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!

Registry Hack Enables Continued Updates For Windows XP

samzenpus posted about 5 months ago | from the buying-time dept.

Microsoft 322

DroidJason1 (3589319) writes "A registry workaround, which tricks Windows Update into thinking you are running Windows Embedded POSReady 2009, allows you to get free security updates until 2019. All you need is a simple 32bit or 64bit registry entry in order to make this work. POSReady 2009 is slated to receive security updates for another five years. Microsoft ended support for Windows XP on April 8th of 2014."

cancel ×

322 comments

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

Excellent (2)

kefkahax (915895) | about 5 months ago | (#47093679)

Get it while it's good. There's quite a few critical security updates.

Re:Excellent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47093745)

three i only see three

Re:Excellent (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47093839)

THERE ARE FOUR UPDATES!!!

Re:Excellent (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 5 months ago | (#47093935)

I wonder how many people will get that reference.

Re:Excellent (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47093971)

The episode aired 22 years ago, average age of Slashdotters is 14, so none.

Re:Excellent (3, Funny)

barlevg (2111272) | about 5 months ago | (#47094007)

This is much funnier if you assume that ArcadeMan is all three ACs in this thread.

Re:Excellent (4, Funny)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 5 months ago | (#47094033)

I'm not.

I'm also scared by the fact that this was aired 22 years ago.

Re:Excellent (4, Insightful)

barlevg (2111272) | about 5 months ago | (#47094077)

The new Battlestar Galactica began airing ten years ago.

9/11 was 13 years ago.

The Lion King was 20 years ago.

Face it: we're old.

Re:Excellent (2, Funny)

uCallHimDrJ0NES (2546640) | about 5 months ago | (#47094259)

There's a new Battlestar Galactica? Disney came out with their Kimba movie starring Matthew Broderick? Wow, the future is AWESOME! Did they bring back Dr. Who?

Re:Excellent (5, Informative)

Zocalo (252965) | about 5 months ago | (#47094013)

Even the older Slashdotters have a blinkered view of culture it seems. The original reference is from George Orwell's "1984", only it was fingers and not lights.

Re:Excellent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47094129)

The reference is obviously not to the original work. Winston didn't do quite as much shouting as Picard.

Re:Excellent (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47094163)

Having just re-read 1984 recently, I still didn't catch it until I saw your post ... ... posting anonymously for shame.

Re:Excellent (1)

uCallHimDrJ0NES (2546640) | about 5 months ago | (#47094251)

Although I got the 1984 reference, I have no idea what ST:TNG you're talking about. I've still only seen two seasons. http://www.smbc-comics.com/ind... [smbc-comics.com]

Re:Excellent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47094289)

Wow, you'll be devastated when Picard is assimilated.

Re:Excellent (-1, Troll)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about 5 months ago | (#47094337)

I wouldn't be. I only saw two episodes, and both were bad in a ridiculous way. I can't even see a still-shot from that series and think it was serious Star Trek.

FYI: I grew up in the 1970s, watching reruns of the original Star Trek. All the newer series seem lesser to me.

Re:Excellent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47094407)

And how does the The Animated Series from the 1970s make you feel?

Re:Excellent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47094025)

'Well, there's you and me, plus the parent, plus the parent of that ..etc. So.; at least five :)

Re:Excellent (1)

craigminah (1885846) | about 5 months ago | (#47094243)

First thing I thought of was that Buggs Bunny episode where Buggs is trying to put the fourth candle into a big child's cake to get rid of him...the candle is a stick of dynamite and Buggs is saying "your four" but the child keeps saying "duh...I'm only three...doi"...good episode...

Re:Excellent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47094309)

THERE ARE FOUR UPDATES!!!

THIS IS NOT BATTLESTAR GALACTICA.. THIS is a quote from STAR TREK by the GREAT Patrick Stewart..

THERE ARE FOUR LIGHTS!!!!!!

Romulan Interrogator: there are 3 lights

Picard: THere... are... FOUR LIGHTS!!!

Re:Excellent (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47094385)

Not Romulan. Cardassian interrogator, played by the great David Warner.

Re:Excellent (4, Insightful)

Skuld-Chan (302449) | about 5 months ago | (#47094227)

I think if your a company that relies on XP (not the POS edition) and you haven't isolated them on a special - no internet vlan - you have bigger issues than making sure your XP machine has security updates.

Re:Excellent (4, Funny)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 5 months ago | (#47094317)

I think if your a company that relies on XP (not the POS edition) and you haven't isolated them on a special - no internet vlan - you have bigger issues than making sure your XP machine has security updates.

I thought all editions of Windows XP deserved the monicker POS?

(Note to the humor-impaired: Chill out, dude. At least I'm not making jokes about your pretend girlfriend, right?)

What could possiblyæ (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47093699)

go wrong?ÃÃÃ

Re:What could possiblyæ (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 5 months ago | (#47093771)

a BSOD

Re:What could possiblyæ (1)

Stumbles (602007) | about 5 months ago | (#47093845)

That's normal.

Are you kidding me? (5, Funny)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 5 months ago | (#47093703)

There's something called "Windows Embedded Piece Of Shit Ready 2009"?

Re:Are you kidding me? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47093755)

I know you're making a joke, but I believe in this context "POS" stands for "Point Of Sale [wikipedia.org] " - basically cash registers.

The fact that cash registers running Windows XP are still getting updates is probably a good thing. That someone thought making a cash register run WindowsXP was a good idea scares me, though.

Re:Are you kidding me? (3, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 5 months ago | (#47093809)

Unfortunately, in the case of a lot of point of sale systems, the acronym does double duty. At least they are surprisingly expensive.

Re:Are you kidding me? (3, Funny)

sjames (1099) | about 5 months ago | (#47093905)

He said duty.

Re:Are you kidding me? (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47094387)

duty means poop

Re:Are you kidding me? (4, Informative)

future assassin (639396) | about 5 months ago | (#47094191)

Yes they are pretty expensive my current one ACE Retail was around $1400 for one computer. I looked at oithers and the prices were insane if you wanted anything not DOS looking like. I did go with ACE as this is what I was use to for the previous 4 years but its amazing how the same bugs have been in the system for the last 6 years and old bugs just pop up out of the blue even though they were suppose to be fixed.

I now have found a Linux based POS http://linuxcanada.com/ [linuxcanada.com] that seems quite good and will be testing it out shortly

Re:Are you kidding me? (1)

TechyImmigrant (175943) | about 5 months ago | (#47094193)

>Unfortunately, in the case of a lot of point of sale systems, the acronym does double duty. At least they are surprisingly expensive.

I wrote a POS for my wife's yarn store. I named it the "POSPOS".
 

Re:Are you kidding me? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47093823)

Its XP embedded I have built embedded images for year if don'e right you can strip these guys pretty clean making them fast, secure* & stable* as well as target your system to only use specified hardware with this flexibility it allows one to make very quick to boot.

*if done right lots of testing needed.

Re:Are you kidding me? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47093851)

Considering how full of holes Linux based home routers turn out to be, do you think Linux based cash registers would be any better than XP cash registers? I am just flabbergasted that cash registers are on networks with internet access.

Re:Are you kidding me? (2)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 5 months ago | (#47093911)

Cash registers have to be on networks these days. But on the Internet? Not a good idea.

If necessary, it should be POS -> server -> Internet.

Re:Are you kidding me? (1)

barlevg (2111272) | about 5 months ago | (#47094037)

That still counts as "on-the-internet" (unless you somehow have a dedicate line going from the POS to the server), so you're plenty vulnerable to spoofing and man-in-the-middle attacks.

Re:Are you kidding me? (1)

xeoron (639412) | about 5 months ago | (#47094121)

One place I do tech work for have POS's that require Net access because part of the services link into API's for UPS, FexEx, and USPS for realtime transactions. The POS software and shipping software get updates regularly, whether it be bug fixes, feature improvements, or shipping rates updates. The POS, also, can links into a noreply email to send people invoices and tracking. Safe guards: being placed on a separate isolated network from the main one, strict firewall settings, intrusion detection, and a good host file. CCs are not processed on them at all, since there are handled by dedicated machines from merchant services on a dedicated landline.

Re:Are you kidding me? (2)

sjames (1099) | about 5 months ago | (#47093895)

That someone thought making a cash register run WindowsXP was a good idea scares me, though.

And justifies the dual meaning of POS :-)

Re:Are you kidding me? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47093787)

You're an idiot.

Re:Are you kidding me? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47093827)

Have you ever had to deal with cash register software?

Piece of Shit Ready is being optimistic.

Re:Are you kidding me? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47093847)

Understanding sarcasm for what it is... LOL

Re:Are you kidding me? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47093959)

There's something called "Windows Embedded Piece Of Shit Ready 2009"?
Hey! That's called "Windows Embedded Pile Of Shit Ready 2009".
FTFY

Re:Are you kidding me? (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 5 months ago | (#47094017)

Not according to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] . :p

Re:Are you kidding me? (1)

Brett Buck (811747) | about 5 months ago | (#47094027)

This is forced by "Truth in Advertising" laws.

Re:Are you kidding me? (1)

wiredlogic (135348) | about 5 months ago | (#47094331)

Yep. They also have POSfor.NET library for interfacing with barcode scanners, scales, and receipt printers. Suffice to say it is also a huge, unreliable Piece Of Shit.

are the people still running XP (1)

ganjadude (952775) | about 5 months ago | (#47093709)

and who dont have a support contract (example medical and banks) the kinds of people who actually do updates anyway? or are they most likely pirated versions of XP?? also if one did this on a legal version of windows, would microsoft consider it a breech of the TOS? I havent been using XP in a number of years now but im not sure how useful this registry hack is going to be in real world scenarios

Re:are the people still running XP (1)

mrbester (200927) | about 5 months ago | (#47093779)

My having to make sure sites still work in IE 7 didn't magically stop in April because my clients still run XP with support contracts (though I bet not all of them do).

Re:are the people still running XP (1)

ganjadude (952775) | about 5 months ago | (#47093813)

if you are testing I assume you are using a VM that is not talking to other machines on the network. Security updates should have nothing to do with that if configured correctly

Re:are the people still running XP (-1, Troll)

sillybilly (668960) | about 5 months ago | (#47093873)

I'm using xp too, still thinking about going back to windows 2000 when I'm fully off the internet, when everything on it gets DRM'd and your save buttons are gone, etc, but I have never in my life willingly would use windows update, even download managers for programs where you can't download the whole 50MB program, just some tiny 500 KB downloader/installer, that does the install for you, scare me, as they can upload all your private stuff, and you may get used to the program and will not be able to reinstall it later, it's better not to even get hooked on stuff like that.. I'll take a downloadable 200 MB service pack, that I can store on disk and reinstall in 50 years, but even that reluctantly, as I know it's full of new ways to screw me, like new trojan backdoors and ways to kill off the last non-dotnet version zonealarm, or at least fuck with it, which right now successfully smacks ctfmon, and also igfxsrvc and igfxtray on the head whenever they try to run, as those must be the ways the built in subliminal wifi intel chipset remote control/access ties into my operating system software, to download/modify files on my computer through the OS.. does my computer have a virus or trojan horse backdoor in it? hell yeah, it says right on the packaging, it's called "Intel Inside" though why they don't implement direct disk access and file system drivers in the chipset itself without going through the OS is beyond me.. there are still other things that run and snoop on me anyway, like some undeletable program_files/xerox and /frontpage folders, so when I logon with linux and place a dummy file with those names on the computer so a folder with the same name cannot be created, i find i have to keep reinstalling the OS, from an hp restore cd, and it takes like 8 friggin hours for XP to install plus add/remove all the garbage software bogging the computer down, when with lighthouse puppy 4.1.2rc1 all you gotta do is erase or simply move your personal file, and voila, you got a fresh OS install on a reboot..and all the later versions of lighthouse pup are fucked..

Re:are the people still running XP (3, Informative)

dargaud (518470) | about 5 months ago | (#47093933)

I develop on Linux, and for when I need Windows I use XP in a virtual machine. Plenty good enough for only runnign an IDE. Today I had to touch Win7 for the first time because one of my apps wouldn't install. It felt like being raped by Fisher Price.

Re:are the people still running XP (3, Informative)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | about 5 months ago | (#47094083)

It felt like being raped by Fisher Price.

Comparisons to Fisher Price was one of the main initial complaints about XP.

Re:are the people still running XP (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47093973)

Yes.

Because driver support for things like musical equipment and old SCSI devices often didn't get updated or supported after XP.

I have a fairly expensive SCSI scanner that can handle poster sized sheets but the only software I can find for it runs in XP. I have 3 Windows 7 boxes and one XP, and I'll keep running XP until I can get all my devices off it (MIDI controllers, instrument packages, old scanner, etc)

It's not my fault these old components have no driver upgrade path, so I'm stuck with one XP box probably until I upgrade about $5k worth of stuff that just works

This act is highly illegal (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47093711)

Don't do it. Do Not Do It.

Re:This act is highly illegal (1)

kimvette (919543) | about 5 months ago | (#47093757)

what's the difference between highly illegal, and illegal? Besides, what is so illegal about changing a registry key or value, or creating a registry key?

Re:This act is highly illegal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47093777)

Felony vs. misdemeanor. ;)

Re:This act is highly illegal (1)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | about 5 months ago | (#47093951)

Yeah. "Felony Registry Hack" will get you 10 to 20.

Re:This act is highly illegal (4, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | about 5 months ago | (#47093819)

what is so illegal about changing a registry key or value, or creating a registry key?

In the loosest possible interpretation I can think of (and not one I agree with), you are committing fraud by misrepresenting something in order to get a good or a service.

But, if it's something as trivial as a registry key, which is available for users to update (and which sometimes MS themselves suggest) ... then I've got nothing.

I'm having a hard time believing it's perfectly legal to update one set of registry keys, while being illegal to update another. If they're so special and secret, they shouldn't be something you can update.

Re:This act is highly illegal (4, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | about 5 months ago | (#47094041)

I'm having a hard time believing it's perfectly legal to update one set of registry keys, while being illegal to update another. If they're so special and secret, they shouldn't be something you can update.

Since Microsoft offers paid updates for WinXP (at least for corporate customers),
it's not very hard to argue that the registry hack (at least for corporate customers) would qualify as theft of service.

For non-corporate users, Microsoft could argue "unauthorized access," but I can't see them taking the trouble to sue random home users.

Re:This act is highly illegal (1)

GNious (953874) | about 5 months ago | (#47094165)

Perhaps they can include an "update" to WindowsPOS(?) that is not an issue for POSes, but detrimental in non-POS use-cases?

Re:This act is highly illegal (2)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about 5 months ago | (#47093985)

It'll void your warranty and then you won't be able to get anymore security updates!!

Re:This act is highly illegal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47094231)

it's like the difference between "sex" and "anal sex".

Re:This act is highly illegal (2)

fph il quozientatore (971015) | about 5 months ago | (#47094351)

what is so illegal about changing a registry key or value, or creating a registry key?

What is so illegal about changing 0 to 1 and 1 to 0?

Re:This act is highly illegal (3, Interesting)

TWX (665546) | about 5 months ago | (#47093783)

What's illegal about it? Is it illegal to use Microsoft's provided tools to edit my registry, browing to HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\WPA, then creating a new key called PosReady, then creating a new dword in PosReady called "Installed" with a value of 00000001?

Digital:Convergence had much more claim to the cuecat scanner's security than this could ever command.

Re:This act is highly illegal (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 5 months ago | (#47093893)

I'm honestly a bit surprised that MS didn't bother to tie point-of-sale status to XP's license authentication mechanism, even in some relatively trivial way.

They were certainly willing to do that with some updates (anything where good old 'Windows Genuine Advantage' popped up) and, while the suitably motivated generally bypassed that without too much trouble, I imagine that that sort of wicked, wicked, circumvention made their legal position markedly less pleasant if MS wished to push the issue.

If it's just a registry key, no ties to the activation system at all, the situation starts to look a lot more like spoofing a browser UA to encourage the server to send you the version of the page it sends to some different browser.

Re:This act is highly illegal (2)

TWX (665546) | about 5 months ago | (#47094047)

I'm actually surprised that there isn't something else checking versioning in the compiled stuff that can't be readily changed. That it's a registry entry blows my mind. That's so lazy on their part that I have zero sympathy for them if people extend support for their OSes this way.

Re:This act is highly illegal (4, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | about 5 months ago | (#47094171)

That it's a registry entry blows my mind. That's so lazy on their part that I have zero sympathy for them

You know, some of us have felt this way about the registry as long as it's been around.

It has always seemed like a cheap hack done by lazy people.

It's not secure or safe, it has always been subject to corruption and hacks, and looks like something which was grafted on by someone under time constraints that once it was in the wild they couldn't get away from.

Re:This act is highly illegal (1)

Bob9113 (14996) | about 5 months ago | (#47093897)

What's illegal about it? Is it illegal to use Microsoft's provided tools to edit my registry, browing to HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\WPA, then creating a new key called PosReady, then creating a new dword in PosReady called "Installed" with a value of 00000001?

See Aaron Swartz [wikipedia.org] : Federal prosecutors later charged him with two counts of wire fraud and 11 violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act,[12] carrying a cumulative maximum penalty of $1 million in fines, 35 years in prison, asset forfeiture, restitution and supervised release.[13]

Re:This act is highly illegal (2)

CurryCamel (2265886) | about 5 months ago | (#47093941)

What's illegal about it? Is it illegal to use Microsoft's provided tools to edit my registry

... to get a service you don't have a license for. How is that not illegal?

Re:This act is highly illegal (1)

InfiniteBlaze (2564509) | about 5 months ago | (#47093955)

Changing the key is not illegal. Using that change to access data which Microsoft has explicitly deemed outside your legal access IS illegal.

Re:This act is highly illegal (1)

TWX (665546) | about 5 months ago | (#47094019)

If it's outside my legal access, then why does typing in eighteen plain-text keystrokes give me access to it?

If Microsoft didn't want updates to work between different products, then shouldn't those different products have been actually differentiated in their compiled executable files or libraries to make simple maintenance not provide a mechanism to do this?

Re:This act is highly illegal (1)

thestuckmud (955767) | about 5 months ago | (#47094139)

What's illegal about it?

"Whoever ... knowingly and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected computer ... exceeds authorized access, and by means of such conduct furthers the intended fraud and obtains anything of value ... shall be punished ..." - CFAA (18 USC 1030).

That's what. (Disclaimer: IANAL and therefore don't know what I am talking about).

Will those patches actually WORK? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47093751)

I mean, correct me if I am off/wrong (didn't "RTFA" either) - but, those patches aren't FOR XP for the PC are they? That said - how will they work for XP for a PC??

* Last I knew of, Windows XP's codebase isn't the "single unified VISTA/7/Server 2xxx/Tablet-smartphone" codebase MS spent the last X yrs. developing... so, how can those work?

Put it THIS way: I hunted down patches for Windows 7 - SOME you can get online, others no way unless you use Windows update... but, you can find ones for say, Windows VISTA or Server 2008 online (not thru Windows Update) - will they work? No - they get rejected as wrong OS version etc.!

Hence, my question in my subject-line above.

APK

P.S.=> Feel free to "set me straight" here but... that's the ONLY issue I saw with this trick (unless it's no issue)... apk

Re:Will those patches actually WORK? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47093781)

Windows POSReady 2009 is actually Windows XP though, just stripped down and a lot of stuff removed. The same system files exist in the same versions and thus they have the same exploits and can be patched with the same code.

POSReady 2009 is basically a different "distro" of Windows XP that Microsoft is supporting until 2009. By changing that one registry entry, you get Windows Update to realize you're running that special distro, and you get patches.

Re:Will those patches actually WORK? (1)

Jahf (21968) | about 5 months ago | (#47093821)

And given that most of the people I know who have a machine still stuck on XP are using them for things that the POS version was built for (but before it was made available), this hits the exact audience Microsoft intended for POS. Not all vendors are willing to update to POS, and not all businesses can realistically rebuild their own systems and reinstall everything (or even have license to). This is the lesser of the two evils (use updates for a different version of Windows or have your embedded/POS/industrial PC vulnerable to attack). I strongly doubt Microsoft will go after anyone for this except possibly -vendors- who do the hack commercially. They may find a way around it and stop it from working, but they're not going to go after consumers if the consumer has a valid XP license. If they don't have a valid XP license, they're already breaking bigger laws, and MS would have gone after them if they could anyway.

Re:Will those patches actually WORK? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47093867)

until 2019*, sorry

Re:Will those patches actually WORK? (2)

mysidia (191772) | about 5 months ago | (#47093887)

Windows POSReady 2009 is actually Windows XP though, just stripped down and a lot of bug-ridden exploitable and memory hogging code removed. Almost the same system files exist in the same versions and thus they have many exploits in common and frequently can be patched with the same code.

There, fixed it for you.

Re:Will those patches actually WORK? (1)

craznar (710808) | about 5 months ago | (#47094109)

Yes... but many of the security flaws patched in the past have been in that 'stuff' you mention.

Re:Will those patches actually WORK? (3)

Zocalo (252965) | about 5 months ago | (#47094131)

And there-in lies the problem, "just stripped down and a lot of stuff removed" means that you almost certainly won't be getting patches for the stuff that has been removed, which is just as likely (if not more so) to be the parts that really need patching when the next 0-day comes along. Also, unless all the system files present truly are identical, then replacing random system files on a desktop XP system for a "stripped down" version might, and probably will, cause some functions to stop working. I can see two not necessarily mutually exclusive outcomes from this; people who deploy this are going to end up with a very false sense of security and a lot of systems are going to get hosed because of an update that isn't compatible with desktop XP.

In fact, I wouldn't put it past Microsoft to "accidentally" push out bad patches to deter this behaviour. I'm pretty sure they'd rather XP just cease to exist at this point given all the bad security press it's got them, and any opportunity to ram another nail into the coffin isn't exactly going to be unwelcome.

Re:Will those patches actually WORK? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47094379)

but BECAUSE it is a 'stripped down' version of windows xp, it will not receive ALL the necessary updates needed for a "normal" windows xp home, pro, or mce edition. if you think you're safe and up-to-date using this registry hack, you're only fooling yourself.

Re:Will those patches actually WORK? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47093793)

POS versions of windows are almost identical to desktop versions. The difference is more in the license than in the functionality

Re:Will those patches actually WORK? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47093863)

I mean, correct my host files if I am off/wrong (didn't "RTFHF" either) - but, those host files aren't FOR XP for the PC are they? That said - how will they work for XP for a PC??

* Last I knew of, Windows XP's C:\Windows\SYSTEM32\drivers\etc\hosts isn't the "single unified VISTA/7/Server 2xxx/Tablet-smartphone" host file MS spent the last X yrs. developing... so, how can those work?

Put it THIS way: I hunted down host files for Windows 7 - SOME you can get online, others no way unless you use Windows update... but, you can find ones for say, Windows VISTA or Server 2008 online (not thru APK Unified Host File Update) - will they work? No - they get rejected as wrong OS version etc.!

Hence, my question in my subject-line above.

APK

P.S.=> Feel free to "set me off" here but... that's the ONLY issue I saw with this host file (unless it's no issue)... ap "host file" k

Re:Will those patches actually WORK? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47094049)

APK flourishes on the insecurities (like the continued existence of HOSTS files) in computers that he uses to exploit children with. The only thing we know is that he likes to rape children and needs to be locked up. I encourage everyone to report that sick fuck to the police and get him removed from society until he stops destroying innocent lives. His name is Alexander Peter Kowalski and he lives at 903 East Division St., Syracuse, NY 13208 (he was born 01/31/1965; his mother is Jan Kowalski, born 12/03/1933. I encourage everyone to call his neighbors and warn them that he may have raped and\or murdered their children and uses HOSTS files to evade police detection when he looks at child porn. If anyone lives in his area, I suggest printing out some fliers and stapling them around his neighborhood with a large "PAEDO WARNING!" on the top.

Re:Will those patches actually WORK? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47093931)

APK needs to be hanged from a light pole and left to rot. The only thing we know is that he likes to rape children and needs to be locked up. I encourage everyone to report that sick fuck to the police and get him removed from society until he stops destroying innocent lives. His name is Alexander Peter Kowalski and he lives at 903 East Division St., Syracuse, NY 13208 (he was born 01/31/1965; his mother is Jan Kowalski, born 12/03/1933. I encourage everyone to call his neighbors and warn them that he may have raped and\or murdered their children and uses HOSTS files to evade police detection when he looks at child porn. If anyone lives in his area, I suggest printing out some fliers and stapling them around his neighborhood with a large "PAEDO WARNING!" on the top.

Windows Server 2003? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47093843)

I'd like to run Server 2003 as long as possible, as it's the most lightweight server edition Microsoft still supports.

20 million vets (still alive) not being honored.. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47093869)

in real time. many are joining the (r)evolutionary non-violent spirit based new clear options freedom movement http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=wake+up+freedom to oppose the spiritless psychopathic greed/fear/ego based zionoc nazi self appointed neogod wmd on credit cabals http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=wmd+weather+cabals

Security risk? (5, Interesting)

erice (13380) | about 5 months ago | (#47093883)

Point of Sale systems usually operate under more controlled conditions than end user machines. Would these updates keep your XP machine plausibly secure or highly vulnerable to threats not considered serious to point of sale systems? What about vulnerabilities in components not present in POSReady 2009 but used in XP?

Re:Security risk? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47093949)

Regardless, it's going to be better than not getting updates at all.

Re:Security risk? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47094099)

No, updating to an actually supported operating system would be better.

Re:Security risk? (4, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | about 5 months ago | (#47094147)

No, updating to an actually supported operating system would be better.

Not if it's Window 8.

Re:Security risk? (1)

osu-neko (2604) | about 5 months ago | (#47094205)

Well, you can either take advantage of the PosReady thing or not. If you do, yes, it may be that only some rather than all your security vulnerabilities will be patched. If you don't, it will be the case that none rather than some are patched.

Re:Security risk? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47094269)

Point of Sale systems usually operate under more controlled conditions than end user machines.

Hah!

I'm sure Target will be glad to hear that: http://arstechnica.com/securit... [arstechnica.com]

XP embedded POS.... (1)

clifffton (912293) | about 5 months ago | (#47093891)

Is the same thing Target used. Just sayin. #LinuxFTW

Re:XP embedded POS.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47093975)

Yeah, Linux can't get hacked because you can erase your cookies.

question (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47093921)

Am i the only one that thinks that people stil running an OS from Microsoft 13 years old doesn't give a damn about being up to date? If they were, they would at least running Windows 7, or maybe even some real OS like GNU..

Re:question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47094091)

GNU is the best! All hail Stalinmann and HURD.

Re:question (1)

thsths (31372) | about 5 months ago | (#47094293)

I did not matter one bit when XP was released, it matters when a better alternative was available. Windows 7 is not even 5 years old, and 4 years ago Windows XP was still being sold with new netbooks. Those machines do not even run Windows 7 properly unless you upgrade the RAM.

Yeah not quite... (5, Informative)

craznar (710808) | about 5 months ago | (#47093963)

As someone who works with POS Ready 2009 a lot (I write Point of Sale Software), the catch with this idea is that many (a great many) of the components in normal XP just don't exist in POSReady.

SO you may, or may not get updates for some parts of your OS - because Microsoft will not be writing updates for the rest.

New Critical XP Update... (4, Insightful)

The Mysterious Dr. X (1502541) | about 5 months ago | (#47094015)

"This patch removes an exploit that caused some machines running Windows XP to apply updates for other operating systems. To learn more about the update, read this knowledge base article..."

Just buy a new computer !!!!! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47094211)

As low as $250 at some places!! And if you don't like the metro stuff, they still have Windows 7.

XP ceased to be available on June 30, 2008. That's approximately six years ago. According to Moore's estimate, that equates to three doubles of computing power: 2, 4, 8. Any computer that you can buy today is at least 8 times better than any XP computer. And, to top it off, the low end of the price range is half of what it was back then. So just go for it. Splurge, man!!!

Re:Just buy a new computer !!!!! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47094409)

What a homo. Just throw money at the problem! Wheeeeeee! What's $250 bucks? Nothing!

Typical American.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?