Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Windows XP SP2 Support Ends Tomorrow

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the better-get-patching dept.

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."

16 of 251 comments (clear)

  1. Note by segin · · Score: 5, Informative

    It should be noted that XP SP2 x64 has support until whenever XP SP3 x86 runs out. There is no XP SP3 x64

    1. Re:Note by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Funny

      Luckily, XP x64 was always basically immune anyway. It's pretty hard to get 0wn3d when you can't find a NIC driver...

  2. Oh Noes!!! by B5_geek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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)
  3. xp and _win2k_! by aradnik · · Score: 5, Interesting

    what's more important is that win2k support is withdrawn as well... and quite a few major organization still rely on it...

    1. Re:xp and _win2k_! by PPalmgren · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Liability. Its kind of hard to say "we tried to be as secure as possible but got owned anyway" when you're using an outdated OS out of its support cycle. Now they can shift the blame back on Microsoft's swiss-cheese.

      Could you imagine the damage done if said company makes headlines for losing tons of sensitive customer data, and then has a follow-up headline showing their security practices?

  4. Astonishing by jsnipy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Astonishing by LinuxIsGarbage · · Score: 4, Informative

      Windows XP SP3 requires 1GB of memory in the system, SP2 required about 512MB. This is not mentioned anywhere in the SP3 notes that I could find.

      That's because it's a figure you made up by yourself. Without any third party tools, the system requirements of Windows XP remain the same as when RTM rolled out in 2001. 64 MB bare minimum (which means it will basically boot), 128MB recommended (which means it will boot in under a day). I have several PIII machines with 256MB RAM that hum along with XP-SP3 quite well. The problem with requirements isn't so much Windows as third party software. Websites have richer and richer content (flash, Javascript) that can take an old machine to it's knees, on-access AV solutions considered "light" on new machines can have a huge performance hit on an older machine. Yet Office 2007, and even Office 2010 still perform better on these machines than Open Office.

  5. Huh? by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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...

    1. Re:Huh? by malignant_minded · · Score: 5, Insightful

      While I can't vouch for the majority of windows xp users I know a bunch of companies that are still at SP2. Also I would guess that many home XP users have found their computer infected enough times to find that it was cheaper to buy a new one than it was to pay a shop three hours to clean it up, thus they ended up with Vista or 7 eliminating them from the statistic. This leaves companies that are making a decision to stay at XP and IE6 since it breaks their hack code Intranet, many of those may be for similar reasons at SP2.

    2. Re:Huh? by fyngyrz · · Score: 5, Funny

      "you can't firewall stupidity"

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  6. Is SP3 the one with the bigger GBs? by GigsVT · · Score: 4, Funny

    Is it 3G and does it have the wifis?

    --
    I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
  7. Re:so what? by Vectormatic · · Score: 4, Interesting

    submitter here,

    I didnt mean to imply MS has any kind of responsability to keep support going for SP2 longer, i much more agree with cmdrTaco's stance "from the better-get-patching dept". My goal wasnt to start a whole new thread of MS bashing, more to just notify people about the end of SP2 support, which i think is significant for most nerds/geeks, even if they moved themselves to *nix ages ago, their parents/siblings/friends might still run SP2 somewhere.

    Not to mention that SP2 made XP actually good, sp1 was OK as well, but SP2 was a pretty big thing.

    --
    People, what a bunch of bastards
  8. Citation on the 50% number by Vectormatic · · Score: 4, Informative

    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
  9. Microsoft base system release lifecycle by DragonHawk · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
  10. Re:the 5billion inthe bank is not enough by Spad · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  11. I feel no sympathy there either by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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).