Slashdot Mirror
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."
MS never released it for XP64, this kinda leaves XP64 w/sp2 users going wtf.
Om, nomnomnom...
Microsoft has had their end of life policy available on the web for ages now. Sp2 has been well known to be going EOL. If this threw any sysadmins off-guard...then wow.
The only reason I can see sticking with SP2 is that SP3 hasn't gotten an EAL rating.
wow ... aren't you witty and trendy.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
I bought my copy of XP in 2002 for $150. My cost per day is down to about 5 cents, and since it's only a VM now, there's no compelling reason to upgrade to 7. All of the apps work just fine.
I used to wonder why all of these huge businesses were still on Windows NT in the early naughties. It's because it worked, and the smartest CIOs know the real truth about IT: if it ain't broke, don't try to fix it. There will be unforeseen costs and bugs, and if there's not a "killer app" you're gaining for some competitive edge, you're just wasting time and money.
"..the Library of Congress yesterday approved six exemptions to US copyright. The one most pertinent to gamers is that, for archival purposes, copy protection on software no longer being sold or supported by its copyright holder can be cracked.."
- http://www.joystiq.com/2006/11/23/us-copyright-office-grants-abandonware-rights/
if not, why not? Seriously, interested..
Ford Motor is still running SP2.
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??
When did I say that?
The original question was "What's wrong with SP3?" I indicated one example where SP3 would be a problem.
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.
I never claimed to have a beef with anyone.
I certainly don't have a beef with anyone about this particular piece of software, as I no longer work there. For all I know they may no longer use that software.
And if I was going to have a beef with anyone, it would be with my former boss. He was too cheap to buy the new version of the software, which was why it didn't work with anything newer than SP2.
"Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
People always say that, but never explain "how it's a mess".
XP x64 never seemed to be a real mainstream product. You never really saw Microsoft advertise it much... Nobody really advertised support for it...
Some of the software I had to support would not run on XP x64. It would run fine on XP x86... It would run fine on 2003 x64... But it was not happy on XP x64. I don't know why that would be, since it was basically 2003 x64 repackaged... But some of the software wasn't happy with it.
Then we had some vendors who flat-out refused to support their software on XP x64. It would run OK... But if we hit a bug and they heard we were running XP x64, they'd tell us to re-install with a supported OS.
Drivers were another issue. I had a hell of a time tracking down drivers for some devices. Generally speaking, you had to use 2003 drivers. Which wasn't necessarily obvious since the OS said XP, not 2003. But sometimes the 2003 drivers wouldn't work either.
The only thing (generically speaking) that it seems to lack vs. Vista as far as an Actual Problem, is direct support for various AHCI drivers
The big benefit I personally saw with Vista wasn't some kind of technological change - it was simply the fact that Vista x64 was a mainstream product. You would see the x64 version advertised prominently along-side the x86 version. Hardware and software both would advertise support for the x64 version. Vendors stopped running away when you mentioned you were running x64.
This currently being written from XP x64, I've never seen what all of the fuss is about.
I guess I'm glad it's working for you.
I personally gave up on XP x64 on my home computer when I had trouble finding working video drivers.
That was a couple years ago... So maybe the problems I experienced no longer exist. Maybe it would be a piece of cake to run XP x64 these days. But I don't really have a reason to anymore.
"Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
Everybody hailed it as uncharacteristically stable and usable.
Er, no. They treated pretty much the same way they did Vista.
IIRC, they lampooned it for its cartoonish look, and the fact that it was slower than Win98 and Win 2K, depending on where you were coming from. Win 2K was probably the "best" of the NT versions, solid and trim compared to all of its predecessors and descendants. And while XP was eventually accepted, Vista never will be, as Win 7 is now out (Vista SP2 really, renamed because "Vista" had such a bad rap)
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
That would depend upon where you were purchasing it from and whether or not the shop informed you of such at the time of purchase, I'd think. There is some degree of culpability that lies upon the retailer of a product.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.