Slashdot Mirror
Windows XP SP1 Support Ends Tuesday
tophee writes "ZDNet reports that support for Windows XP SP1 and SP1a will be ending this coming Tuesday. From the article: 'Microsoft will end support for Windows XP Service Pack 1 and SP1a on Tuesday, leaving people no option but to upgrade to Service Pack 2 if they wish to continue to receive crucial components, including security software.' Colin Barker of ZDNet notes, 'There's little reason for anyone to still be running SP1; SP2 contained a range of improvements to XP's security.'"
Just cut it off while you're only slightly behind...gotta love MS
You can tell I'm an aries because of my ram.
The end is nigh!
"As the intrepid kobold companion continues his journey, he begins to wonder... if priests raises dead, why anybody die?
Who uses windows anymore? I thought that died out long ago...
around "security".
Dog is my co-pilot.
The problem with Microsoft is that they never separate bug fixes from feature additions. So either you stay vulnerable or you eat more and more of their junk.
They should be forced to strictly separate the two.
Not having to install WGA seems like a good reason...
Slightly behind? SP1 is 4 years old!
Name me ONE linux distro that is supporting a release that is 4 years old! You can't get support for more than 6-12 months these days!
Contrary to popular belief, coding is not all free blow-jobs and beer. Those things cost MONEY!
Of course...gov't agencies and other large entities will get whatever support they pay for...which means they can get SP1 support if SP2 screws up their software.
You can tell I'm an aries because of my ram.
yeah you'll be constantly upgrading to get fixes and patches and.. :P
The zealots will come up with all kinds of unrealistic and uninformed reasons why it's all bad anyway....
Well, Windows 98 had a much longer life! ... ehm ... operating system?
Was it a better
Maybe Computers will never be as intelligent as Humans.
For sure they won't ever become so stupid. [VR-1988]
Got on Vans but they look like sneakers
Well, you'll at least get told to RTFM for a lot longer than Windows.
M$ didn't do this to shut down pirates... they know that people will easily get around any protection they can muster. Its so they can work less and concentrate on other things - and to not worry about the people who havn't bothered installing SP2 yet for some reason.
by a lot longer, you mean the 18 months you'll get if you use the most popular linux distro?
Debian Stable - release cycle on about 18 months and support for up to a year after that. Debian repositories and archives have versions back about ten years - so you should always be able to upgrade. Debian testing and unstable are updated at least daily - stable only when there are security fixes. If you mean "paid for" enterprise Linux then Red Hat is now at 7 years or so support - but stuff changes with the interim updates as far as I can see.
I hope you're being sarcastic..
Seriously it's so dry I can't even tell.
It makes sense as people have had a long time to test their apps against XP SP2 and report bugs to MS. Of course if SP2 breaks anything and you're a paying customer then I can understand why you'd want to stay on SP1 otherwise SP2 offers some advanages.
I think things like WGA are being forced on people whatever version they're running so that's no reason not to upgrade.
When the upgrade is included in the initial purchase cost then this is fine. If they dropped support for XP altogether then that would have been bad but just think of SP2 as an update.
Anyway I hate MS versioning schemes, why service pack why not call it a point release? They also love weird names for their beta software I remember the IE7 beta 2 preview refresh (which was the second pre-release before beta 2)
These days, Ubuntu and SUSE provide a desktop environment that is far superior to that offered by Windows. Best of all, they don't have any WGA nonsense, and they're far easier to keep up-to-date and secure.
A lot of people will argue that if they can't run their Windows applications on Ubuntu or SUSE, then it's useless to them. But what they don't consider is that using Linux isn't about running Windows applications. It's about enjoying the benefits of the alternatives. In some cases, such as Firefox and OpenOffice.org, those very users are already using such alternatives. And if there is some odd Windows application that does not have an open source or Linux-compatible equivalent, then WINE is worth a try. It has really matured lately, and is suitable for running many of even the most complex of Windows applications. Cedega works wonders for games, even those that were just released.
With the quality of Ubuntu and SUSE today, there is no reason for any user to become a victim to Microsoft, whether it be in the form of WGA, or DRM, or even being denied critical updates.
I gave up on linux when the device drivers for one device needed a version of the kernel no later than X and the device drivers for a different device needed a version of the kernel at least as new as Y, where X was less than Y.
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
The support you pay for for Red Hat is only good on their LATEST released version. They do NOT support versions that are 7 years old. Not even close!
I can't install SP2 on my laptop for lack of disk space. SP2 is huge. Why don't they provide an iso of an updated OS that could be installed directly?
Why don't you look for yourself?
The latest 2.4 version of the Linux kernel is: 2.4.33.3 2006-08-31 20:20 UTC
The latest prepatch for the 2.4 Linux kernel tree is: 2.4.34-pre4 2006-10-02 20:45 UTC
Seems pretty recent to me.
http://www.kernel.org/
--
BMO
'There's little reason for anyone to still be running SP1
Except for those people who bought and paid for SP1 and do not have a good fast internet connection to download the hundgreds of MBs of patches released to bring SP1 up to the current 'standard'.
There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.
how much did you pay for SP2?
Yeesh, just upgrade already, and quit your bitching!
Jeremy
.. But they haven't explained to me yet why I can't install SP2 on my partner's (fully legit) machine. SP1 installs fine, but the second SP2 is installed, the damn thing locks up and requires a full nuke and pave to recover.
I've tried everything I can think of too, install by windows update, install by deployment package, install by CD direct from MS, install by legit MS install CD with SP2 slipstreamed. Ohh well, its not like I use automatic updates anyway.
They forget of course that not everyone in the world has broadband access. Those on dial-up cannot update to SP2 easily. Here, regional WA, has patchy broadband at the best of times, let alone those who use the internet "just for emails" and don't want to spend a lot to do it.
Common sense is not so common
If someone has that slow of an internet connection, they can always order it on CD. Microsoft does charge the cost of shipping, but if someone is so insistant on getting SP2 but cannot download it, I'm sure the cost of shipping ($3-5?) makes it worthwhile. They even suggest that you share the CD with a friend or family member:
"After you have installed Service Pack 2, Microsoft encourages you to give this CD to a friend or family member using Windows XP."
Ubuntu Dapper was released nigh on ... four months ago. How many distros that were flying high five years ago exist now, in the same state of 'repair'? Yggdrasil? Slackware? Etc? Anyone can 'commit' to anything. I can commit to providing "security updates for Achromatix for the next century!", but it doesn't really count for a lot only four months after release. They're hardly bound to it, even remotely.
However, lots of people are still using W98, so their obsolecence program is not necessarily working all that well in personal user space. I'm sure that in corporate space (where they make their money) it works a treat.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
One good reason to NOT apply SP2 is that it deliberately cripples raw sockets that were introduced in W2K.
As far as Microsoft were concerned they were addressing a legitimate security issue.
Having developed an application that actually required being able to program raw sockets on Windows, I was
totally pissed by this. Just goes to show the mentality at Redmond to actual security: prick your index
finger of your left hand on a thorn, and amputate your right hand.
Yes, not like my laser printer that requires Windows 98 or earlier to work at all, or my camera that requires Windows 2000 or later.
I choose linux.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
May the Maths Be with you!
well, apart from copyright NOT being a capitalist system, there are changes in the way the OS operates: you bought and agreed an EULA at purchase. They then changes this EULA when they brought out SP2 and you had to agree to THOSE changes.
As well, what if you don't wan WGA installed?
Or can I, since I don't accept the SP2 EULA return the product for a refund? Theyve had use of my money to produce more moolah, and it's not as if the bits have worn out...
No, Microsoft can make themselves look bad without our help :).
CH
"Except for those people who bought and paid for SP1 and do not have a good fast internet connection to download the hundgreds of MBs of patches released to bring SP1 up to the current 'standard'."
And how about those that spend months or more evaluating SP1 for their application, going through some expensive and rigorous certification process, and who have not done the same for SP2? Can they simply take Microsoft's word for it?
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
I choose Windows.
(Also, seriously, a printer? How can 2000/XP possibly not have a compatible driver for a printer?)
You have to understand that is not me. But it does describe something like 30% of home PC users (if you consider that a recent news report said DSL/CABLE has a market penetration of fourty-some percent of home PC users, and a good majority of home PC users will be using windows XP.) People like that will not be aware of the existance of 'service packs.' They will not know the value of such things and will not know that microsoft offers to send you SP2 on a disk. They most likely will not be knowledgeabl enough to navigate the MS knowledge base to learn any of those facts. These are the people who can not support them selves(IE: they aren't slashdot readers.)
Jebsis, the world is not slashdot. Every third person in the real world does not contribute to OSS projects. They do not know what the hell Linux is, and they are not even likely to know what Vista is.
There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.
The difference being that your laser printer is of a model no newer than 1998 and your camera is no older than 1999. You chose to buy that camera at a later date, and the fact that it requires a newer OS is simply a matter of course.
The joy of Linux is that two hardware pieces, both from 2005, can have mutually exclusive kernel requirements. And God help you if you want to change your video/network card after initial configuration...drivers for one might require you to upgrade and the other may well fail to install because the version you just installed is too new. Try undoing those changes for a REAL treat.
In the Unix environment patches do come out on a regular basis however unless the kernel is updated you don't have to reboot. In many ways I actually do support Microsoft for this because you do need to keep your OS (Unix, NT, Linux ... etc) current and sometimes you really have to force your customers to upgrade otherwise they never will.
... etc) are now 2.6 and have been so for well over a year, however the 2.4 kernel is still supported for earlier Linux distributions.
The problem with MS Service Packs releases is the fact that sometimes the SP causes more issues so care and testing needs to be carried out. Don't think this does not apply in the *nix area because it does so you should never be an early adopter unless you do have a good testing environment. Patch testing in the *nix area appears to be more acceptable to management than the same type of testing in MS Windows so it is normally easier to organise an outage.
If you look at commercial Unix support, this is normally available if your OS is two or less releases behind equally applied to both OS version and patch release. However I will admit that you can get support for earlier releases but only if you are willing to pay extra and this is normally stated in the service contact.
As for Linux 2.4 kernel, most recent commercial(Redhat and Suse) and non-commercial releases (CentOS
There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
does anyone remember ms blaster, like 2 days after sp2, or am i reading the story wrong?
-Noc
Maybe it's a forced upgrade plan, but SP2 completely broke Windows Update on my computer. It just cycles through the looping progress bar or the tray icon sits at 33% perpetually. It's a totally legitimate copy of XP, dotted with other minor annoyances that worked perfectly under SP1.
That computer now has Vista on it, so I guess Microsoft won after all.
Notice that Red Hat has a gestation period of less than 7 years. (Just a thought to follow yours.}
How many beans make five, anyhow ?
Vista isn't NT 5.3, it's NT 6 and the designation is deserved. It is not a minor update. Have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windo ws_Vista if you don't believe me there's, oh I don't know 50-100 things listed. The ones I find of particular interest are the new DirectX and shader model it brings with it, new audio subsystem, desktop composting engine, volume shadow copy, image based installs, and ReadyBoost/ReadyDrive (flash cache support).
I know that many MS haters would like to believe Vista offers nothing but a shiny UI, but in reality it is a major OS update. You can argue till you are blue in the face if any of those things are going to be useful, but you can't deny that it's big changes.
Well, in the next rollout - which occurs every 3 years, our network of SOE workstation/server combos may be setup for SP2, but only if some older software is decommisioned. Until then - well SP2 breaks numerous software applications in a department where money is always limited. How much does it cost to fix an incompatibility in some software that is used every day in a statewide distribution that was writen over 10 years ago? Or not use SP2. Easy choice.
Although it can be funny, tell them to plug the power in.
XP SP2 crippled itself in the name of "Security", by removing access to raw sockets. They caved into Steven Gibson's ranting and raving about how raw socket support was going to kill the internet... too bad there's still 3rd party packet drivers that reenable the functionality.
My karma makes buddha cry.
The latest 2.4 version of the Linux kernel is: 2.4.33.3 2006-08-31 20:20 UTC
The latest prepatch for the 2.4 Linux kernel tree is: 2.4.34-pre4 2006-10-02 20:45 UTC
You are comparing apples and oranges.
I, for one, welcome our same old (and dreary) Microsoft supporting overlords. I have a bridge I need to sell them. It supports itself - bu if Microsoft were to begin to support it, I'd advise swimming lessons.
How many beans make five, anyhow ?
... as of SP2, only one user is allowed to use XP at any one time. There are ways to rollback the DLL that provides terminal services to an XP box; but an XP SP1 box is a really cheap way to implement an unlimited license Windows Terminal Server.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
if the manufacturer will not release specifications for the hardware it produces then these things will happen. you should write to the manufacturer and demand that they update their driver or stop saying that their product is linux compatible.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I'm an a large site that's running XP SP1 on all of quite a few thousand machines and I'd just like to say that one week notice of termination of support is ridiculous. Yes I know we've had SP2 for years and yes we should have upgraded, but one normally has many months of warning before they pull the support plug. Now we have just one week to test all our apps for SP2 compatibility, distribute the upgrade, and all the rest of it. In a week we are going to have equipment involved in *life or death* decisions running on an unsupported OS.
Yes, I hear you loud and clear: should have upgraded sooner, and you're quite right too. But Microsoft absolutely should not have dropped this on us like this out of the blue.
pi = 2*|arg(God)|
A lot. Twice. MS makes a profit on Windows, somewhere about 70%-80% profit in fact. Then you pay again when you have to re-tool your whole shop for the differences found in XP SP2. That is, if you are still running out-dated architectures like MS Windows. Many of us don't pay a thing.
So, dude, just lay off with the faboi stuff and get over it: XP SP2 breaks a lot of software that worked under XP SP1 -- even today, in October of 2006.
I realize some of the MS fabois just don't know better (or don't want to), but many simply get paid to cruise blogs and websites and put in the good word for their masters and throw out the same canards again and again. However, because there are many more among those that read and don't post that haven't figured that tactic out it's necessary address them again and again:
The places that notice little or no effect between XP SP1 and XP SP2 are few. Even the reviews compared the effort of deploying SP2 to more like an OS upgrade than to anything else, let alone a "patch". Several sites I witnessed, could not deploy SP2 because it broke several of their mission critical apps, even on the desktop. In those cases, none of the vendors were quick about getting their over-priced cruft to work with SP2 for MS' over-priced cruft. One even tried to demand payment for development work.
In contrast, look how Debian (and some other systems) still does it. Patches address only specific problems and do not change the functionality of the software. In a production environment, it is essential that nothing changes until you yourself make it change. People pay the money for getting a known item. It will have advantages and disadvantages, but since they are known they can be planned around. Changing the specs means a lot of readjustment, which translates into lower return on investment.
Look at it this way. What if the gear ratio on your car changed occasionally and without advanced warning? Or if, after two years of using it daily, it suddenly turns into a diesel while the tank is full of gasoline? Or if the tires changed from summer, winter, or all-weather while driving? You get the idea. If you buy something to perform in a certain way, you expect it to continue performing that way for the life cycle of the product. It used to be that way even in IT. I guess it still is, with the exeception of MS and its products. I guess that's because so much of the MS business model is based on keeping customers on the treadmill and too busy to look around, let alone hop off.
Businesses like stability and predictability. Debian has those in spades and is attracting more users that way. As a result, the visibility of Debian is increasing and as that happens, an re-awakening of the knowledge that even IT can be reliable and predictable. Reliable and predictable == money.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
You mean 98 SE, surely? Wouldn't that be the same idea as XP SP2?
(IIRC SP1 didn't add many new features, and SE did).
Anyone have an idea why this might be the case, or is our IT dept doing more arse-talking than usual?
Anyway, I just can't wait to find out how badly this is going to fuck our network. Everything else does...
Meta will eat itself
So, this means that there is actually just ONE supported version of Windows (for clients). Of course, both Home/Professional/64-bit, but anyway.
Have the latest - or have no support...
They are really desperate to make people stop using their old products.
The thing is; it's a pretty big ADSL supplier in Holland and he's not the only one in this situation.
;)
I live in Holland and have a pretty large choice of ADSL providers, or I can get broadband from the cable company. In a pinch, use one of the 3 or 4 open wireless in the neighborhood.
If by "Holland" you actually mean "the Netherlands" then perhaps you are right and he only has one option, if he's in Gelderland or Friesland or some other barely civilized area.
Most of the feature changes in MS Windows seem to cause harm in some way or another, especially to the free market. However, it's probably not necessary to show, it should be enough to show that they are unnecessary and/or unwanted.
That would be interesting to see. It would certainly hinder or prevent the ability to leverage the desktop monopoly to gain and maintain monopolies in other areas. That would in turn necessitate a major change in the company's business models. That change would benefit the market by loosening the grip on its existing monopolies and reducing the ability to use them to make new ones. Or, it might break the company, in which case the market would probably soar as competition is restored.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
Microsoft announced the cutoff date for SP1 a long, long, long time ago. In fact, I'm pretty sure it was known before SP2 was even released.
Have fun rushing out SP2. You only have yourself to blame.
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
Once dusted off, the truth is the article is revealed as being pointless. While many of us don't care because we already upgraded, anyone still running XP 'Service Pack' 1 has been completely unable to get online in a meaningful way and has no idea about the news that Microsoft 'support' is coming to end precisely because they've been spending the past couple years waiting for malware to release the occassional CPU cycle to finally process the desperate thousand of clicks trying swatting down popups and fighting Bonzo buddy.
You claim to be running 10 year old software, which works on XP-SP1 but breaks on XP-SP2 miraculously?
I call bullshit.
> (Also, seriously, a printer? How can 2000/XP possibly not have a compatible driver for a printer?)
I have one too. A Xerox printer, does not work in XP (no driver), only W98 or older.
When did it ever start?
Star WinType 4000. Try and find a Windows 2000/XP driver for it now. Go!
(note: I know why things are the way they are but it's probably best you find out for yourself)
There's a good reason your hardware didn't work together under Linux and it will have more to do with the above case than is immediately obvious.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
slackware 8.1 still gets patches.
I am?
That depends on what the original poster means by Linux. Linux is, and has always been a kernel. If the OP meant distribution and support from a retail vendor, I know Novell still supports SLES 8 and SuSE 8 which were 2.4 based. Redhat still supports their enterprise 2.4 based releases. So, in other words, if you're still on 2.4, you can _still get support_. If you're on a free distribution, you support yourself anyway, which is no big deal.
2.4 is just a kernel. All the rest are applications and they can be mixed and matched at will. Windows people simply can't wrap their brains around that concept, but that doesn't surprise me in the least, because of the way Microsoft ties what should be userland to kernel space.
So I don't know what the big deal is. You windows fanboys amaze me, spouting the FUD "hey, maybe 2.4 isn't as supported as Windows is supported." Bullshit. If I wanted to, I could go grab one of the 1.1 kernels and build something around it. You can't even _buy_ Windows 95, but if I have an application that requires a kernel as small as 1.1.13 was, I can _still use it_.
Doing that is almost the equivalent of going back to DOS (but without the bogosity), but hey, you can't even _buy_ a retail box of MS-DOS these days, can you?
--
BMO
Oh they'll know what vista is. MS will buy the headlines again just like they did for XP. If MS is good at one thing it's marketing.
It's true that many/most home users will never have downloaded a service pack and won't even know what one is. eg. my mother is on XP. She has dialup, and logs for an hour in maybe once a month if then... her XP has never even been patched let alone been on long enough for a service pack.
OTOH for her the lack of support isn't something she'd know or care about. If XP breaks the 'computer' is broken and she gets a repair person out (usually me) to fix it.
Linux 2.4. Kernel. Apple.
Linux 2.4.34. Kernel. Apple. Released 4 days ago.
Where's the orange?
Windows zealot, why don't you accept that Linux support is EXCELLENT.
I thought they would never stop support. This should have been taken out of support a long time ago so that microsoft would have been able to work on other things besides the patches for SP1
Security support for Debian 3.0 ("woody") only ended in June, 3 years and 11 months after its release. :)
Red Hat Enterprise Linux support their releases for 7 years. So RHL 6.2E, released in 2000, is now 6 years old and is still supported.
Try the built in WinXP driver for the Epson Action Laser 1100 printer. From what I've read Epson made the printer and sold it as the Action Laser 1000, and it was sold by Star as the Wintype 4000 and by Xerox as the Xerox FastPage 4.
If you've already tried this with no luck, please disregard.
Why not? SP2 changed a lot of things. What does it matter when the code was written? Because SP2 doesn't behave in the same way as SP1 its not bullshit at all. I mean, if my Toshiba laptop couldn't boot under SP2 but ran perfectly fine under SP1, why is it so hard to believe that other code breaks under SP2?
It has been a nervous year, with people beginning to feel like Christian Scientists with appendicitis.
That's not true. We still receive support on an old version. But you shouldn't just take my word for it - they say themselves "The Red Hat Enterprise Linux product lifecycle provides seven years of support for every release."
What can I say. It works, it works well and most drivers (I've yet to find a broken one) work well thanks to WDM.
I shove a decent firewall on the thing, ditch IE and install my apps of choice and I'm away.
The only thing missing is Cleartype fonts.
Best version of Windows ever.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
Maybe they won with you (windows), but not with me (mandriva 8.2 through 2007).
You miss the point. For most things you could complain about RHL 6.2E, the answer will be 'we have a patch on our website...'
So, the answer is the same. For XP SP1 users, the answer is 'we have a patch on our website... it's called SP2'
why do they hold the copyrights? Someone making a copy does not steal a sale of Win98 from them.
I have here one pc that locks up when I upgrade to SP2 too. The only thing that still works is going in the safe mode and uninstalling it again.
It is a HP Pavilion and there were some issues documented for that model. But as far as I know I repaired them, yet no result.
and to not worry about the people who havn't bothered installing SP2 yet for some reason.
The reason most of my business customers haven't "bothered" installing SP2 is that certain critical applications will stop working. I'm not sure how you're defining "bother" but it's a major deal for them.
In fairness I did start warning them a year ago to start updating those apps. Always on the todo list, never a priority. One of those projects.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Read almost all posts; Windows and Linux oriented; as far as I could see.
Here is another perspective: I have almost forgotten when I received my Solaris 8 discs. I think June 2000 ? And there are still patches for the recent vulnerabilities.
That's 6+ years.
> 'There's little reason for anyone to still be running SP1; SP2 contained a range of improvements to XP's security.'
Except some of the wireless cards in laptops won't run under SP2 (Luckily we've replaced ours). Where do these "experts" pull thier quotes from.
try to make ends meet, you're a slave to money, then you die
This is all about IE7. They want to get as many people using IE7 as possible, and that will only run on SP2. I really don't see anything wrong with this though...
SP2 just chopped off SP1's head, and searches in vain for Win2K and others born in a previous century. Meanwhile, in Redmond, a child is born...
"There can be only one!"
(and the series is filled with bad acting)
Cake or Death? Cake Please!
I prefer use Ubuntu on every computer now, ...
no more pirating mico$oft, no more
"KILL WGA". and who cares about m$ Support?
who ever use it? , support? come on
i have an old computer... it shits the bed whenever SP2 is installed
Dont fuck with it unless you can fix it
You do not need broadband to keep XP patched.
Windows Update downloads in the background and downloads only the patches you need. Not the all-inclusive 300 MB ISO with the hotfixies needed by the service tech or system administrator.
Order Windows XP Service Pack 2 on CD Share the CD with anyone who needs it.
Service Pack 2 broke some very useful things that microsoft has not yet fixed. Most noteable in my case, the ability to debug SQL stored procedures. I used to use that almost daily. Now I have to add lots of print statements to try and find problems. I wonder what vista will break.
Raw sockets...
sorry, it's been awhile.
Cake or Death? Cake Please!
Do you really expect to be supported running software with known problems?
...er
Of course not...That's why I run windows xp sp2...
From: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/support/endofsupp ort.mspx
"Enterprise customers Microsoft will, under qualified conditions, make Custom Support Agreements (CSA) available for eligible enterprise customers. CSA customers are also encouraged to consider migrating to Windows Vista as part of their migration plan. Customers may qualify for a CSA if they have a current Premier support agreement, and a detailed migration plan moving them from Windows XP SP1 to the latest operating system. To learn more about Custom Support Agreements, contact your Premier support Technical Account Manager (TAM)."
-- I am the NRA, enough said...
It's even more fun when you move to the 64 bit version of XP. Toshiba still doesn't have drivers for their photocopier units.
I won't take your word for it, I will QUOTE their website.
"2.5 years from General Availability (end of Full Support)"
after this you enter th maintenance phase
"During the Maintenance phase, only Security errata and select mission critical bug fixes will be released for the Enterprise products. "
most of those 7 years is maintenance only with minimal fixes for only the most critical of bugs. this is NOT what I call 7 years of support. They have 2.5 years of support with some basic support for stuff people scream loadly enough about after that.
They don't need to search the the knowlege base.
They only need to read their e-mail, visit the home pages of their PC manufactuer or ISP, turn on automatic updates, launch the Windows Update site, etc., etc. This information has never been hidden under a rock.
Five years ago the top distros were Redhat, Suse, Mandrake, and Debian. All of these offer the same level of support they did 5 years ago. Mandrake (now Mandriva) was the only one to have significant financial trouble, but it seems that has passed now. Arguing that distros aimed solely at the hobbyists represent linux is completely dishonest. Are you an astroturfer?
God I hate people saying crap like this, you try to make redhat out to be a good guy on support when in fact they SUCK. Redhat Linux support is similar to MS if not worse. they only FULLY support RHEL for 2.5 years after initial release. After that you have 6 months additional deployment support, then you are in maintenence only mode for the next 4 years. given that very few are deploying on release most enterprises get LESS than 2 years full support from redhat before they get the story, "Sorry if you want that fix you need to upgrade" or "that is not classified as a mission critical fix and hence you can only obtain it via an upgrade."
The support offered for 6.2 little more than hotfixes that large enterprises yell loadly enough about.
Did you honestly never expect a new service pack to come out for XP or something? I'm do believe "end-of-life" is a term that's been out for a while. SP1 was released 4 years ago, and SP2 has been out for two years...if you honestly didn't expect to have to upgrade at some point, maybe you should start thinking down the line a bit farther. Having to recertify a piece of software every 4 years should probably be in your plan somewhere.
On that note, I have to recertify various *nix environments every couple of months. Yeah it can be a pain, but that's business, and it's what the customer needs.
Since I wrote software that stopped working after SP2, I (or rather, my company) paid quite a bit for SP2. Valuable time spent rewriting software that was working fine. Support time spent with customers complaining that the software stopped working. The expense of sending out updates to customers. I don't have a dollar figure, but it is significantly higher than 'free'.
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
Correct second link: Windows XP Service Pack 2: Install With Care
And you won't. What those locations do, and what's wrong with them, is between them and their vendors, not for your leader in Redmond to interfere with. If they worked with XP SP1, why change? A security patch, if that's what it really is, shouldn't affect functionality. If it's not a security patch, but a functionality upgrade, then it's fraudulent to call it a security patch. If undesireable changes in configuration and functionality are pushed out by bundling them with security patches deemd essential, then that's illegal and unethical, though you'll have to ask a lawyer what that's actually called.
However, a quick check of any non-MSN search engine will bring up lots of articles about the troubles caused by XP SP2.
Given the problems SP2 has had with third party (and even MS' own) apps as well as falling on its face security-wise, it would appear that SP2 is more about rolling out unpopular configuration and functionality changes under the guise of "security". After most customers, politicians and even courts will simply roll over and close their eyes when the magic word, "security", is mentioned.
Like I said, get over it. And while you're at it, get out of the way. Like one of the reviewers says, "Unfortunately, Windows remains a quite dangerous system to connect to the Internet, and users are still very much on their own in terms of security solutions."
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
I tried moving from SP1a to SP2 (XP pro) a couple weeks ago on my laptop. The result was an unbearably sluggish computer with CPU usage oscillating between 70%-100% (nothing running outside of OS).
After trying to trace the problem and using msconfig to uncheck all unnecessary startup stuff to no avail, I finally uninstalled SP2 and everything went back to normal.
"There's little reason for anyone to still be running SP1" if you don't mind an unusable machine I guess.
Yeah, and what about all those poor Linux/BSD/Other users who are using the very old version of SSH that had a security hole? Why should they have to download upgrades and go through procedures to test that it works with the rest of their systems? Why can't they continue to use the old version without being laughed off any support forum on the internet?
Oh yeah, because it's really really dumb to run 4 year old software with holes when patches that fix problems in it have been available for years.
Like any ever actually called Microsoft for support...
..... brrrring ... brrrring
(much later...)
" Microsoft Helpdesk... please insert all cash for the first three minutes..."
WGA isn't required for SP2, it's a separate download.
There is little reason to still be running SP1??? I hate SP2 with a passion. It's horrible.
My old website (not mine anymore) contains what my primary complaints are:
Here.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/updat es/sp2/cdorder/en_us/default.mspx
How many distros that were flying high five years ago exist now, in the same state of 'repair'? Yggdrasil? Slackware?
You have a strange definition of "flying high". In 2001, Yggdrasil hadn't issued any new releases for 6 years and Slackware was all but forgotten. The popular distros of the day were Red Hat, SuSE and Debian. Not a lot different from today, really.
So your computer is running an operating system, worth around $200, that you recieved for free, and will work for a year.
... except that, in a year, you won't even have anything to show for your worthless time. ;)
Hm, now, what was that old saying? "It's only free if your time is worthless."? Oh, yes, that's the one.
Except for those people who bought and paid for SP1 and do not have a good fast internet connection to download the hundgreds of MBs of patches released to bring SP1 up to the current 'standard'
Even on a 28.8 modem, I think they could have downloaded all of SP2 by now, It has been available for about two years now. (I'm assuming you're familiar with the BITS, most people don't notice patches being downloaded automatically)
Besides the express installer doesn't download the entire SP, only the parts that are needed, I believe about that's about 40mb for the typical home setup.
whoever doesn't have a fast internet connection in the year 2006 should seriously consider killing themselves.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
I have many reasons to not upgrade to SP2. We have a lot of federally required programs at the CU I work for that just don't run with it. So far, I've been upgrading the workstations that don't need to use those programs to SP2, but if we're forced to upgrade them all, I sure as hell won't be doing the troubleshooting later.
From a microsoft web page: ... Support for Microsoft Windows XP Service Pack 1 (SP1) and Service Pack 1a (SP1a) ends on October 10, 2006. ... This also includes security updates ...
http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifean19
Name me one linux distro that is as popular as windows and i will show you a ditstro besideds debian that supports a release longwe then 4 years.
Shouldn't the economics of scale suggest that more windows installs means more support base wich means more needs to continue support? Personaly, i have an issue wich doesn't alllow SP2 to be installed on my laptop. So it is either a new laptop or SP1 only. I guess my only hope would be the next disaterous flaw in SP1 is some hole that allows a denial of service attack on microsoft. I think it would be great to be infected with something though a hole not patch that only effects the people who never made the patch. Kind of like not locking your door, telling everyone in town about it, then findong your house was broken into,
Well, bad luck! Mine started to work with SP2. Before SP2 it would report a weak signal and kill the connection after transmitting a few bytes. I spent days and hours trying to get it right without success. With SP2: no more problems.
Say out loud: I'm an Aspie and I'm somewhat proud, I guess. Uh. Can I write an email in all caps instead? Hm...
If it ain't broke don't fix it.
Sure those articles are from two years ago. So, what? The apps are already bought and paid for. They're older than two years. They didn't change. They don't need to change. Why should businesses and everyone else keep chasing MS' moving goals posts?
I'm glad you pointed out that Linux distros are a secure option and now easy to use. However, you miss the point that these organiszations and businesses are locked into NT 5 and 5.1 (pre SP2). If they can't make the transition easily to SP2, it'll be more of a transition to move to BSD, Linux or whatever else. However, in the medium and long term it may be very well worth it.
Again, so what? The fact that no system is perfect doesn't not mean that all systems are equal. The heart of the issue there is about mitigating risks. Some architectures are designed with a multi-user, networked environment in mind, others are designed for no network and one app/user at a time.
I've done that before -- in 2002, since you mention the year. It was free of critical security flaws for over six months. Just to re-iterate, patches are not the same as updates. Yes, updating to a different version will cause trouble and if you do that in a production environment without first testing, you can end up having you ass handed to you. However, patches are not updates. Patches fix a problem with an existing version. Period. Who knows? That's irrelevant. The posts above are about patching not updating. Don't get confused about the two. If you want to start a new thread about updating, go ahead. But the original point is that instead of issuing a clean patch that fixes a specific problem, MS lumps several together and then piggybacks unrelated changes in functionality to essential patches in order to force the acceptance of the changes to functionality. That makes hell for MS' customers.Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
hmm..i bet this rapid refusal to support has nothing to do with the software verification tool in sp2 to check that you are properly licensed...
I have a box at home running XP SP1. It's my ProTools 6.1.1/Cubase SX2 machine, complete with a Digidesign Audiomedia III card. Neither ProTools 6.1.1 or the ASIO drivers for the AMIII will work with SP2 - AT ALL!!!
http://archive.digidesign.com/compato/xp/tb/
Scroll down and find the little yellow exclamation mark to find this:
"Additional Computer Requirements
System Software: Windows XP Professional or Home Edition (Pro Tools LE 6.1 can NOT be installed on systems running Windows 98, Me, 2000, NT, 95, or 3.1)
Windows XP Service Pack 1
Windows XP Service Pack 2 is not qualified with Pro Tools LE 6.1.1 "
Not qualified 'cause it won't run on SP2 (I've tried). There's no workaround for this either. To be able to use ProTools with XP, my minimum investment is about $300 for a used Digi001 and PTLE 6.4 from Ebay. I could upgrade to the current PT7 if I buy an Mbox, but at $500+ this is not a real option for me. The version of PTLE I run now does everything the new version does, it just doesn't look as pretty. New plugins are still compatible, so there's no overly compelling reason to upgrade.
M$ just screwed me on this one.
Fifty watts per channel, baby cakes.
Working at a Fortune 50 (yes, with just one zero) company here. We still have some workstations and servers on Windows 2000. But we're about to upgrade them to XP and 2003.
...excepting that some people live in rural areas where there is no cable, no line-of-sight wireless (terrain preventing), no fiber for DSL. They lack the option (unless you think they should relocate JUST for internet speed).
My area only got DSL availability within the last two years, and I know of plenty who still have no ability. Sure there is sat modems, but all in all those aren't really a fun solution.
**change "fiber for DSL" to simply "too far, lines too poor, simply not offered"
Other things like increasing MSN Broadband subscriptions so people can actually get windows updates. To put it in perspective, imagine installing Debian Woody, changing all your repos to point to Sarge, and trying to do a apt-get dist-upgrade. On Dialup.
Shift happens. Fire it up.
Not quite.
m l
http://support.novell.com/linux/psdb/byproduct.ht
Support for SuSE 8 Pro only if you are paying for support.
Support for SuSE 9 Pro not available.
And if they don't do any of this, then how does continuing SP1 support help them, exactly? They're ignoring all the help that's been offered up to this point! Like, what do you expect microsoft to offer this group of people, since we've already established that they don't seek help and don't apply patches.
And why was I moderated Troll, twice, for making what I think is a valid point? Disagreement does not equal trolling.
Jeremy
There's little reason for anyone to still be running SP1; SP2 contained a range of improvements to XP's security.
Windows Update can't complete the install of updates required to install/download sp2...
But all is ok, I found this site http://www.softwarepatch.com/windows/index.html which will allow me to download all 50+ updates manually.
But it really dosen't matter now that I use Gentoo.
WinXP Pro with bad sound and video card drivers. 150$
Gentoo with great working ALSA and working video card drivers. 0$
Knowing that you can't play Oblivion any more. Priceless
And why was I moderated Troll, twice, for making what I think is a valid point? Disagreement does not equal trolling.
You must be new here.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legacy
Fedora Legacy is still supporting Redhat 7.3 and Redhat 9 with updates. Sure, you can't get support for Fedora Core 1 or Fedora Core 2, but I wouldn't be so hasty to say nobody is doing it.
My computer came with SP1. I bet about 30% of the people out there have PCs that date before SP2 came out on CD. If they don't have a backup (or their backup isn't bootable after a restore), they have to restore from their original Windows disks.
Guess what. Instant SP1 machine!
We are the 198 proof..
SP2 installs TCPA and DRM without your knowledge or permission. I see that as a good enough reason not to install it.
You know all those worms that are constantly slamming your router? Those arn't appearing out of thin air. Those are infected pre-sp2 machines sending them.
Judging from the amount of worm activity and the randomness of their IP selection... thats a very large amount machines.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
A research computer I had been using for nearly a year ran MS Excel, some Hiden Mass Spectrometry software, and NI LabView. After installing service pack two, the thing broke. Each bit of software we were using had been released after SP2 came around, yet installing the service pack managed to break windows so badly that it had BSODs that it claimed were due to video driver problems. By wrapping too much together in service packs rather than allowing hundreds of incremental updates to individual problems, MS made a shoddy solution that is not only easy to roll out but difficult to remove. I've now had to switch back to using a Windows 2000 box with the data acquisition card moved from the XP box just to be able to do my research. If anything, Microsoft is shooting itself in the foot by making mass service packs rather than individual updates. The world of at-risk computers is wired well enough these days that 200 MB one-giant-size-fits-all updates aren't appropriate. My supervisor, who controls the budget for my research, is now looking at options for switching our licensing to allow us to use linux with a barebones distribution to run our equipment.
I'll be your candy shop of infinite deliciousity if you'll be my discotheque of endless rump-shaking.
If the OP meant distribution and support from a retail vendor, I know Novell still supports SLES 8 and SuSE 8 which were 2.4 based.
Then how come ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/suse/update doesn't contain a subdirectory for any version older than 9.2?
Doh. Check URLs before trying to quote them from memory.
ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/suse/i386/update/
IMHO, one of the biggest problem for any given OS (Windows or Linux, at least), is support for old hard- and soft-ware. I haven't seen any Pentium-III box around since three years, when I donated my Gericom laptop to a local charity. Now, what we are discussing here: SP1 on Windows??? Please, tel me, when did YOU install SP1 on your Windows box? I can tell you 'bout myself - I tested it the next day after M$ released it! Actually I don't think Microsoft should NOT support ANY Windows installation which is not upgraded till the level of SP2.
Hard Drive controller? Was this perchance a Promise Raid controller with horrible proprietary drivers? We had one here for a while, it would only work with Red Hat 9. When we moved to Debian we did the Right Thing (tm) and 'retired' the Promise card.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Because astroturfing for M$ is trolling, maybe?
Let's reiterate the obvious question: why not upgrade to SP2?
Actually, the Fedora Legacy Project have announced that support for Redhat 7.3 and 9 will cease at the end of this year.
Yes, but Redhat 7.3 was released when? 2002/05/06. That's over 4 years of support.
"Yeah, and what about all those poor Linux/BSD/Other users who are using the very old version of SSH that had a security hole?"
If they patched it themselves, or replaced it with some other cryptosystem, their license to use Linux or BSD does not terminate. Here we are talking about an OS that will cease to function, will not be reactivated, cannot be patched, etc., because the end user chooses not to update when and how the vendor wants him to. This is unacceptable.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Um, Debian springs to mind as the humorous answer. But Ubuntu LTS offers 3 years on the desktop and 5 years on the server.
I have to use SP1 for my embedded control system that uses Internet Explorer as a user interface because SP2 removed the ability to print from IE without a dialog box coming up.
I went from SP1 to SP2 on a dialup connection. The downloads happened automatically and didn't take too long. It was really no big deal. If I hadn't heard earlier that SP2 was coming I might not have even noticed.
WTF are you talking about? XP won't cease to function nor will you lose your license to it if you don't upgrade to SP2. Microsoft will just not support it. Stop spreading FUD.
FUD. You are spreading FUD. Pure and simple.
"If they patched it themselves, or replaced it with some other cryptosystem, their license to use Linux or BSD does not terminate."
FUD.
You don't lose your license if you don't upgrade from SP1.
"will not be reactivated, cannot be patched, etc., "
FUD.
Install SP2 and MS will start supporting it again.
MS will just no longer provide automatic patches to it or handle your service support calls unless you patch up to SP2.
You are free to manually download the patches off of MS's website and install them yourself. Their automatic tool just won't do it for you anymore because it realizes your system is already at big risk from not having SP2 installed. Plus, without having to worry about unpatched or SP1 only boxes that means that new patches they create only have to be tested on all the variations of SP2 machines, not also all the variations of those with only SP1. That's a lot less testing they have to do to new patches, so that they can roll them out faster.
This is no different than my example in my previous post where you would be laughed off any help board on the net if you were using a old and obviously broken and hackable software on Linux/BSD.
The people on the list would not go out of their way to help you with wild workarounds to problems you are having on an old unpatched system. They are first going to tell you to patch your damn box and close the known holes on it. Then they'll help you with whatever other problems you have with it.
XP won't stop functioning if you don't' patch it. MS just doesn't want the headache of dealing with support calls from idiots who won't patch their boxes.
If you want people to take seriously your real arguments against MS when you say them (and there are plenty of real ones out there)...
STOP SPREADING FUD!
What would be scary is, if the OS turned itself off.
Have you read my journal today?
>Stop spreading FUD.
So you are saying that I can take SP1 and WPA will not lock me out of it?
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
It wasn't bad luck, it was a design flaw - certain internal cards did not have the correct protection mechinism, and with SP2, because that protection mechinism was not availabe it disabled the cards.
I was trying to point out that the people with these laptops would need to run SP1, which directly contridicted the experts comments of "Little Reason to Run SP2".
Well done in getting your card to work with SP2.
try to make ends meet, you're a slave to money, then you die