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.'"
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.
You don't need to install WGA to get SP2.
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!
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.
I just upgraded to SP2 yesterday, at windowsupdate they wouldn't let me advance without installing an 'important system update'. I had two options, install or leave.
You can slipstream service packs into the Windows CD.
2 _slipstream.asp shows you how.
http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/windowsxp_sp
Download it from here.
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.
Ok, I'm assuming you're joking, but for those who do _not_ know that you can bypass the Windows update site and simply download and burn to CD so your friends don't have to suffer, go HERE:
a milyId=049C9DBE-3B8E-4F30-8245-9E368D3CDB5A&displa ylang=en
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?F
Actually, if your friends are running Windows, they _are_ suffering.
--
BMO
With Microsoft it can!
And a "feature" can be a bug. One reason the holdouts have avoided SP2 is that Microsoft intentionally degraded the networking with SP2. Yes it's fixable, but not perfectly, and I'm not sure I care to bother with it.
This is one of the long-planned milestones on my migration to another OS (references to which have become a cliché in this connection).
Many of the fixes aren't even needed for a lean-and-mean XP configuration, so the time to an "upgrade or exposure" choice may be longer than this month.
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.
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Download and give them a copy of Autopacther. Just give them the latest full release (August's is ~250mb) and the update releases.
"It ain't a war against drugs.it's a war against personal freedom" --Bill Hicks
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.
Screwing up USB support which meant that our mission critical application (developing embedded software) was not working until we eventually got a new IDE (compiler etc) from our taiwanese suppliers.
That's funny. Over here I had the opposite experience: external USB hard drive was dead slow (USB 1.0 backcompact mode) in XP without service packs. I'm talking like, 1.5 MB average bandwidth per second. Then I just install SP2 and BAM: 20MB/sec.
So what was screwed up in USB support, specifically?
That order page was very easy to find from the MS's Windows XP page. Yes, a shipping and handling charge is added. They also encourage users to share the SP2 CD with friends and family.
TO START
PRESS ANY KEY
Where's the 'ANY' key? I see Esk, Kitarl, and Pig-Up...
Not really... mainstream support was retired in 2005. They're on extended support - which mean paid support vital security updates only.
If you call MS with a problem with Windows 2000 you're out of luck, unless you have a good credit card.
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.
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.
I didn't want to move to Firefox 1.5. It worked slower and ate far mre RAM on my machines.
But alas, few exploits later, I updated.
Because Firefox 1.0 support ended the moment 1.5 was out. Let's see for how long Firefox 1.5 will be supported when the official 2.0 release is out.
Let me guess: 0 days.
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."
SP2 also breaks things. Steve Balmer must have thrown in some chair-throwing code because when my research lab was trying to update our laptops when SP2 came out two years ago, we kept having issues getting SP2 to even boot. So I suppose that a laptop that won't boot is definitely more secure...but also definitely less useful.
It has been a nervous year, with people beginning to feel like Christian Scientists with appendicitis.
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.
Well, Windows 98 had a much longer life! ... ehm ... operating system?
Was it a better
In fact yes, for the time it was a very good OS. It still working great on a number of second hand machines I've equipped for children learning centers.
You'll be surprised how fine it works on a 24MB system where modern versions of KDE or Gnome would choke and die an ugly death.
Of course, Internet shortened the relevenacy and life of products very fast (at the speed of a zero day exploit, one might say), so don't expect Microsoft to support unpatches OS-es for years like before.
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
Why would you compare a (almost) decade-old version of Windows with a recent release of GNOME/KDE?
On older hardware just try, Openbox/Fluxbox, XFce (3.x), Afterstep, etc. It'll run faster than Windows 98 could hope to, all while being far more stable, responsive, and actually getting security updates and supporting most modern hardware, not just old hardware.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
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.
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.
This is an interesting set of bullshit. I slipstream SP2 into the XP install media and it takes up no noticeable amount of space difference. Talking maybe 100megs and that's stretching. Considering it has a lot of low level security fixes and considering we haven't had a worm bust through since SP2s release I think it more of a help than any hinderence.
As for 30 half-open TCP connections, what is the problem with that? P2P services don't rely solely on half-open connections and perform quite well under SP2 so what's the effective limit? You can't run a server on a desktop OS? Sounds like a good idea to me. Perhaps why HP home doesn't come with IIS. Are you going to fault MS with that decision as well? You don't list how any of this is a showstopper since I already debunked the hard drive myth. Besides that it's incredibly difficult to find a machine which doesn't have enough free space for SP2 since 40gig drives were already well into the norm when XP was released.
How bout you try again and mention a networking application which isn't feasible which is an end-user application and not a server. There is a reason most people don't complain about that and those that do are often trying to make XP into something it's not in which case I have no sympathy.
KB837783: Hard disk space requirements for Windows XP SP2:
So installing SP2 requires over 1.5GB of free disk space, according to MS's own information. Maybe they're wrong, but I've found it impossible to install it on my 1.9GB drive.
BTW, you say: "I slipstream SP2 into the XP install media". As far as I can tell, this process is illegal. There's nothing in the XP EULA that grants permission to make copies of the installation CD. The fact that various sources both inside & outside MS recommend it as a useful technique is besides the point: it is (at least technically) a copyright violation, and you could be sued for doing it.
As for 30 half-open TCP connections, what is the problem with that? P2P services don't rely solely on half-open connections and perform quite well under SP2 so what's the effective limit? You can't run a server on a desktop OS?
Servers don't typically need all that many half-open connections. Clients that connect to multiple servers for short-lived queries are the main problem. I run a variety of web spiders here, and find that they are substantially slower when run under SP2. As for P2P apps not having trouble with it, why do I see so many of their forums discussing patches that change the limit?
Perhaps why HP home doesn't come with IIS. Are you going to fault MS with that decision as well?
No. But if XP RTM came with IIS but SP2 deleted it, I think I'd have a right to be pissed off. And certainly I think I would have a right to not "upgrade" if I didn't think it was worth it.
Besides that it's incredibly difficult to find a machine which doesn't have enough free space for SP2 since 40gig drives were already well into the norm when XP was released.
Well, yeah... actually I'd slightly disagree, I reckon most entry level machines were being sold with either 10GB or 20GB drives at that time, but it doesn't matter: the minimum specs for XP were basically a 4 year old machine when XP was released: 64MB RAM, Pentium 233 or better, and 1.5GB hard disk. Plenty of people, I'm sure, run XP on machines that aren't a lot better than that. I can't be the only one. That's the reason those are the minimum specs, right, to tell you that if you have a machine that meets them, Windows XP is an operating system you can use on it. Except now it turns out it isn't.
How bout you try again and mention a networking application which isn't feasible which is an end-user application and not a server.
Some P2P apps (try running a gnutella client that was released before SP2 on a SP2 machine; the results will be painful). Anything that downloads web content from multiple servers in parallel and which you expect to finish quickly (e.g., applications that summarize search results). Apparently it can cause issue