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.

14 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 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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
    5. 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!
    6. 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 ...

    7. 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
  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.

  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 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.

  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!