Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Set Your Watches For the End of Windows XP

Posted by timothy on from the why-don't-they-just-apt-get-the-next-version? dept.

An anonymous reader writes "In one year today exactly, Microsoft will shut down support for Windows XP. The deadline will prove a challenge for many of Australia's largest users of IT, all struggling to migrate to new Microsoft environments." Net Applications' chart of current OS market share figures shows XP only slightly behind Windows 7, even now.

34 of 712 comments (clear)

  1. Is this the point in time.. by OhANameWhatName · · Score: 5, Interesting

    .. where people finally say:

    "I'd rather have software that works than software that's supported?"

    Because it's about time.

    1. Re:Is this the point in time.. by TubeSteak · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's not going to work when it gets riddled with malware because of unpatched remote exploits.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    2. Re:Is this the point in time.. by siride · · Score: 4, Informative

      lol

      Yet another Linux fanboi who doesn't really know anything about security or security models assuming that the Unix model is ipso facto better. Sure, the Windows shell has promoted a culture of insecurity, but the underlying model is far more advanced than what traditional Unix has to offer. Linux still has plenty of security exploits, but they aren't often well publicized because of the heterogeneous nature of Linux distributions and the fact that these exploits generally affect a smaller number of people (because so few people use Linux in the same environments that Windows is used).

      FWIW, in 2013, there have been 73 CVEs for Linux, 41 for Windows XP and 47 for Windows 7.

    3. Re:Is this the point in time.. by linebackn · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > It's not going to work when it gets riddled with malware because of unpatched remote exploits.

      Take a look at whatever latest OS you are currently running. Is it bug and exploit free? If you think it is, then come back in a year and there likely will be a long list of vulnerabilities found during that time. And they didn't just magically appear, most of these vulnerabilities are in your OS RIGHT NOW and there is a good chance the bad guys have known about them for quite a while too.

      Even a brand new Windows 7/8/Blue or Mac or Linux shouldn't just be thrown on the net without some extra precautions.

      With good practices, and and extra precautions, even Windows 95 can be "secure". Many people will choose to take this path, manage security themselves, and continue to happily run Windows XP.

    4. Re: Is this the point in time.. by ChrisFlores · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Now imagine that non-technical user on a different OS. Probably would get the same results....it's a user problem, not an OS problem. They are the ones that click on the African prince email links.

    5. Re: Is this the point in time.. by 0123456 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Now imagine that non-technical user on a different OS. Probably would get the same results....it's a user problem, not an OS problem.

      While that's true to an extent, most of them aren't installing 'Nigerian Kitty Screen Savers', they're just browsing the web and ending up infected through some remote Windows exploit.

    6. Re:Is this the point in time.. by Runaway1956 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Ipso facto? You want an ipso facto? For a few years prior to, and after the release of XP, I tried to keep three sons and a wife on computers. It proved to be nearly impossible. There were constant problems with viruses. Tons of malware, some of it installed by the likes of Compaq.

      I finally converted the wife to Linux. My "service calls" to her computer have been for things like failed hard drives, and "Where can I find an application to do blah blah?" Not a single virus. Not one malware. One scare involving Wine, but no lost or corrupted data, no infestations.

      Did the wife suddenly grow technically savvy, overnight? Hardly.

      Despite the claimed superiority of Windows security - only the tech savvy seem to maintain a healthy Windows environment. But, a housewife who doesn't understand the differences between file systems can keep a Linux installation running for years, with very little technical support from anyone else.

      Ipso facto - Linux has done something better than Windows. I think it's due to diversity, as much as anything. You may believe it's due to relatively low numbers of users. Whatever - Windows is ultimately less secure than any Unix-like which I'm aware of.

      When XP has become history, then we'll see how the numbers stack up.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    7. Re:Is this the point in time.. by Penguinisto · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, outside of a couple of incidents and a parade of trojans (most of which require astounding stupidity to install, give admin password, then run)?

      So yeah - I'd say OSX has a better record over its 12-year lifespan than Windows has had over that exact same lifespan.

      OTOH, Linux beats 'em both.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    8. Re:Is this the point in time.. by c0lo · · Score: 4, Funny
      Attempt to resurrect some old "code":

      Hi,

      I am an Albanian virus but because of poor technology in my country
      unfortunately I am not able to harm your computer. Please be so kind
      to delete one of your important files yourself and then forward me to
      other users.

      Many thanks for your cooperation!

      Best regards,
      Albanian virus

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    9. Re:Is this the point in time.. by kenh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Maybe, just maybe, the MS user base (at around 94%) is a bit more appealing to malware/virus writers than OS X (at around 5%) or Linux (at 1%)...

      --
      Ken
    10. Re: Is this the point in time.. by smash · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No they're not. They might claim "oh i didn't do anything!" when bringing you their PC for repair, but more often than not they've been attempting to get "free shit" which isn't "free".

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    11. Re:Is this the point in time.. by smash · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Except Windows 95 has no open ports by default. Hell, TCP/IP isn't even installed by default.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    12. Re:Is this the point in time.. by whoever57 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You could have just not let her run as a user that was a local adminstrator. Doing that results a similar level of security as running on Linux as a non-root user.

      And how does she get updates to Flash, Java and other programs that have their own updater program that require intervention by a user with and Administrator login?

      I'm sorry, but no. Running as a non-administrator only works if you have someone else who keeps the system updated.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    13. Re:Is this the point in time.. by wwwillem · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Do you know any non-technical Linux users?

      You're wrong. For the last five years my wife is a happy CentOS user. And as non technical as you can get it.

      Yes she needs help with her PC, but roughly the same as when she used Windows before that. And for me it's less support work because of the reduced amount of bloatware and exploits targeting Linux.

      When she moved from IE to FireFox and Outlook Express to Thunderbird the only thing I had to explain was what multi-tab browsing is. For the rest it was to her "all the same thing".

      The main reason that non-technical users don't use Linux is that you can't buy preconfigured Linux systems in the big-box stores.

      But this starts to become a moot point, because non-technical users just use a phone instead of a desktop or laptop.

      --
      Browsers shouldn't have a back button!! It's all about going forward...
    14. Re: Is this the point in time.. by dropadrop · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Now imagine that non-technical user on a different OS. Probably would get the same results....it's a user problem, not an OS problem. They are the ones that click on the African prince email links.

      It's not just a user problem. In Linux updates are channeled through a central repository so when a user is prompted to update he will do it to pretty much everything in one go. In Windows he will only be updating system files which have not been the target of exploits lately.

      If you look at the last few years of common Windows exploits they have been deployed via bugs in 3'rd party applications, mainly Flash, Java and PDF. It's a user problem that they don't keep those applications up to date, but a system problem that keeping them up to date is too difficult for the average Joe.

      OS X is closer to Windows in this regard. They don't have a problem with PDF since the native reader works well and has not contained meaningful exploit vectors, but in regards to Flash and Java the situation has been even worse then Windows. Java updates have lagged badly, and there has been no update mechanism for Sun / Oracle Java. Flash updates have been issued at the same time as Windows but it took ages to have an update mechanism and when it arrived it was flaky and looked so dodgy that I would not dare use it. App store could have offered a central repository like it does for Windows, but none of the vulnerable apps are there, so it does not help.

      The user is just one part of the equation. You can of course blame him, but there are some realities you have to accept such as the fact that the user does not understand what's going on with the computer, does not have the patience to read the dialogues etc. With Linux updating is simple enough that even an average user can understand it, but there are other areas where the user will be in trouble.

    15. Re: Is this the point in time.. by jandjmh · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I clean up PCs for my clients pretty often - 1 or 2 malware infections per week. These are folks using PCs at work, doing their regular job, not downloading games, screen savers or much of anything at all. Because they hire me to keep their systems running they are (usually) fully patched, with working and up to date anti-malware.
      They do, in fact, mostly get infected by zero day exploits - from compromised web sites. And the compromised sites have been mostly places they go to in the normal course of doing their job. Order entry sites for parts distributors, a web site for booking conference rooms etc. Windows XP and 7 seem about equally vulnerable.
      When they ask how they could have avoided the problem I don't have any really good answer. Locking the PCs down so tight they can't install anything might help - but that's just not practical.
      I have them keep regular system image backups so it's easy to clean up ...

    16. Re:Is this the point in time.. by UltraZelda64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh, that's right--weren't they too busy trying to create and hype up their own proprietary "Internet" at the time or something? The Microsoft Network? That damn passing fad... it just won't go away!

    17. Re:Is this the point in time.. by Bert64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Once so configured, the update process runs in the background on its own, with no interaction required by the user.
      You can also assign rights to use the update program without giving full root access.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    18. Re:Is this the point in time.. by thegarbz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You discredit with a false assumption. Android can't be compared to windows as they are different platforms with different qualities for malware.

      Sensitive files, large bandwidth for DDoS attacks, processing power for bitcoin mining etc is a desirable trait for malware writers exclusive to the PC. Android may be bloody popular for the end users but it still is lacking in the same way as OSX is to the malware writers, namely it's not as profitable.

    19. Re:Is this the point in time.. by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The main issue with sandboxing in the style of Android is that it doesn't actually work. Any application that needs to be able to modify documents has the 'access SD card' permission, and that gives it access to all other documents. There is an inherent problem with this approach, in that you either give such coarse-grained permissions that they leak like a sieve, or you have such fine-grained ones that 99% of users don't understand them.

      Currently, the most common way of deploying Android malware is to find a fairly popular app in the Market (sorry, Play Store), download it, add the trojan, reupload it with a different name and a price of zero, download it a few dozen times and rate it 5 stars, and then wait for users to install it. You can usually even keep the same permissions as the original, as it is pretty much the norm for applications to ask for far more permissions than they actually need.

      If you did this on Windows, you'd have screensavers saying that they needed full access to C: to run, and users would just click 'yes, show me the kittens'.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    20. Re: Is this the point in time.. by dutchd00d · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The NT family was designed from day one for multi user access and security.

      If that is true (and it may well be) I wonder why so many applications require administrator rights to run, not just to install. I suspect that is because historically applications always did have administrator access, and so developers expected this to always be the case. That is why I think Windows (even the modern, multi-user aware versions derived from NT) is still hobbled by its single-user history.

    21. Re:Is this the point in time.. by tehcyder · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh, that's right--weren't they too busy trying to create and hype up their own proprietary "Internet" at the time or something? The Microsoft Network? That damn passing fad... it just won't go away!

      Hindsight is always 20/20 isn't it? At the time, the Compuserve and AOL models of the internet were the dominant ones, i.e. walled gardens where you didn't really ever venture out into the wild internet. It would have been natural for Microsoft to think they could provide an alternative version of this, and it would have been a real money spinner (imagine if every Windows user had to pay MS $20 a month or whatever).

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  2. Not Supported ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    XP will no longer be "supported" but it will certainly still be used by 10's of millions of computers a year from now (and two, and three, and more). It's also a certainty that a stationary "unsupported" target will get a lot of attention by exploits and black hats.

    1. Re:Not Supported ... by X-Dopple · · Score: 4, Informative

      The activation servers will still be there after 2014.

      See:
      http://www.pcworld.com/article/250774/will_i_be_able_to_activate_xp_after_2014_.html

  3. It's easy! by Moppusan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    XP -> 7 is entirely worth it. I'm no IT professional and don't know the logistics of it all but when I upgraded it was like day and night. I really don't understand the slow uptake to 7. Laziness? XP to Vista I understand, Vista was a pile of poopy fart poops. But 7 is a breeze and if I may boldly say in my experience even more reliable than XP. Of course, I could be letting the odd obscure legacy program go over my head but still... 7. 7 7 7 7 7. Did I mention 7?

    --
    You can dance if you want to.
    1. Re:It's easy! by 0123456 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I really don't understand the slow uptake to 7.

      Because XP does everything most people want and there's no compelling reason to switch?

    2. Re:It's easy! by T-Bone-T · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I put a clean install of 7 on my 2003 laptop with a 2.4Ghz P4 and it ran faster than it did with a clean install of XP. Aero didn't work but I never expected it to. Vista, on the other hand, was pretty slow.

    3. Re:It's easy! by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm no IT professional and don't know the logistics of it all but when I upgraded it was like day and night.

      Hi. I am. I am right now on a team migrating a 140,000 desktops and laptops from XP to Windows 7. I do know the logistics. Those logistics is what is holding up the switch over, not the arguments for upgrading from XP. As it turns out, a lot of businesses don't have the deployment infrastructure to do this quickly. Despite tools having been on the market capable of this for a decade, it turns out that it's not a simple matter of "flip the switch. Eat bacon."

      With our own rollout at about 56% and about 38 weeks minimum to completion, even corporations with a lot of extra cash (I work for a financial company. A big one.) have run into significant logistical problems switching to the new operating system. Internal meetings are already being held in board rooms about how to manage the switch from 7 to "another" operating system; Reluctant to jump to Windows 8, but cognizant of the fact that this process will have to be repeatable and successful. We aren't even done with this project yet.

      This right here is the real story about the "End of XP"; It simply can't be switched off that fast by corporations. The technology, shockingly, moves faster than bureaucratic change. And that's all it is. That's what's keeping XP sitting in your rearview mirror with it's middle finger stuck out like it's an upset teenager in mom's minivan. Logistics. Pure, simple, logistics.

      "We here in IT know you love Windows 7. I apologize for the delay. As soon as I'm done taking the burned out husk of my last attempt to get this to you on a shoestring budget out of the oven, I'll get right on to the next one." Meanwhile, at Microsoft Headquarters...

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
  4. Who calls MS for support? by AmazingRuss · · Score: 5, Funny

    I have never heard of anyone doing this.

    1. Re:Who calls MS for support? by FuzzNugget · · Score: 4, Funny

      Nobody. They call you.

      This is Windows support calling, your system has an infection.

  5. Re:Windows 95 by Technician · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Actually Windows 95 is becomming secure because it is so obscure and limited that most current attacks are unable to run on it. Attacks that used to run on it are pretty much dead, much like Stoned for DOS is now officially no longer a threat to anyone. I remember seeing the article about a year ago, so sorry no current link to the story.

    --
    The truth shall set you free!
  6. Re:Windows 95 by Spy+Handler · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ^^this.

    If you're still running 16bit DOS, your machines are highly malware resistant today. I know of no virus or malware circulating currently that will infect your machine.

  7. Finally Microsoft makes it work, then comes Win 8 by Animats · · Score: 4, Informative

    With Windows 7, Microsoft finally made it work. They developed the Static Driver Verifier, which uses proof of correctness techniques to insure that drivers won't crash the operating system, and made everybody run their drivers through it before they were signed. That eliminated about half of all crashes. Anything else was Microsoft's fault, and they knew it.

    Microsoft also developed an internal tool that takes in crash dumps and matches them to other crash dumps. This made it possible to digest a huge number of crash dumps and tie them back to the cause.

    With those tools, Microsoft finally had the ability to make the thing work. And they did. Windows 7 is much more reliable than previous versions of Windows.

    Then, having finally produced a solid desktop system, they found they were being clobbered by the tablet industry, and came out with a desktop interface borrowed from a phone. Sigh.

  8. UAC == sudo by tepples · · Score: 4, Informative

    Microsoft had a proper security model for ages even before [Windows XP] was released.

    Except this proper security model wasn't enabled by default. New accounts defaulted to administrator, not limited user, and there was no concept of a "sudoer", or a limited user who can gain permission to perform an action through a relatively secure user interface. Windows Vista introduced UAC, which emulated sudo, and Windows 7 refined it.