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."
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what's more important is that win2k support is withdrawn as well...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...
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?
Blue, Silver, AND Green!
You get the best from Fisher-Price! Er... Microsoft.
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
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
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
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.
$1.20 says they'll continue releasing critical updates as they've done for a while for "retired" service packs in the past.
Can you cite specific examples? In my experience, support for Microsoft products starts to be curtailed near end-of-life, not extended past it. NT4, 2000, XP have all had security vulnerabilities discovered which Microsoft did not fix, but which were fixed for later releases of Windows. MS09-048 for 2000/XP. Another I can't recall right now for NT4. Yah, they had their reasons, but the fact remains that once the successor products arrive, support starts to degrade for the old releases.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
with the enormous hidden 'call back home' shit sp3 and on brings, majority of users and sysadmins will not upgrade to it. they are not stupid.
Because the majority of users and sysadmins are aware of any of that? Get real.
I'm sure a lot of people won't upgrade, but seriously, a majority of users probably can't even change their screen resolution without help.
I wish MS updated their base system more than once every 10 years.
Win95 (1995) -> Win98 (1998) [3 years] -> Win98SE (1999) [1 year] -> WinME (2000) [1 year]
NT 3.1 (1993) -> NT 3.5 (1994) [1 year] -> NT 4.0 (1996) [2 years] -> Win 2000 (2000) [4 years] -> XP (2001) [1 year] -> Vista (2006) [5 years] -> Win 7 (2009) [3 years]
Even the longest release drought, XP->Vista, was 6 years, not 10. The mean is 2 years; the median 2.5 years.
(I detest FUD, even FUD directed at a target I happen to dislike.)
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
I have to say, M$ 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.
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).