Beta
×

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

Thank you!

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

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

Microsoft Extends Updates For Windows XP Security Products Until July 2015

samzenpus posted about 9 months ago | from the not-so-fast dept.

Microsoft 417

An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft today announced it will continue to provide updates to its security products for Windows XP users through July 14, 2015. Previously, the company said it would halt all updates on the end of support date for Windows XP: April 8, 2014. For consumers, this means Microsoft Security Essentials will continue to get updates after support ends for Windows XP. For enterprise customers, the same goes for System Center Endpoint Protection, Forefront Client Security, Forefront Endpoint Protection, and Windows Intune running on Windows XP."

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

*sigh* (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45971099)

If companies claim they haven't had enough time to upgrade their OS or update/rewrite their software, it is because they never will.

Re:*sigh* (1)

jddeluxe (965655) | about 9 months ago | (#45971203)

If I had mod points today you would get some...

Re:*sigh* (5, Insightful)

epyT-R (613989) | about 9 months ago | (#45971321)

..or maybe xp is good enough for them and the newer versions of windows don't offer enough incentive to upgrade. Considering how bad current microsoft contracts are, it might actually make more sense to wall those machines off from the net and keep using them instead of staying on that one-more-patch-tuesday-til-I'm-secure treadmill.

Re:*sigh* (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45971445)

Honestly, I'm usually with you. Their hasn't been a real reason SINCE XP for a new windows OS. Okay, 95. But vista (well, 7, but you get what I mean) was needed. Being 64b is an *actual* reason to upgrade. It just sucks that MS doesn't make a 32b, legacy, low footprint OS for those that need to run old software.

Re:*sigh* (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45971491)

It just sucks that MS doesn't make a 32b, legacy, low footprint OS for those that need to run old software.

First, you can get Win 7 Pro in a 32 bit version. And let's not forget about this [microsoft.com] ?

Re:*sigh* (5, Insightful)

Chaos Incarnate (772793) | about 9 months ago | (#45971637)

Windows XP Mode is just an XP VM. It will still have the same vulnerabilities as an unpatched Windows XP.

Re:*sigh* (3, Informative)

Immerman (2627577) | about 9 months ago | (#45971725)

>Being 64b is an *actual* reason to upgrade

For office drones? Really? That 3.5GB RAM limit was a bit of a nuisance for some specific things, but realistically how many office computers ever run up against it? No argument that servers and "Big Iron" can benefit substantially *if* the dataset is large enough to be seriously RAM limited. Even serious gaming rigs can often benefit dramatically from all that extra RAM and vectorization potential. But how many office applications can actually benefit notably from vectorized instruction optimizations? They spend almost all their time waiting on the user anyway, it doesn't really matter how fast they do it.

Re:*sigh* (4, Interesting)

Luckyo (1726890) | about 9 months ago | (#45971881)

Actually most modern games still run on 4GB RAM just fine even on w7 64bit. There is a very small subset of games that do require more, most of them terribly optimized and usually still in alpha/early beta.

Extra RAM on windows mainly helps mitigate memory leaks and hide the fact that Vista/7 is a huge memory hog with massively greater RAM requirements for OS overhead than XP ever was. Which doesn't impact you if you stay on XP. Microsoft also claims it helps caching, and to a certain extent it does. But in most cases, this advantage is negligible.

So more RAM makes sense on 7. But XP? Not so much. Which is another reason NOT to move from XP.

Re:*sigh* (2)

epyT-R (613989) | about 9 months ago | (#45971877)

Well, I realize I'm in a minority, but I ran xp x64 for many years before moving to 7. A lot of hardware did actually work just fine with it, though sometimes the setup programs for them had to be manually extracted and installed. The only hardware that didn't work required kernel drivers and only shipped with 32bit binaries.

It was probably the most trouble free experience I've ever had with windows.

Re:*sigh* (2)

Salgat (1098063) | about 9 months ago | (#45971517)

This is the case where I work. On our machines are HMIs (interfaces to control the machine); you don't ever actually see Windows. The reason to upgrade from XP to 7 is purely because of security. Until the updates end, there are no good reasons to stop using XP since it does exactly what it is needed for.

Re:*sigh* (1)

mlts (1038732) | about 9 months ago | (#45971791)

Other than Windows 7 (or for that matter 8.1) being an OS made to address security concerns for 2014 as opposed to having security strapped onto an OS made in 2001, for a lot of users, XP is good enough.

Other than being newer, there just isn't much in Windows 7 or newer that is groundbreaking and would get users to move to it. Moving from ME to XP was an obvious improvement, but from a user's perspective, XP to Windows 8.1 just doesn't bring that much with it for their sake, other than it being easier to reinstall the OS [1].

[1]: I wouldn't want to reinstall the OS from those options, just because if it is due to malware, the OS image can get tampered with. Hardware failure likely means a complete reinstall from OS media. The only case I see that makes a "reset" something as an option would be Registry corruption... and that is very uncommon these days.

Re:*sigh* (2)

epyT-R (613989) | about 9 months ago | (#45971901)

For highly customized configurations (like HMIs), it's better to just use the disk image provided by the manufacturer and isolate it accordingly than it is to try to update the base OS. Let the manufacturer worry about that.

Re:*sigh* (1, Insightful)

ynp7 (1786468) | about 9 months ago | (#45971795)

XP was never that great even when it was recent. It's certainly much, much worse than Windows 7, 8, and even Vista. Fucking well past time to let that shit die.

Re:*sigh* (3, Insightful)

epyT-R (613989) | about 9 months ago | (#45971925)

Of course it isn't. It's just not that much worse to justify changing it over, especially for old hardware. No version of windows is safe from the internet. I guess I'm saying that if the need for security is important enough, it's better to cut access to the net for the average workstation regardless of windows version.

Most of those infected xp machines are owned by careless/clueless users who will soon be just as infected on windows 8 as they were under xp.

Re:*sigh* (5, Insightful)

roc97007 (608802) | about 9 months ago | (#45971367)

Or because they've lost the source code, or because the only person who knew the software has long since left the company, or they've tried three times since 2003 but each time was over budget and did not deliver usable code, or development has been at a standstill since they offshored the development team. Or because they don't have the budget to push out new hardware in a down economy. Or, yes, ok, because they never will.

Re:*sigh* (5, Insightful)

mythosaz (572040) | about 9 months ago | (#45971403)

It's not so simple.

I'm sitting here now, virtualizing applications in App-V for an XP --> 7 migration project. Most people have no idea the scope of applications used by any sufficiently large company, the sort of resources it takes to locate, acquire, and upgrade existing products, or the skill necessary to shoe-horn old applications business can't move quickly away from into an operating system they were never intended for.

My previous employer had 40,000+ endpoints at 40+ facilities. Each of those facilities was part of a loose federation of medical providers and hospitals, each running their own software, each with dozens of departments with unique applications. Their migration to Windows 7 wasn't going to be free. It took money and manpower, and that doesn't happen overnight.

My current situation is similar, just reduced in size by an order of magnitude. Still nearly a thousand applications -- sure, you can throw a lot of them away, but that takes meeting endlessly with department heads and finding replacements - and testing them - and packaging them for distribution to your new OS in the new tool, since the old tool needs to be replaced along the way. Not everyone had a direct upgrade path to the next version of System Center.

Entire infrastructures needed replaced in a LOT of companies. You can spin up a HP Client Automation infrastructure in a day - if you're the only guy in an IT department, and don't need to wait for a change window to have DBAs configure your backend, and need to wait for networking to make sure machines outside the DMZ can still patch. People over-simplify what has to happen in the "simple" upgrades, and Windows 7 migrations were more than just going out to a PC with a copy of USMT and swapping their hardware.

Oh, and I hope you have an enterprise agreement with Microsoft, and you budgeted all of this years ago in your long-term financial plan, and you're not middle-way through any other initiatives that might cause you to have a moving target - like desktop or application virtualization. If you're going to pull off the bandaid, pull the damned thing off already. Lets get off physical boxes too! I'm sure we'll have all the USB printer issues worked out on the non-persistent desktops soon enough.

You can lose days in finding keys for "critical" one-off licensed software for a machine swap. God forbid you're moving to 64-bit and dealing with old .NET apps that nobody's going to ever re-write. It's not just walking around and swapping out some PCs.

Anyone who tells you otherwise is being willfully ignorant.

Re:*sigh* (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45971475)

Even though you have known this day would come since 2009.

Re:*sigh* (2)

master5o1 (1068594) | about 9 months ago | (#45971747)

Actually they knew they should be planning a new-os version at least since Vista was released. And probably pushed that planning into a release for Windows 7.

Re:*sigh* (1)

haruchai (17472) | about 9 months ago | (#45971507)

Sounds like a lot of bad planning. Have seen a lot of that at places I've worked.
Windows XP end-of-life has been known for years; Windows 7 went RTM in July 2009 which means that betas were available for a couple years before that.

So anyone whining about not having enough time, almost 4 years on, is a moron. Sadly, that's true of where I worked not so long ago - a 15000 user organization that only completed their Win 2000 - XP migration 2 years ago.

Re:*sigh* (5, Informative)

bobbied (2522392) | about 9 months ago | (#45971849)

Bad planning is all too common especially when the eventual demise is a year or more away. You are talking a long term plan when management is in tactical mode trying to make the numbers for the quarter. If you are there talking about the sky falling in 4 years, you WILL be ignored. It's the nature of how publicly traded companies run. Remember that the last 5 years have been a *serious* problem world wide economically. Most companies are struggling to keep afloat without just throwing in the towel and everybody is dying waiting for any sign of recovery, which so far has not been really seen.

In a business down turn, where you are downsizing, EVERYTHING is tactical and strategic planning is out the door, like the last wave of RIFed off employees. The quickest way to get to follow all those people you used to work with out the door is to start making noise about spending money. Especially if you are in executive management hired and fired by the board. Best you can hope for is to pull the golden parachute rip cord before the chickens come home to roost and let the next poor soul who gets your job deal with it. Even in the best of times, many companies struggle with the "manage to quarter" mentality. It's always about stock price NOW not years down the road.

I for one am not surprised that a lot of companies have buried their heads in the sand and ignored this XP EOL date. So don't castigate the guy describing the problem he faces for not planning ahead. Seems to me, he's on top of the problem and fully knows what needs to be done, but he's not been given the necessary mandate and resources to actually get the problem fixed and work a viable plan. It's not HIS lack of planning, but a result of management choosing the expedient over what is best in the long term.

Re:*sigh* (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45971561)

I work in IT in a company with thousands of offices and 100,000's of desktops and 10,000's of applications. What you described is actually incredibly poor IT management combined with incredibly bad planning, not a problem of being a large enterprise. Every IT department should have plans for keeping software and hardware current and under support, There should not be ANY one off licenses to find keys for, they should exist in a central software repository, if they aren't then your IT procurement process is a fail. literally thousands of enterprises bigger than yours have migrated to Windows 7 and are already looking to plan future migrations as 7 is getting old in the tooth now too. don't blame the complexity of this on the enterprises size, what you have there is a clear case of mismanagement.

Re:*sigh* (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45971651)

God forbid you're moving to 64-bit and dealing with old .NET apps that nobody's going to ever re-write.

Oh, it's more insidious than that. One of the 64-bit issues we had to deal with was Microsoft's IPv6 extensions to proxy.pac files. Even though the apps were 32-bit and the machines were on an IPv4-only network, you had to have essentially-duplicate FindProxyForURLEx() functions in the proxy.pac file if the machines were Windows Vista/7/8 64-bit. Contrary to documentation, the 64-bit machines weren't even using the FindProxyForURL() functions. And forget about what happens when ClickOnce is involved.

Re:*sigh* (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45971767)

>You can lose days in finding keys for "critical" one-off licensed software for a machine swap.

PEBCAK. Imagine a business who said it took them days to find an invoice, a bill, or their payroll records. You'd laugh at them and make a mental note to never do business with them, right? Finding license keys is not a problem for a competently run organization.

Re:*sigh* (5, Informative)

mlts (1038732) | about 9 months ago | (#45971841)

Don't forget having a KMS infrastructure where every single machine in the company can contact an activation server every 180 days. Yes, one can use MAK type of keying, but if a box needs a reinstall, that means one has to burn another install key.

In a previous life, I've encountered cases with legacy apps as well, where the client was 32 bit... but just would not work on Windows 7 for love or money. I ended up having to use virtual machines running XP for the dedicated program.

Of course, there is the server infrastructure Windows 7 requires. New GPOs, more disk space for updates for WSUS, more PXE images, etc.

So, a move to Windows 7 (or a major OS update for the clients for that matter) isn't something to be taken lightly in a company, because one mistake can trash hundreds to tens of thousands of desktops. At minimum, it requires a test lab and running upgrades to see what ugly issues will rear their heads.

Re:*sigh* (2)

slimjim8094 (941042) | about 9 months ago | (#45971859)

Yeah, sure, OK, but that's why the time to start all this lengthy work was like 4 years ago, right? That's a really long time to sort out even some pretty massive problems, and have endless meetings with department heads, and testing them, and waiting for the DBA, and waiting for the network configuration - and then have like a year and a half left to actually do the upgrade!. I mean, if a business have such a complicated setup that it's going to take X years to migrate off an OS, doesn't it make sense to start that migration at least X years before the published cut-off date? I guarantee you that there's a dozen 0-days just waiting around for the end of support - even if they didn't care about basing their entire organization on top of a vendor-unsupported product with no recourse for problems, it seems incredibly dangerous for a company to not be 100% sure they'd avoid that attacker free-for-all, right? Presumably the reason for all those computers is people have to use them for work.

Nobody's talking about "overnight" here. Windows XP is more than twelve years old. The viable replacement has been available for more than four years. What would more time ever gain anybody? Clearly the people right at the edge now punted until they couldn't punt any longer, so more time would just lead to longer punting followed by this same rush.

Re:*sigh* (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about 9 months ago | (#45971463)

If companies claim they haven't had enough time to upgrade their OS or update/rewrite their software, it is because they never will.

It's a Slot Machine approach. They keep pulling the handle, hoping for the jackpot which will never come.

Re:*sigh* (4, Insightful)

argStyopa (232550) | about 9 months ago | (#45971701)

The FACT is that most of them run just fine and don't NEED to upgrade.

Just because someone says "get on this treadmill" doesn't mean you need to.

Depending on what you want to do with a computer, you could be running flippin' DOS and be perfectly fine (not to mention have your pick of pretty-much-free machines in the dustbin that would run whatever ancient apps you need SCREAMINGLY fast).

Oh great... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45971105)

Now I look like an asshole for telling my boss that he ABSOLUTELY HAD to upgrade everything because even Microsoft was killing security updates.

Re:Oh great... (1)

Chompjil (2746865) | about 9 months ago | (#45971133)

I told my school to do this too, at least they're on chrome OS now

Re:Oh great... (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45971371)

More fool them, what a peice of shit

Re:Oh great... (1)

bloodhawk (813939) | about 9 months ago | (#45971411)

So your schools IT people finally realised they are being locked into a vendor that is only interested in their money. So the solution, Lets go and get locked into another vendor that wants our information so they can sell it. So many choices were available to them and instead of choosing not to be beaten by sticks they choose a different colour stick.

Re:Oh great... (5, Interesting)

zerofoo (262795) | about 9 months ago | (#45971567)

Or they deployed Chromebooks for the reasons we did:

1. Low hardware cost - our Samsungs cost $249 each.
2. Enough web based software to do the job (google apps plus 3rd party apps are VERY good in an education environment).
3. Central data storage that doesn't require lots of backup hardware and software or server hardware.
4. Great management tools for deploying policies and apps.
5. The big one - FREE after the initial hardware purchase - WITH SUPPORT.

Show me another ecosystem that offers this much for so little cost.

If Google is beating us with a stick, I'll take it any day of the week over the Microsoft/Apple stuff we were running.

Re:Oh great... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45971737)

any Linux distribution comes with web based software to do the job. central data storage is a negative not a positive with desktops, especially when it is something that can be as sensitive as childrens data. great management tools exist for all platforms, even windows. support is really the only one there that is the positive that isn't matched, but hey sometimes not being raped means you have to protect yourself a little.

Re:Oh great... (1)

bobbied (2522392) | about 9 months ago | (#45971897)

If Google is beating us with a stick, I'll take it any day of the week over the Microsoft/Apple stuff we were running.

Here here! Go with Chromebooks.

Microsoft/Apple are a bunch of money grabbing shakedown artists. Have you seen what it costs to buy licenses for their stuff?

I don't begrudge software vendors a profit on their creations, but shesh, you are going to spend north of $1K to get hardware, OS, Office (with outlook) on a managed network for just ONE seat. THEN, the way things work, you won't get support and you will have to re-up the software every year. Enough for me thanks! I'll take my beatings from Google too.

Re:Oh great... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45971195)

They are killing them. another 15 months is at best a short amnesty. It is also only for the scanning software, not for the OS.

Re:Oh great... (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about 9 months ago | (#45971379)

Another 15 months is another 15 months.

Re:Oh great... (5, Informative)

Jagungal (36053) | about 9 months ago | (#45971269)

This only refers to updates to their AV and Anti Malware products, the OS update will still stop on that date.

It is a good excuse to get Management that might have been dragging their tails up update to something more modern.

Re:Oh great... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45971603)

Name one thing that businesses need from Windows 7 or 8.

The problem, from M$'s point of view, is that XP is too good. Since they can't come up with any _good_ reason for people to upgrade, they have to rely on force.

And while I don't think M$ should be forced to continue maintaining an OS indefinitely, I do think desktop OS evolution has slowed dramatically in the past 10 or 15 years.

The silver lining here, as I see it, is that this means Free Software operating systems can now catch up and compete on a feature by feature basis with proprietary software.

Re:Oh great... (3, Insightful)

melstav (174456) | about 9 months ago | (#45971931)

Dude. Some shit ain't going to get upgraded no matter how many times you taze that dead horse.

Hell, I've still got SunOS 4.0 in production.

Re:Oh great... (1)

DrKludge (239681) | about 9 months ago | (#45971433)

Uhm, the *ARE* killing security updates for the *OS*.

MS is continuing to support (make) updates for the their security software that runs on Windows XP.

http://blogs.technet.com/b/mmpc/archive/2014/01/15/microsoft-antimalware-support-for-windows-xp.aspx

So, it turns out you don't look like an ass.

Were you using Forefront or Security Essentials?

Re:Oh great... (2)

Culture20 (968837) | about 9 months ago | (#45971531)

You're still good. This is for updates for security products for XP, not security updates for XP. XP will not get new patches, and existing holes might get exploited, but maybe the updated MS security essentials will warn you. /sarcasm

Re:Oh great... (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 9 months ago | (#45971685)

They are killing security updates for Windows XP in April.
They are going to continue to provide updates to Microsoft Security Essentials and the other corporate security software until next year.

familiar (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45971137)

Like Duke Nuke'm Forever, except opposite.

Re:familiar (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45971493)

Like Duke Nuke'm Forever, except opposite.

Yeah, while reading the summary, I was thinking: "Like Google's eternal Beta, except opposite".

Zombie (1)

dos1 (2950945) | about 9 months ago | (#45971155)

I knew that my preparations for a zombie apocalypse will someday finally pay off!

Final Update to XP (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45971185)

I want to see Microsoft issue one last update to every version of IE available on XP that replaces all of their cryptic as fuck SSL errors so instead of saying "the site you are trying to go to is broken" they say "The site you are trying to go to requires a higher level of security than is available on windows XP". Hell, throw a store link in there so they can go buy windows 9 or whatever and upgrade their security, damned if I care.

Until then, it is single-handedly holding back TLS 1.x (>0) and SNI adoption. I can't turn it on on my server or half my customers will call to blame me for my server being "down".

Re:Final Update to XP (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45971743)

Until then, it is single-handedly holding back TLS 1.x (>0) and SNI adoption. I can't turn it on on my server or half my customers will call to blame me for my server being "down".

Ummm, no.

You can definitely turn on TLS 1.1 & 1.2 right now for your more advanced web browsers. Provided that TLS 1.0 is still available, IE on XP will work perfectly (well, as good as it ever did).

For SNI, you can enable it, but you can't rely on it since IE on XP will show SSL errors. However, there are many, many other devices out there aside from IE on XP that don't support SNI.

Pffft....... Thanks, Oba- (4, Funny)

thatshortkid (808634) | about 9 months ago | (#45971189)

Oh.

Re:Pffft....... Thanks, Oba- (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45971295)

No sir! XP was released under Bush's rule (let's ignore whose administration was in when XP was started).

Re:Pffft....... Thanks, Oba- (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45971393)

What about BenghazXP?

Re:Pffft....... Thanks, Oba- (1)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | about 9 months ago | (#45971839)

The Ruskies were hoping that Putin would fund ReactOS development [slashdot.org] but there's been no new release in the past 6 months, so I guess it's a little premature to welcome our new Kremlin overlords...

OS Updates? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45971199)

The announcement only refers to antimalware updates, not OS updates. So, you still need to move off of XP in April.

https://blogs.technet.com/b/mmpc/archive/2014/01/15/microsoft-antimalware-support-for-windows-xp.aspx?Redirected=true [technet.com]

This (announcement) does not affect the end-of-support date of Windows XP, or the supportability of Windows XP for other Microsoft products, which deliver and apply those signatures.

Dear Microsoft, (3, Insightful)

Irate Engineer (2814313) | about 9 months ago | (#45971227)

We really liked Windows XP. Windows 7 is OK too, but please stop churning your OS versions for planned obsolescence and give us what we really want: a stable, updated, secure OS that will last as long as our hardware.

We would be pleased to consider a reasonable subscription fee for such updates as it would afford us significant peace of mind and stability.

Signed,

Many Customers

Re:Dear Microsoft, (2)

epyT-R (613989) | about 9 months ago | (#45971347)

Dear Microsoft Customer,

We know that you like Windows XP. We like it too, and Windows 7 is alright. OS churn bothers us as well, but the last thing the rest of us want is software as a service that turns our computers into cable boxes.

Signed,

Many Smart Customers

Re:Dear Microsoft, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45971389)

Dear Customer,

We'd happily honor your request if not for the tiny issue that we want your money.

Therefore, keep buying The Product, and most importantly stay computer-illiterate

Regards,
Microsoft

Re:Dear Microsoft, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45971421)

Dear Ford,

Please continue making parts for my Model T. Newer Ford's are OK too, but please stop churning out new models for planned obsolescence and give us what we really want. A car that isn't burdened with things like fuel injectors, stater motors and disc brakes.

Signed,

Many Customers

Re:Dear Microsoft, (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about 9 months ago | (#45971633)

Dear Ford,

Please continue making parts for my Model T. Newer Ford's are OK too, but please stop churning out new models for planned obsolescence and give us what we really want. A car that isn't burdened with things like fuel injectors, stater motors and disc brakes.

Signed,

Many Customers

Dear Ford,

Please continue making parts for my Model T. Newer Ford's are OK too, but please stop churning out new models for planned obsolescence and give us what we really want. A car that isn't burdened with things like fuel injectors, stater motors and disc brakes.

Signed,

Many Customers

Ooooh. A car analogy.

The problem is, in this case we're talking the manufacturer wanting you to trade in not your model T built in 1927 but your F150 built in 2001 for one built in 2012. When your 2001 model still does a swell job of transporting bales of hay.

Re:Dear Microsoft, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45971461)

but please stop churning your OS versions for planned obsolescence and give us what we really want: a stable, updated, secure OS that will last as long as our hardware.

WTF? I'm no MS apologist. I've never owned a Windows computer but I fix the fucking things every day. That being said ...

"planned obsolescence"? It's been over a decade and they've updated & supported it. They are not taking it out pf your hands, it's just that they have had enough of XP and I don't blame them.

My clients still have a mix of XP and Win 7. They don't want to give up XP and I'm not going to force them (some boxes shipped with '98 and are still running strong on XP).

You can't fault MS for pulling the plug on XP. They aren't forcing you to switch to 7, 8, Linux or OS X. You can still use XP but they don't want to hear about it any more.

Re:Dear Microsoft, (1)

ixidor (996844) | about 9 months ago | (#45971611)

im pretty sure that is n reference to 8, 8.1, and 9 all released within a few years of each other.

Re:Dear Microsoft, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45971497)

How many pieces of hardware on your current XP machine are older than 12 years?

Re:Dear Microsoft, (1)

Lodlaiden (2767969) | about 9 months ago | (#45971557)

How many pieces of hardware on your current XP machine are older than 12 years?

The case and the IDE cable. Everything else has been upgraded along the way. I have 8 gigs of memory, only have access to 3 gigs and I am fine with that because I understand the limitations of the operating system.

I'll get around to upgrading to Windows 7 soonish as I'm not touching 8/8.1.

Re:Dear Microsoft, (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45971627)

Windows 8 is Nigger Technology. You all know this.

Stupid! Stupid! (3, Insightful)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | about 9 months ago | (#45971233)

How do you (Microsoft) expect to get people off of that d*mn OS if you keep patching security holes. That was the one lever that might just have been able to do it and now you've gone an f**ked that up. To make matters worse, your piecemeal security patching (MSE, etc.) but not the OS proper will give these holdouts the false impression that their systems are secure when nothing could be further from the truth. Windows 9 won't move them off any more than Windows 8 was able to. All you're doing is hanging yet another neon sign pointing to the ragged, fetid and diseased hole of the malware whore these XP boxes have become.

No, this is smart. This is to keep the customers. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45971287)

The idea that people won't ever move off is absurd. They will. Problem is, if they do so this year a good number are going to OS X, Ubuntu, Chromebooks, etc. Then those new Mac/Linux/Googlized people will begin experimenting with alternatives to Microsoft Office as well. Fuck.

If Microsoft can have those people wait for Windows 9 and Windows 9 is an improvement of any sort, they stand a better chance of keeping the customers. That's all this is.

Re:No, this is smart. This is to keep the customer (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about 9 months ago | (#45971413)

> Problem is, if they do so this year a good number are going to OS X, Ubuntu, Chromebooks, etc rather than deal with Win8.

FIFY

Re:No, this is smart. This is to keep the customer (1)

techno-vampire (666512) | about 9 months ago | (#45971833)

I have a friend in his mid-70s who just adores XP. He's not planning on upgrading after MS stops supporting it because he's sure that third-parties will continue to create and distribute patches for all the new security holes that will be showing up. Never mind the fact that there aren't any such third-parties and that if they were, they wouldn't have access to the source code. I haven't told him this, because we're friends, and I don't want to offend him by telling him things he doesn't want to hear, but IMAO he's acting like an ostrich. Just because he's not willing to admit that there are almost certainly zero-day exploits just waiting for support to end doesn't mean that he's going to get hammered when we all find out what the black hats have been sitting on.

Re:Stupid! Stupid! (0)

bloodhawk (813939) | about 9 months ago | (#45971319)

They AREN'T patching the OS, they are providing malware updates only. At best it is a bandaid for anyone dumb enough to still be reliant on such an ancient OS with no support and still using it for web access. It may reduce the damage some of these people do to the rest of us by at least alerting them that they are being dumb.

Re:Stupid! Stupid! (1)

0123456 (636235) | about 9 months ago | (#45971385)

So, uh, why should 'dumb' people have to replace the operating system on a perfectly good PC just because Microsoft say so?

Re:Stupid! Stupid! (1)

bloodhawk (813939) | about 9 months ago | (#45971429)

they don't have to. But they should also realise the price of that is it should not be used in any sort of internet connected way when no more security patches are coming.

Re:Stupid! Stupid! (1)

Lodlaiden (2767969) | about 9 months ago | (#45971571)

they don't have to. But they should also realise the price of that is it should not be used in any sort of internet connected way when no more security patches are coming.

Given all the patches, you'd think after 10 years they might have fixed the [important] leaks.

Re:Stupid! Stupid! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45971909)

the only secure computer is one that is turned off. new techniques and ways to exploit code is being discovered all the time. Even if it was on the market for another decade it still wouldn't be 100% secure, the same goes for any OS.

Re:Stupid! Stupid! (2)

epyT-R (613989) | about 9 months ago | (#45971383)

Are you aware that current versions of windows are not much better off? Most of the attack vectors come from browser holes and bad user choices. No OS will save you from that. Windows Vista/7/8 are not magic fix-alls. If you are 'that' concerned about security and you need windows software, disconnect the machine from the net, at which point it doesn't matter what OS you use.

Re:Stupid! Stupid! (1)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | about 9 months ago | (#45971749)

My frustration doesn't (yet) come from the security angle, but rather having to provide modern software solutions that are compatible with that antiquated pile. I would argue though that at least in the business context (which is really the only environment that counts for Microsoft anyway) where ever user is not an admin user, Windows 7/8 are in many ways far more secure than XP. This is especially true for PEBKAC where Microsoft has made it far easier to neuter the user. With this piecemeal patching of MSE and such but not the OS itself the difference between XP and 7/8 security will rapidly and steadily be distanced.

Re:Stupid! Stupid! (2)

roc97007 (608802) | about 9 months ago | (#45971397)

So, wait. What, aside from age, exactly is wrong with XP? It loads programs just fine, even today.

Re:Stupid! Stupid! (1)

armanox (826486) | about 9 months ago | (#45971555)

It's stuck in the 32bit world? Doesn't handle SMP or HT nicely? Loss of software support? Old driver models? Microsoft is tired of supporting it?

Or, I could ask the same questions about RHEL 5, IRIX 6.5, and Solaris 9.

Re:Stupid! Stupid! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45971643)

It's stuck in the 32bit world?

No. Windows XP was the first 64-bit version of Windows.

Windows XP Professional x64 Edition [wikipedia.org]

Re:Stupid! Stupid! (1)

armanox (826486) | about 9 months ago | (#45971707)

Did you ever run the x64 edition? It was a nightmare!

Re:Stupid! Stupid! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45971771)

I'm running it right now, and it works perfectly. If you think it's a nightmare, you need to wake up.

Re:Stupid! Stupid! (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about 9 months ago | (#45971659)

We still have servers running RHEL 5. An add-on for a software package would only run on 5.X.

Re:Stupid! Stupid! (1)

whoever57 (658626) | about 9 months ago | (#45971825)

We still have servers running RHEL 5. An add-on for a software package would only run on 5.X.

And your point is? RHEL is still (just) in "Production 2" (still getting updates for new hardware). Production 3 (security updates, but no hardware updates) doesn't end until 2017 and the Extended life stage doesn't end until 2020.

Re:Stupid! Stupid! (2)

roc97007 (608802) | about 9 months ago | (#45971855)

Previous responder had said they could "ask the same question about RHEL 5". You're actually reinforcing my point.

Re:Stupid! Stupid! (1)

ixidor (996844) | about 9 months ago | (#45971653)

soon, after april, any updates that come out for 7, vista, 8, etc,, will be scrutinized to see if same hole will work against xp. which will not be patch, and never will be ( barring a few gov exemptions)

Re:Stupid! Stupid! (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about 9 months ago | (#45971669)

...but that's an artificial reason. I didn't ask what date Microsoft wants to force you to pony up for an unnecessary OS upgrade. I asked, what, aside from age, exactly is wrong with XP?

Re:Stupid! Stupid! (1)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | about 9 months ago | (#45971657)

From Microsoft's perspective, everything. From my perspective as chief of engineering whose user base expects the world of modern computing but can't be bothered to migrate off XP a lot. Supporting legacy systems while delivering modern software is a huge headache. Putting new on old often requires adaptation and in many cases limits the tools available to you. If you want a car analogy it's a bit like adapting a hand crank starter to a push button ignition switch.

Internet Explorer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45971235)

Please, please, please make IE10 for XP Microsoft.

No updates for the OS itself (4, Informative)

asifyoucare (302582) | about 9 months ago | (#45971265)

So the original deadline remains, for organisations anyway. The announcement is that anti-malware products for XP will continue to be updated. Secuirty patches for the OS still cease in a few months.

Windows XP or security products? (5, Insightful)

sqrt(2) (786011) | about 9 months ago | (#45971267)

In case some people don't RTFA,

In other words, while Windows XP will no longer be a supported operating system come April, companies will be at least partially protected (the actual OS still won’t get security updates) until next July.

Emphasis mine. XP updates ARE ending, but MSE/Forefront will still get updated. XP will still be susceptible to any zero day until it gets detected by MSE--if it's even installed at all. This is a marginal increase in safety for XP post-EOL, at best. The apocalypse is still nigh.

My advice for fellow ITAs. Don't mention this to your boss at all if you're still trying to migrate. It's not really relevant to the threat posed by XP's end of support. If they get wind of it on their own, emphasize that XP itself is still going to be wide open. At best all MSE does is let you know you've been owned after the fact once MS gets around to updating the definitions. MSE already has a pretty poor record for detecting even older threats. It's better than nothing but you shouldn't be relying on it.

Re:Windows XP or security products? (1)

Lodlaiden (2767969) | about 9 months ago | (#45971591)

In case some people don't RTFA,

...XP will still be susceptible to any zero day...

How can it be a zero day bug if it has been 4,527 days since XP was released.

Too bad for hackers (1)

hcs_$reboot (1536101) | about 9 months ago | (#45971391)

Hackers have to wait another year before showing their talent..
On a more serious note, it seems Microsoft, as often, didn't think through the process: halting XP security support in the blink of an eye would open a non closing door to security threats highly harmful to the company image. They gave XP another year, probably to build new update plans from XP to 7 / 8 (...) that would allow more/most companies to migrate in the meantime.

WE WANT SERVICEPACK 4 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45971453)

... nuff said

They just don't make 'em like the used to ... (1)

DrKludge (239681) | about 9 months ago | (#45971495)

When I was a kid, we had a washing machine and dryer that lasted 20+ years. Used daily. Occasionally needed the repairman out.

In fairness, software by comparison is more like paint and a room should be repainted at least every 10 years. If you use oil paint it will last longer than latex. Latex is friendlier to the environment.

For computers that are still running windows, it is time to repaint.

I agree, it is time to repaint! But... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45971769)

The only Microsoft paint available is SHIT.

Just KILL XP, already (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45971583)

Time to make people move on to something else,whether 7 or 8 or Apple or Android, whatever. XP has been around twice as long as it should have. When 7 came out, XP should have been killed-off. Period.

holy fucking nut balls (4, Interesting)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 9 months ago | (#45971585)

I did not see this coming. I'm CIO and for the last 2 years I've warned the bosses about the problem @ about 95% XP and so far in those 2 years we've replaced negative 2. We added 2 seats and replaced zero lol. Every 100 days (the pattern I developed) they kicked it to the next period. Time to spend the $20 we do have in the IT budget to get a cake tomorrow and I'll announce it to the bosses!
But seriously, our shared and internet surfer and PoS computers are just fine with a socket 775 HT Pentium chip and 2GB of RAM. Why pull them just for XP?

Server 2003 (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45971589)

I knew this was going to happen because Server 2003 was planned to receive extended support until July 14, 2015 and Server 2003 (NT 5.2) is the server edition of Windows XP (NT 5.1).

You're Welcome.

So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45971645)

It has come to this.

Wine (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45971697)

Would migrating to Wine be an option for you XP-fetishists?

XP is still being used in many places (2)

hambone142 (2551854) | about 9 months ago | (#45971721)

Take a look at the PC screens at Home Depot (Windows XP). Fry's Electronics (heck, they sell the new stuff... they're using XP on the store's floor). My dentist office (XP). It goes on. What other big hitters that I've missed? http://redmondmag.com/articles/2013/09/23/xp-still-in-use-by-28-percent.aspx [redmondmag.com] indicates 28.98% are still using XP.

Why is this news? (1)

w_dragon (1802458) | about 9 months ago | (#45971863)

If McAfee announced that they would continue supplying virus definitions to their antivirus running on XP would that make the front page of slashdot? Because that's all MS announced here. I very much doubt it takes them much extra effort to port virus definitions to a previous version of MSE.

Competition will Support XP (3, Insightful)

ScottCooperDotNet (929575) | about 9 months ago | (#45971891)

Other Anti-Virus vendors like Symantec [symantec.com] , McAfee [mcafee.com] , and Kaspersky [kaspersky.com] are going to continue to support XP past April, so why should Microsoft concede market share to these competitors?

Also, Microsoft is going to look pretty bad if a new virus makes a major impact, so having their security product database updates continue will mitigate that. Doing otherwise could easily be spun as irresponsible.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?