Slashdot Mirror
Windows XP SP2 Support Ends Tomorrow
Vectormatic writes "As can be seen on the product page for Windows XP, support for SP2 ends tomorrow, while the majority of Windows XP users still haven't upgraded to SP3. This could open up millions of users/businesses to exploitation, since security updates for SP2 will stop coming in while security fixes to SP3 may clue hackers in to vulnerabilities."
Will it be available in blue?
It should be noted that XP SP2 x64 has support until whenever XP SP3 x86 runs out. There is no XP SP3 x64
The sky is falling!!!
If these people/companies don't care enough to have upgraded to SP3, they won't care that support for the OS has ended either.
"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
what's more important is that win2k support is withdrawn as well... and quite a few major organization still rely on it...
If I just update my Windows XP, I'm on SP3?
I hardly ever boot into it, except for updating firmware on some old phones that can't do that in Linux, for example. Since I hadn't yet left the dark side when I bought it bundled and now have a legit copy, I keep it around just in case.
It is amazing that an service pack would even be supported up to 2 years after the next service pack.
-- if you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine
"while the majority of windows XP users still haven't upgraded to SP3"? Citation needed. SP3 is delivered via Windows Update. I had it before I switched to 7, my company it using it. It's been out for quite a while. I don't see why the majority of XP users would not be using it...
Is it 3G and does it have the wifis?
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Business and private people have had years to evaluate SP3 and plan for its deployment, or in the alternative to switch to other operating systems. The summary seems to assume an implied responsibility of Microsoft to support SP2 simply because the public likes it.
It is true that had XP+SP2 been free software, there would be an option of obtaining patches and support from other vendors, but this is not a complaint against Microsoft but rather against those that chose to use Microsoft's software.
I wish Apple or Linux supported a base system for ten years.
$1.20 says they'll continue releasing critical updates as they've done for a while for "retired" service packs in the past.
while the majority of windows XP users still haven't upgraded to SP3
Evidence?
http://laws.qualys.com/2010/05/end-of-life-for-windows-xp-sp.html
That article states SP2 is still used on 50% of XP machines
People, what a bunch of bastards
the majority of windows XP users still haven't upgraded to SP3
Yeah? Says who?
It's official. Most of you are morons.
I already have SP3 for Windows XP. I'd like to see an SP4 for Windows XP
I have SP4 for Windows 2000 and would like an SP5 which would be up to the last day they
stopped supporting windows 2000. This would help to get rid of all the files beyond SP4.
See, the difference is, with Windows, you're the one getting his ass raped, with Ubuntu, you're the one getting the blowjob.
BTW, on a related note. Since the machine runs in a secure environment, it neither has nor needs AV. It's surprising how fast a 256MB P3 is without all that overhead.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
Joke's on them, I'm still running Windows 98SE!
with the enormous hidden 'call back home' shit sp3 and on brings, majority of users and sysadmins will not upgrade to it. they are not stupid.
for any stragglers who would jump in and say 'which' at this point ; i cant summarize 2 years of slashdot article history to you. just do searches. we discussed all of these here before.
Read radical news here
I wish ... Linux supported a base system for ten years.
Linux isn't a person or organization and thus can't support anything.
The best organization I know of (in terms of length of support for a given Linux configuration) is Red Hat, which supports RHEL for seven years. Still not as good as Microsoft's ten year policy.
Microsoft will support you even longer, if you pay for a custom support agreement. I'm told prices start around $40K.
I suppose, for that price, you could pay someone to maintain your Linux configuration for you. You do have the source code. But you'd have to start doing it sooner.
$1.20 says they'll continue releasing critical updates as they've done for a while for "retired" service packs in the past.
Can you cite specific examples? In my experience, support for Microsoft products starts to be curtailed near end-of-life, not extended past it. NT4, 2000, XP have all had security vulnerabilities discovered which Microsoft did not fix, but which were fixed for later releases of Windows. MS09-048 for 2000/XP. Another I can't recall right now for NT4. Yah, they had their reasons, but the fact remains that once the successor products arrive, support starts to degrade for the old releases.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
For a moment, I thought it said "Windows XP ends tomorrow".
no, I don't have a sig
I wish MS updated their base system more than once every 10 years.
Win95 (1995) -> Win98 (1998) [3 years] -> Win98SE (1999) [1 year] -> WinME (2000) [1 year]
NT 3.1 (1993) -> NT 3.5 (1994) [1 year] -> NT 4.0 (1996) [2 years] -> Win 2000 (2000) [4 years] -> XP (2001) [1 year] -> Vista (2006) [5 years] -> Win 7 (2009) [3 years]
Even the longest release drought, XP->Vista, was 6 years, not 10. The mean is 2 years; the median 2.5 years.
(I detest FUD, even FUD directed at a target I happen to dislike.)
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
Yes, the median is 3.5 years, not 2.5 like I originally posted.
Upper bound = 6
Lower bound = 1
Span = Upper - lower = 5
Median = (Span / 2) + Lower bound = (5 / 2) + 1 = 2.5 + 1 = 3.5
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
Man, you fanbois are going just a little too far trying to convert others to your distro!
Caveat Utilitor
I had to roll out SP3 to our entire company using WSUS, but create rules and exemptions because some applications *still* don't work under SP3.
I liken it to asking a doctor to operate without a scalpel, or a construction worker to build a house without a hammer or wood.
Lots of fun in this day and age in corporate america.
The price is always right if someone else is paying.
If XP SP2 isn't supported, why have the copyrights? Microsoft isn't making any money off it. Microsoft don't WANT to make money off it. Microsoft don't want to have to pay to fix problems in their code. So why are they refusing to let anyone else do it?
If someone breaks the copyrights of XP SP2 or earlier, Microsoft has lost NOTHING since they aren't selling or supporting it even any more.
plus 23 breaks all kinds a apps, games you name it
Because that doesn't sell copies of Windows 7.
I am a free slashdotter. I will not be modded, blogged, DRM'd, patented, podcasted or RFID'd. My life is my own.
There's a reason why you can't find that--because it's not true. XP-SP3 still only requires 64MB RAM, just like SP2 did. How do I know this? I've got a Toshiba Libretto 110CT w/64MB RAM running XP Pro-SP3 just fine... (Granted, I run it in Classic mode, shut down a bunch of services, and I don't run more than 1 app on it at once--but it works).
Windows 3.1x calc: 3.11 - 3.10 = 0.00
I guess I better hurry and upgrade our Win98SE machines then...
I have to say, M$ decides to not support and leave all the sp2 users open to vulnerability because they choose to, not because they have to
I can see why a company would not want to do regression testing on multiple service packs when the fix is to update to SP3 and it's been out since April 2008. There comes a time when you have to stop support, testing is expensive and there's still support for SP3 until 2014.
You can buy a support contract if you want SP2 support.
Erm, you don't have to pay anything for SP3. It's a free download and the min spec hasn't increased from SP2 so you don't need to upgrade any hardware.
If your apps still require XP SP2 to function then you've got bigger issues than Microsoft dropping support for it.
So you would support people breaking the copyrights off old, unsupported versions of the Linux kernel, GCC, glibc, etc?
As the fellow poster points out, that graph is not a citation of anything - there's no source data or reference.
However, you can find out what you've got personally by running: Start->Execute and type winver, press Enter.
Perhaps there are actually legions of people who have no IDEA at all what they're running.
I have to say, M$ decides to not support and leave all the sp2 users open to vulnerability because they choose to, not because they have to, as the patch works as well for sp2 as it does for sp3
Well, no, it doesn't. It's different code in places, you know - that's what actually makes it different? In OSS terms, that means two branches in source control, and therefore the need to backport. And when it comes to testing, supporting SP2 means having to do regression testing for all updates for it as well as SP3 - you can't just do it on SP3 alone and call it a day. So that's extra work to be done, and that means extra money to spend. It's not "free".
the fact they are cutting off the sp2 users is only because they want to make more money, and the people that have sp2 and have decided to not keep shelling out money for a product they purchased, means that now they are vulnerable
Huh? SP3 for XP is free and available, and will last you 4 more years (at the current support schedule, assuming it is not extended any further).
I'm also somewhat confused whether you consider XP -> Vista to be 5 or 6 years.
Apparently so was I. I can only plead that it was a pre-coffee moment.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
Well, as has already been said, Microsoft's largest competitor in this area is still itself. It could patch XP indefinitely, but that wouldn't sell more copies of Windows 7. In all honesty, for an OS that's been around for the best part of a decade, I think the longevity of the support has been impressive (and even now they're not saying they won't support it, just that SP3 is now a requirement) - okay they screw up all over the place elsewhere, but you have to give it to them for at least trying here.
People need to stop with this bullshit of wanting to stay on an OS for ever. No company supports a product for all eternity. 2000 was supported when its replacement came out (XP) and when that's replacement came out (Vista) and even for a while when that's replacement came out (7). It was supported for over 10 years (despite the nae it came out in 1999). It isn't like an upgrade has been something you've had to do quick.
It is just laziness on the part of companies that do this. Also, I'd bet these very same companies would tell me to go away if I brought i one of their products from 10 years ago and wanted support on it. They'd say "That is out of warranty, buy a new one." Yet somehow they think MS should have to support their OSes forever.
Also I'll add you CAN get systems that are supported pretty much perpetually. Mainframes are like that. You can run those for decades and even after new version come out, the support continues. However you pay a ton to buy it, pay even more in maintenance (support isn't free, software or hardware, you have to pay yearly upkeep) and they are going to certify it for certain apps and you'll run those and no other, or lose support.
If that's not your cup of tea, if you want cheap OSes that let you do as you please, well then deal with the fact that you "only" get a decade of support (though sometimes more like with XP).
Support drops off after a time. I mean yes, you technically could hire a developer to keep maintaining it, but realistically, it is the same situation as everything else in that support goes away after a time.
For that matter, you actually CAN pay MS to support your old shit. I don't know what it costs, but they do that. There's still a limit, something like 5 years after their extended support ends, but it is out there. So if you, really, really need you can get support by paying a developer, same as with OSS.
Of course one would have to ask why, but there you go.
I'd definitely advise against that. Mint is a much nicer distro!
General support is 5 years. That is when you get new service packs, new features, that kind of thing. Full support, more or less. Extended support is 5 more years. That is bug fixes and usually little more, though sometimes features happen too. Those are the committed times. They sometimes extend them, as they have for XP.
In terms of long support life Sun also offers, or at least used to (dunno with Oracle), long support of things, but it cost money. You had to pay a yearly maintenance fee per server. However with that came hardware and software support, even for really old shit.
Apparently 1.0 to 1.2 (maybe 1.4) GB of disk space isn't enough, and the installer aborts. It makes me really annoyed at Microsoft.
See, the difference is, with Windows, you're the one getting his ass raped, with Ubuntu, you're the one getting the blowjob.
With Windows, you at least get the reach around, and they do use lube.
In the end, the job gets done and your ass is sore.
With Ubuntu, you're bracing yourself between the toilet and the wall with your ass in the air and your spine irreparably bent, in an effort to barely reach the tip of your cock with your tongue.
If the job got done your back is sore and you've got a mouth full of your own splooge.
If the job didn't get done, your back is sore and you've got blue balls until you shamefully boot into your pirated (no lube) install of Windows to finish what you started.
So yeah, we don't care about them, until their myriad systems become malware platforms and clog up the entire internet with spam, DDOS attacks, and generally make the whole internet a mess.
- "History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of men" -- Blue Oyster Cult, 'Godzilla'
I figured Microsoft would do this XP SP3 is in extended life support it was only a matter of time till they dropped xp sp2 support completely.
http://www.thetechnologygeek.org
How many Automated Teller Machines are running this?
I have to say, M$ decides to not support and leave all the sp2 users open to vulnerability because they choose to, not because they have to, as the patch works as well for sp2 as it does for sp3, so the fact they are cutting off the sp2 users is only because they want to make more money, and the people that have sp2 and have decided to not keep shelling out money for a product they purchased, means that now they are vulnerable and because they do not want to keep shelling money out, have to be content with a faulty product....
Presumably the fact that SP3 is free will be a stunning revelation to you ?
I just don't understand...if M$ really wanted to keep linux out for the count, they would just have to allow users to get security patches for free, and allow the internet to be a whole lot safer overall....just my 2cents
Er, they do.
"I have an old laptop that dies when you install SP3 on it. I don't know what the issue is, it just hangs after installing SP3. I have installed WinXP from scratch from a variety of install media some w/ SP2 slipstreamed and some without. I have installed XP and then tried to install SP3 before installing any drivers or programs that might be conflicting with it. I have tried everything. For some unknown reason SP3 kills my laptop. makes it just hang to the point where I have to manually power cycle it."
This problem should have been addressed by the manufacturer. Have you taken it up with them?
My computer is running SP3 as it was upgraded as part of the update process, but my installation DVD is still SP2. If I need to re-install Windows, can I still upgrade back to SP3 or will I be stuck with an unpatched SP2 forever?
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
General support is 5 years. That is when you get new service packs, new features, that kind of thing. Full support, more or less. Extended support is 5 more years. That is bug fixes and usually little more, though sometimes features happen too.
I'm well aware of their policy. But sometimes they decide that fixing something would be too much work and just don't fix it, even though it's a security bug affecting a product still in the Extended Support Phase. So on occasion they don't honor their policy. What are you gonna do?
Oh, and extended support is nominally critical fixes only. That is, those effecting security or system stability. Something like a loss-of-functionality bug you won't get fixed without a Custom Support Agreement. To get the 2007 timezone tables for Exchange 2000 was $4000. For us, it was the same price to just move to Exchange 2003.
They sometimes extend them, as they have for XP.
Okay, yah. I was thinking more along the lines of them continuing to release updates even though the product was officially end-of-life. I can't recall that happening, but it's not like I've studied every update Microsoft has ever released.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
it's as free as Internet Explorer, meaning that you need to pay for a Windows licence beforehand: that's not "free" in my dictionary...
it's the same as articles behind a registration-wall, I value my email address therefore it has a cost for me to give it out for marketing purposes...
And Pres Obama should require Microsoft to continue to update XP SP2 until a non-crititcal number of computers are running that SP, just like he did with BP.
Part of my problem, is I can't find a MS XP disc with SP3 on it. I'm not about to take someone else's slip-streamed SP3. You can't trust them.
I would be off XP SP2, if there was a ISO for it. *None* of the ISOs are MS. Even my MSDN subscription does not have an XP+SP3 ISO.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
So change the imakefile. But you go trying to build Windows XP from source...
You can't pay MS to support Win95. You can support linux yourself, though. Try supporting Windows anything yourself.
I mean, your "you really need you can get support by paying a developer, same as with OSS" is true if you expand that to idiotic extremes. How much would it cost you to get MS to support your windows OS and how much would it cost you to support Linux? Windows, millions. Linux, a couple of FTEs.
I'm one of those who still hasn't upgraded (I wrote about it today on LJ), as all my machines at home are AMD machines, and SP3 had problems on AMD machines. See this Slashdot discussion in particular.
Does anyone know if those problems have been resolved? I'll be glad to upgrade if I know I'm not going to be dealing with BSODs.
i need to d/l sp2 then i have XP SP1 and if i need to reinstall it, i need to have it so i can burn it and SP3 to dvd, so i can restore it when needed.
I am on XP still, because i have Hardware that is not compatible with windows Vista, os 7. and i dont want to upgrade yet.
I would rather go unsupported, as i know this os inside and out, and its is very easy for me to self maintain.
that is the only thing im worried about atm.
To err is human, to really screw things up, you need a robot.
It is just laziness on the part of companies that do this.
Laziness? Hardly. Neither Windows Vista nor Windows 7 provide any compelling reason for our company to upgrade - not even security. There are literally no features in either Vista or Win7 that are not in XP that we need. So we are lazy for not spending a heaping gob of money to "upgrade" to something that adds cost but no benefit? I think not.
Yet somehow they think MS should have to support their OSes forever.
What support? Aside from the occasional patching of security holes, MS provides no support whatsoever to us. Apparently having billions in profit annually means they can't afford to patch the occasional security bug. Honestly I don't really expect MS to support their products but it would be nice if they did. Hell why not offer to provide it for a fee after some time? Companies that actually need it would pay and those that don't won't. Frankly I don't buy it. It's not the cost of support that is driving this - it is MS attempting to keep people on the upgrade treadmill. It's about revenue (for MS) not cost.
Should we be scared that you know so much about auto-fellatio?
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Finally, I can stop having to reboot my laptop every Tuesday.
I grant you that OO.o may not be as fast performance-wise as MSOffice 2007/2010 when opening and handling files, but OpenOffice.org 3.x is a much better proposition thatn OO.o 2.x, where language dictionaries can be installed now as extensions, unlike in earlier major versions (2.x and 1.x).
OO.o 2.4.3 by default installed and kept active spelling, thesaurus and hyphenation dictionaries for about 25 languages with automatic spell checking turned on (the dictionaries for most languages save three had to be deactivated, then the deactivated languages' dictionaries had to be commented out in a dictionary.lst file and dictionary files themselves moved to another (backup) directory/location and packed with 7zip for less storage footprint).
In OO.o 3.x, unnecessary dictionary modules can be easily disabled or removed in the extension manager (you may need administrative rights).
Off the top of my head, other optimizations across all OO.o versions in older hardware included turning off automatic spell checking, icons in menus, font previews at toolbars, help tips and keeping only one Java runtime in the computer (Java JRE used to and probably still does install updates of itself alongside its previous versions, not removing its older versions). There are also options to limit or disable animations.
(well, gtg)
Regular Sun contract support lasts 7 years, "vintage" support lasts out to 10 years, and you can pay for longer. There's plenty of people still running Solaris 8. You can even install Solaris 8 into a Solaris 10 zone or container to take advantage of new hardware. Though backward compatibility guarantees mean that 15 year old programs still work on the newest OS....
http://www.sun.com/software/solaris/lifecycle.xml
Look, I know you guys are *nix heads, cool indeed, uh huh. However, you would think that if one is not a Windows person, one would keep one's mouth shut on a Windows thread.
Now, here is the real: SP2 is all anyone needs. The so-called patches, and that POS SP3, are nothing but MS's feeble attempt to make Vista/7 not seem so slow. Install XPSP2 on a computer. Turn off Windows update. Use it for a while. All good - it runs just fine. Now, turn on windows update. About an hour and a half or more later, when all the dookie is done being loaded, try to use your computer. WTF? Who put the molasses in my computer?! You guys should know this!
None of the so-called security issues are real. Not real in the sense that they are not exploited. Ever by anyone. MS playing a sick game is all SP3 is.
Social Credit would solve everything...
>Er, they do
Er, only if the copy is legit...er...or did you miss that little piece in the original post.
>It could patch XP indefinitely, but that wouldn't sell more copies of Windows 7
My point was to make the web a safer place by patching all those bad machines,
and not worry if steve balmer can afford a 10th porsche in his driveway...
thank you...., finally someone that sees the difference between windows and linux and what free really means. The web could be a much safer place if M$ was really wanting it to be, but they would rather buy their 10th porsche then offer some FREE updates for pirated copies of windows...and ultimately snip the malware problem where it hurts.
Can you imagine no more spam because all pirated copies of windows are now up to date with patches, wow, I really would have thought that to be a must for promoting windows7, ..."here we know that life is not cheap, so we are giving you a freebie, windows patching , even if you have a non legit copy, this way when you will buy a new OS, next time you will think of us..."
As expensive as it is costing all their clients...really...the amount of money that was lost due to these errors that should be free to be patched regardless of legit, non legit copy....think about the billions of dollars in damage and bandwidth with spam because of flaws in something you bought, and now have to pay for with time and effort to maintain the product.
A car does not have this many bugs, and has to be a certain level of safety before going on the road, knowingly using it on the road when you know at any moment your engine will drop out is a lack of responsibility on your part. Well same thing should apply to software especially that used in the office with actual damage value should anything happen.
You have an industry giant that has set the pace for what is acceptable now, patches upon patches which you must pay for (license) else if you don't it is not the maker's fault. I say ..B*LLSH*T
M$ is responsible for 99% of spam out there, and if they offered all those non legit copies of windows free patches, you would see most of those problems go away, no more zombie pcs...
imagine no 5million emails a day of spam, why, because M$ cared to offer this for free (really free!) and in the end, that would play in their marketing favor for whatever they wanted to sell you afterwards, as they would be looked upon as the company that solved (even though they caused it) the spam problem..
Did you read the original post?
>SP3 for XP is free and available
for those who has a legit license...
Yes, I did read the original post:
the people that have sp2 and have decided to not keep shelling out money for a product they purchased
First, that has nothing to do with SP2 being retired, since SP3 was released, is free, and is supported.
Second, you don't have to validate Windows to have automatic updates working. As long as updates are enabled, you'll get security patches, licensed or not. You will be forced to install SP3 first, that's the only requirement change now.
Third, Windows XP came with a 10 year lifecycle. When people bought XP Microsoft had their product lifecycle spelled out in pretty clear terms, they even extended it due to the popularity of XP. I'm sorry, but you don't get to complain about lack of support after you were told how much support you were getting when you bought the OS.
talk to me once you actually know what u r talking about
i meant the original post, the one i was commenting on, not mine...
Then what was your post about?
Anyway, excuse me if I don't feel particularly sorry for people who are running XP which they didn't pay for. If they fail WGA check, they can "legalize" their copy by paying $99.
For those who want free, there's always Ubuntu.
Um yeah, u r 2 c00l.
Go write M$ a few times, it makes you even more l33t.
You have an industry giant that has set the pace for what is acceptable now, patches upon patches which you must pay for (license) else if you don't it is not the maker's fault.
What patches do you have to pay for ?
Er, only if the copy is legit...er...or did you miss that little piece in the original post.
Whether or not their copy of XP is legit does not change the fact that patches are free.
Further, people who pirated it once, can just as easily pirate it again, and therefore get updated "free" anyway.
If you have a license to run XP SP2 then you have a license to run XP SP3. If you don't have a license to run XP SP2 then what do you care?
i think i am talking to a troll...
see, the proof is there, you think i am cool, you really know nothing do you!
>Further, people who pirated it once, can just as easily pirate it again, and therefore get updated "free" anyway
This i will agree with, there is always someone out there who knows how to bundle the service packs into the pirated copies, but usually those are also the ones that can bundle hidden malware without you knowing, or windows...
ps - I forgot that sometimes you legit copy becomes non legit because your key was misused for other copies, and guess what ...you now own a pirated copy (according to M$), which means you have to jump through hoops just to legalize your copy again.
is it just me that has to pay yearly license fees? In so, this means I stop paying the yearly fees, i stop receiving the patches, hence not free...or am i missing something?
ps - I forgot that sometimes you legit copy becomes non legit because your key was misused for other copies, and guess what ...you now own a pirated copy (according to M$), [...]
No it doesn't. It means your key is no longer valid. They're different things.
[...] which means you have to jump through hoops just to legalize your copy again.
Yeah, a whole minute or two on the phone. "Jump through hoops", indeed.
is it just me that has to pay yearly license fees? In so, this means I stop paying the yearly fees, i stop receiving the patches, hence not free...or am i missing something?
Yes. You're apparently talking about Red Hat Linux, not Windows.