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.'"

Comments

WGA

[Paxtez]

Not having to install WGA seems like a good reason...

gotta add something before it gets out of control

[Rooked_One]

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.

Dialup

[Kangburra]

'There's little reason for anyone to still be running SP1; SP2 contained a range of improvements to XP's security.'

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.

Re:Dialup

[mwvdlee]

Even worse; The ISP my brother has, uses a software/hardware combination that they acknowledge won't work with SP2. They refuse to upgrade either, so he's stuck with SP1. The thing is; it's a pretty big ADSL supplier in Holland and he's not the only one in this situation. I can only assume there are many similar situations in which people really are forced to stick with SP1.

Lots of people still use W98...

[EmbeddedJanitor]

Forced obsolesence is an attempt to force peopleto move on up. DOing this to XP is to help build the mindset that XP is old and it is time to think about Vista...

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.

Little Reason?

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

There's little reason for anyone to still be running SP1; SP2 contained a range of improvements to XP's security.'"

How's about the fact that you paid upwards of $200 dollars for your copy, along with that the implicit support from Microsoft. How's that for a good reason?

Re:Little Reason?

[Toreo asesino]

Do you really expect to be supported running software with known problems? It's only been out since the beginning of Feb 2003, so it's not too much to ask, surely?

Re:Little Reason?

[Anonymous Coward]

and they provided that support through service packs and hotfixes, if your using sp1 you have chosen not to take them up on there support obligations and hence your on your own baby.

Re:Little Reason?

[drawfour]

Microsoft IS supporting XP. It's called Service Pack 2.

Re:Thanks for the notice guys

[Daltorak]

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.

You're right, one week is totally ridiculous and unnacceptable.

Of course, ehm... they announced this a long time ago -- January, to be precise.

http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifean19
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/support/endofsupp ort.mspx

Re:Makes sense

[LMariachi]

Apple releases 0.1 releases every year

OS X 10.3, aka Panther, shipped in October 2003. 10.4, aka Tiger, shipped in April 2005. 10.5, aka Leopard, is due in spring of 2007.

they name each one after a wild feline of some sort, "to disguise the fact that they're charging every year for minor updates".

Leaving aside the question of whether the point releases (of Windows or OS X) have been minor, let's see... apple menu, About This Mac... "Mac OS X Version 10.4.8." That sure is one crafty disguise!

Even if you had a point, "but those guys do it too!" is not a valid response.

Re:The problem

[plover]

The "very annoying" limit is on the number of TCP connections that have been sent a SYN without having yet receieved an ACK, not on complete sockets. Is it annoying because you frequent dead hosts, or because you are running a port scanner?

And what exactly did you need to do with raw sockets that you couldn't do with AF_INET? Is there something so special about your application's packets that you have to hand-craft the TCP/IP headers? Do you intentionally write DDoS attackers?

At least you can port your application to a real OS if you feel the need to byte-edit your network packets. Oh, excuse me. I must have forgotten that even Linux doesn't support AF_RAW, because there's still no legitimate use for an end user to have access to raw sockets. Even so, you still have an option: you can write your own protocol (which is exactly what raw sockets was letting you informally do in the first place.)

Sorry, but with the number of Windows zombies out there that are screwing up the net, I'd rather have to make one person like you work to regain these "features" than to have them exist for millions of idiots who won't ever need them.

Or could it be that you just saw in a KB article that Microsoft "took something away", never mind that it actually helps improve network security, and you never did anything with raw sockets anyway?