Microsoft Kills Support For XP SP2

Trailrunner7 writes "Microsoft's announcement this week that it is preparing to end support for machines running Windows XP SP2 not only represents a challenge for the thousands of businesses still running SP2, but also is the end of an era for both Microsoft and its customers. It wasn't until 2004 that the final release of XP SP2 hit the streets, but when it did, it represented a huge step forward in security for Windows users. It wasn't necessarily the feature set that mattered as much as the fact that the protections were enabled by default and taken out of the users' hands."

Comments

So what?

[SanityInAnarchy]

What's wrong with SP3?

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing wrong with SP3. Just another "security columnist" trying to make headlines by exaggerating a minor event. Title of his article? "End of Support for XP SP2 is End of an Era", give me a break.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

It has WGA in it.

But the "A" stands for "advantage", dude!

Re:So what?

[Ephemeriis]

What's wrong with SP3?

At my previous job they were still using a piece of software that did not like SP3 - only ran happily on SP2 and older systems.

This wasn't a problem at the time because Microsoft still supported SP2 installs.

Re:So what?

[Backward Z]

I had the same problem going from XP SP1 to SP2.

Later, I tried installing SP3 clean to the same machine. It blue screened every time during the progress bar part of the install sequence.

Re:So what?

[westlake]

Way back when I had XP SP2, installing SP3 borked my machine. Had to do a System Restore.

The plural of anecdote is not data. How many upgrades to SP3 were successful on the first attempt?

Re:So what?

[Mister Whirly]

And this is different from any other operating systems how exactly?

Re:So what?

[mollog]

Microsoft has no incentive to support older operating systems, especially the really good versions of older operating systems. Indeed, they have every reason to be careless about 'updates' to those older operating system and ignore problems caused by those 'updates' because their policy is to recommend their newest product. Obviously, the policy of recommending customers buy their newest product to fix problems with their previous product is a profitable policy.

The reason that this article is newsworthy is because so many corporate customers balked at the Vista upgrade cycle. XP was known to work better with fewer resource requirements. Many of the PC's built that were claimed to be 'Vista Ready' (TM) were dogs with Vista but were perfectly usable with XP. Imagine, an 'upgrade' to a line of operating systems that performs worse than its predecessor. So, corporate customers demanded, en masse, that Microsoft continue to offer XP as an alternative to Vista.

For the first time in my memory Microsoft blinked, and extended its support of the XP revision despite the obvious disadvantage to its profits. Its customers had learned to put their foot down and refuse Microsoft's self-serving upgrade recommendations.

To my mind, XP is the most stable release of an operating system since MS-DOS 5. Everybody hailed it as uncharacteristically stable and usable.

Re:So what?

[Hijacked Public]

I'd do that, but my XP disc is stamped "DO NOT MAKE ILLEGAL COPIES OF THIS DISC" and I haven't yet finished reading USC Title 17 to determine whether your recommendation would be illegal.

Re:So what?

[Mister Whirly]

And so you think it is up to Microsoft to continue support for SP2 because you use some third-party software they have nothing to do with?? I think your beef should be with the software company not making their software work with the current patch to the operating system, and not vice-versa.

Re:So what?

[drsmithy]

You are correct sir. Windows 2000 == NT 5.0 while XP == 5.1 -(basically 2000 with bugfixes). Likewise Vista == 6.0 and Seven == 6.1, the bugfixed and memory-optimized version of Vista.

A .1 release is not a Service Pack.

Don't be duped. Remember this is the company that tried to trick people with "Windows Mohave" which was really just vista.

Er, right. An anti-FUD experiment is "trying to trick people" ?

Well, this is Slashdot I suppose...

Re:So what?

[ajlisows]

XP SP2 did seem stable, but now when I compare it to Windows 7, it was really buggy. I've been using Windows 7 since the Beta and the only time I had problems was early on with a Toshiba laptop running the 64-bit version. Toshiba eventually released a BIOS update that allegedly would solve that problem...but I had gotten rid of that laptop by that point. I did try running Vista for awhile but had all sorts of issues with it.

Compared to others around here I am not that big of a Linux fan. Don't get me wrong, I do really like Linux but I am not as vested in it as others. Back when I was using XP (SP2 and SP3) I probably was using Linux 60% of the time and XP 40% of the time. Since I became acclimated to Windows 7, I've probably shifted to 25% Linux/75% Windows (Mind you I work at a place that is almost exclusively Microsoft so that has a big impact on what OS I want to use when.) Windows 7 is responsive, sleep mode works properly, the interface is nice, it hardly ever crashes, and it doesn't have to be rebooted all the time. Right now the Windows 7 machine I am on has an uptime of 39 days. Yes, that is pretty standard for Linux but in my experience...not for XP.

I truly believe that Microsoft's newest offering is its most stable since the DOS days.

Re:XPSP2?

[spidercoz]

I know you tried to make the OP look foolish but is it really that hard to write Microsoft Windows XP Service Pack 2?

Rediculous

[Anonymous Coward]

No excuse to be running XP SP2 still.

Upgrade to Windows 7 or install SP3.

Thousands of business still running SP2? Your kidding right, what do they login to their NT 4 Server and connect to the network using token ring?

Re:Typical MS forcing their customers to be slaves

[mister_playboy]

The developers of this software simply aren't ready on their end and there is no reason why a company should HAVE to upgrade just because MS wants more money or compliance (read slavery) from their customers.

If you don't like the rules of Microsoft's game, then don't run their software. Other options exist.

Re:Typical MS forcing their customers to be slaves

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe they should contact the company that supports their multi-million dollar financial software to get off their asses and fix their software.

Microsoft, for all their faults, maintains their OS API quite well. You do not see this sort of API stability from almost any other vendor. API that worked in Windows 95 still works, more or less.

Re:Typical MS forcing their customers to be slaves

[macbiv]

Please tell us then, how long should a company support old software? Forever? Until the last user logs off? XP has been out since 2001. Are there other companies that offer support on products almost a decade old? A few of my clients run businesses on Macs, and I can tell you for damn sure that they don't. Maybe you should find fault with the 3rd party vendors that won't release software that works on new platforms. Vista has been out since 06 or 07 are you telling me that 3 years is too little time to get with the program?

Re:"Kills"

[interval1066]

"MS bludgeons XPSP2 to death like a small defenseless kitten."

If you mean "...a small defenseless ZOMBIE kitten that refuses to finally die." I would tend to agree.

Re:Typical MS forcing their customers to be slaves

[Quirkz]

Seconded, more or less. There is no excuse for a business-critical app to not be compatible with SP3 at this point. Hell, there's no reason for it to not be compatible with Vista at this point. Those developers knew the end was coming, just like the rest of us.