x).

Before Linux is Recommended (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45268501)

I'm not a Windows XP fanatic.

But before someone recommends that everyone go out and pick any old Linux distribution. People please qualify the recommendation.

If you have a machine that was powerful five years ago, sure use a new heavy distribution (Heavy = KDE, Unity, GNOME, Cinnamon). If you bought a cheap machine 3-5 years ago or an older machine. Recommend a lower impact distribution (Light = LXDE, XFDE, Mate, otherwise)

Linux isn't a solution for everyone, and some point we should recommend the machine just get backed up and recycled

Re:Before Linux is Recommended (2)

couchslug (175151) | about a year ago | (#45268785)

Puppy Linux is excellent on older hardware and fast on more recent boxes.

The motivation is to support Windows Server 2003 (3, Informative)

BUL2294 (1081735) | about a year ago | (#45268513)

The reason Firefox and Chrome will continue to support XP is because they want to support Windows Server 2003, which has an End-of-Life of 14-Jul-2015. Since Win2003 (and XP Pro x64) use the NT 5.2 kernel and they don't want to lose that marketshare, by default supporting it on the NT 5.1 kernel (e.g. XP 32-bit) would be a trivial affair. That's why they chose "at least 2015"...

Re:The motivation is to support Windows Server 200 (2)

NJRoadfan (1254248) | about a year ago | (#45268611)

Just goes to show that the Win32 API is stable compared to say, MacOS X. Even though Mozilla dropped support for 10.4 and 10.5 PowerPC, the TenFourFox [floodgap.com] project keeps up with Mozilla's changes. Whats missing from Win32 in XP/2K3 that would force Mozilla to drop support in the future? OS X had big changes to font handling in 10.5 and higher, plus that big architecture change.

Re:The motivation is to support Windows Server 200 (1)

jbolden (176878) | about a year ago | (#45268749)

Of course it is stable compared to Apple. Apple's attitude is that all apps should patch annually to keep up with OS changes. That have no intention nor desire for stability, they like rapid progress and encourage this attitude in their developer base and user community. Apple brags about how quickly they retire old versions of their operating systems to investors.

No (2)

Quick Reply (688867) | about a year ago | (#45268547)

Web Developers have learnt from the past, there will never be a supported code that will be dependant on a specific version again.

Cross-compatibility and Browser Independence is a main focus that hasn't been in the past. Most websites are not locked into a particular browser, so there are more options if things go pear-shaped in a particular browser. If for example Firefox drops XP support and there is a bug with the old version, the customer can change to Chrome until another solution is put in place.

IE6 was the exception, because it was too difficult in many codebases to update it for compatibility beyond IE6 in the short term, for time(=money) reasons. As soon as the codebases were updated (or the solution replaced) to work beyond IE6, IE6 was kicked right out the door. IE6 didn't stay king because so many people loved that browser so much that they didn't want to change, it was because they HAD to keep using it for some reason. It is not uncommon for companies still relying on IE6 to have Firefox installed for general web browsing and IE6 only for the specific app they need. You can bet your ass they have retirement plans on how to eventually get off IE6 (& now also XP) altogether.

Unsupported code (eg: unmaintained websites) that won't work with new versions - Yes that is inevitable.

Supported code - No.
If it is a supported codebase - The web developer's solution would be to update it to work with the new version, not make it work with the old. If that means that it will break compatibility with the old version, then so be it, it is industry practice not to support unsupported software.

It's worth pointing out that Mozilla & Google are not supporting XP - They are supporting their browsers. If there is a problem in XP, they are not going to help you with it.

XP opacalypse? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45268563)

What does any of this have to do with Kai Opaca's lips?

Here's how this happened (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a year ago | (#45268569)

For those of you wondering how this happened, I told my bosses about it about 2 years ago. I made a schedule of replacing 2.5 computers every 100 days and that would bring us right up there. Every single time it came up, they delayed it. We actually added about 4 more XP workstations so the number of replaced PCs went negative. Now we need to replace about 24 in the next 6 months and we don't have the money for that so we're screwed. I plan on finding a different job prior to April 8th.

Re:Here's how this happened (1)

0123456 (636235) | about a year ago | (#45269291)

Your bosses probably figured out that, when there are tens or hundreds of millions of XP machines in businesses around the world exposed to newly found security holes, the bad press will force Microsoft to keep supporting them or offer cheap upgrades to Windows 7.

Still using Windows 2000 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45268573)

I'm still using Win2k and am not having any problems. I don't have any plans to upgrade to XP, so I guess I don't have to worry.

Abandon Ship (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45268575)

"Does this also mean webmasters will need to write seperate versions of CSS and javascript for older versions of Chrome and Firefox like they did with IE 6 if the user base refuses to leave Windows XP?"

Not going to happen, for me at least. This sort of behavior really is ridiculous. It's like wanting me to put a new $1000 stereo into your 1987 corolla. It doesn't fit, and your car is shit. Don't ask for an upgrade until YOU upgrade.

Misleading title! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45268595)

Misleading title!

Re:Misleading title! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45269001)

No, it isn't.

XPopacalypse written by (1)

Pope (17780) | about a year ago | (#45268817)

Paul Thurrot. OK, guess I'll ignore that drivel.

Re:XPopacalypse written by (1)

jittles (1613415) | about a year ago | (#45269059)

Paul Thurrot. OK, guess I'll ignore that drivel.

Not only that, but I think MIcrosoft would go back and patch a huge issue in XP if it was causing bad press. If there is an XPopacalypse then they would have to be crazy not to address it.

WINE for Windows? (1)

DdJ (10790) | about a year ago | (#45268861)

How hard would it be to create a runtime environment for XP similar to WINE on Linux and MacOS that provides missing APIs and such so that things written to require newer versions of Windows could continue running on it?

Related point: is enough known about the OS that third parties could realistically provide their own security updates to it?

What about Opera? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45268885)

Because, Opera will surely do.
It is only a few years since it dropped the support for Windows 98. Seriously, it kept supporting it for freakingly long, I think to the end of version 11.

It's not a compliment though, only shows they have or had seriously outdated code base. Dropping much of functionality in the recent versions is a give away sign of it too.

does this mean (3, Informative)

rossdee (243626) | about a year ago | (#45268895)

does this mean will not have to worry about upgrading to a new version of Firefox every other fortnight and having it break all the add-ons
sounds good to me
btw I just upgraded to FF 25 on my Win7 box and had to fiddle with Foxtab a lot to get it going again
there was no mention during the upgrade process that Foxtab was incompatible

The Article (3, Informative)

JTD121 (950855) | about a year ago | (#45269019)

Was published early August, so there may have been some changes and press releases and announcements since then, no? I would imagine AV companies will support whoever pays, especially the annual plans.

The End of Firefox and Chrome in Corporate (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45269205)

I can tell you that our IT department will drop Firefox and Chrome like a hot potato when that happens. It took almost a decade to convince them to write cross-platform code for intranet sites, but with 100,000+ workstations they are not in any hurry to upgrade XP machines. They are taking the upgrade by attrition approach. If Chrome and Firefox stop being supported on XP, Chrome and Firefox will be removed from the corporate PC fleet.

Re:The End of Firefox and Chrome in Corporate (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45269327)

^^Anonymous retard failed to read any of the copious comments above pointing out that the summary is wrong and both Firefox and Chrome will continue to support XP long after MS EOLs it.

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>