Should Microsoft Be Required To Extend Support For Windows XP?

An anonymous reader writes "If Windows XP were a photocopier, Microsoft would have a duty to deal with competitors who sought to provide aftermarket support. A new article in the Michigan Law Review argues that Microsoft should be held to the same duty, and should be legally obligated to help competitors who wish to continue to provide security updates for the aging operating system, even if that means allowing them to access and use Windows XP's sourcecode."

Comments

Where do you draw the line?

[glasshole]

Photocopier vendors do not open the controller software up to competitors / vendors who provide support. They just give them specs for replacement parts. Do you force Apple to let 'competitors' support OS X 10.5 on G5 Macs? Do you force Google to let competitors still support Google Wave?

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[ShieldW0lf]

Lets draw it like this: Full disclosure of the entire manufacturing process is a mandatory safety requirement that must be met before bringing any product to market.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[flux]

Actually Google already gave the Wave to the Apache foundation, so I guess they're set from that point of view.

That aside, I don't think a company should be forced to provide any level of support for a ten-year-old product. They could even be up-front about ("this product will not be supported for longer than five years") and people still wouldn't care. Well, until the day came.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[phantomfive]

I can tell you, I would have been happy if Apple had open sourced their Rosetta support. It would have been nice if they'd open sourced their Classic support. They could have released carbon as an open source project. Instead those things just disappeared, you can't even buy them.

Of course, legally they are not required to support those things now, but I would favor a law change that would require it.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[tlambert]

Photocopier vendors do not open the controller software up to competitors / vendors who provide support. They just give them specs for replacement parts.

Do you force Apple to let 'competitors' support OS X 10.5 on G5 Macs? Do you force Google to let competitors still support Google Wave?

The paper (if you read it) claims that the requirement should be enforced based on the Microsoft having monopolistic power in the marketplace. Apple doesn't wield monopolistic power in the marketplace for desktop operating systems.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[Cenan]

The problem is a bit more complex than that. Microsoft has not really been all that informative about their end-of-life policy for their operations systems, and it is certainly nowhere to be found in the EULA or the contracts they happily signed for $$$ with the companies, that are now in a pickle because of it.

Further, Microsoft can support Windows XP, they just want more $$$ to do it (so, if they can do it for one company, and the goods they're selling are infinite, why can't they for all the rest?). If they offered a path to upgrade that didn't cost an arm and a leg, they wouldn't see this kind of lingering on XP that they do. If they spent a little more time streamlining their upgrade process and provided proper support for older binaries, maybe. Try to run a Win16 binary on Windows Vista+ and see what happens - hell, even binaries officially supposed to run under Windows 8 won't. Not every company has a bottomless budget for IT and development to remake their critical software, and Microsoft has until now seemed completely oblivious to that.

Lots of private customers are still lingering on XP too, why wouldn't they? It came pre-installed. It works. Its familiar. It won't get upgraded until the hardware dies. So, Microsoft, live with the consequences of your greed and offer free upgrades, it's not going to hurt the bottom line - hell, it might even prop up those dismal sales figures for Win8.

Or do the right thing and release XP as open source.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[Anonymous Coward]

More barriers to entry? I guess it'll be good for the lawyers.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[Anonymous Coward]

No its not, manufacturer is responsible for product safety but that doesn't mean anything must be disclosed.
Any piece of hardware has a warranty and support period, beyond that, its not a manufacturers problem. No product can be supported to the end of times. You can't take a Ford T1 and expect to get replacement parts or maintenance from Ford.
End of life must be announced and for win XP that has certainly been done. We don't expect patches for MS-DOS, I don't see what the big problem with XP is. Win XP has served for 12 years, give it a break, that's a long time for software product, how much more do you want.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[ShieldW0lf]

I don't think so. Full disclosure should limit liability and increase our satisfaction with our merchandise. Happy people have no need for lawyers.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[ShieldW0lf]

No its not, manufacturer is responsible for product safety but that doesn't mean anything must be disclosed.

No, but they should be. Cars have ridiculous safety standards, with engineers poking their noses into everything and it hasn't prevented cars from being a success.

I don't know of a car flaw that can tank an economy, cause a nuclear disaster or cause oil to spill out into the sea. But a software flaw can do all these things.

The risk to society is too high for things to continue in this way, and there are many other qualified people who would love to shoulder the responsibility if greed pushes MS or any other company to refuse to work.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[Opportunist]

No, but if there was a market for T1 spare parts, someone would come and open a business that deals with just that. That is the whole point of the whole thread!

Who decides when the "end of life" of a product is reached? Its maker, or its user? Who decides when an item has outlived its usefulness, its maker or its user? Who the fuck is MS to tell me what I think is still usable and what is not?

The point here is that if XP was a car, you could rest assured that even if MS decided to discontinue offering spare parts, the market of people who still want to use it is SO big that businesses would be popping up left and right pumping out spare parts for it.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[Opportunist]

Oh c'mon, you know how it would work in this time and age. If some blunder in MS software caused a nuclear meltdown, MS would be declared too big to fail and you can shove your damage claims where the sun doesn't shine.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[qwijibo]

With software, and by extension the hardware it requires, the lifespan is incredibly short compared with almost every other product out there. I'd like to see more companies release the software, code, etc. to the public domain as a formal way of walking away from it, but leaving customers with something more than "gee, must suck to be you" for support.

Borland released old versions of tools like Turbo C when it was no longer relevant commercially. Even though I paid for those tools when they were commercially relevant, I always liked the spirit of giving away old software. There's no cost to releasing it to the public domain. There are plenty of third world countries learning on and using technology that we throw away. There's a benefit to those people having software and learning technology but there's absolutely no money in it.

There are fringe cases where ongoing support is needed for really old systems. For example, I've been in machine shops with computers that drive CNC machines that run on 386's under DOS. As long as the machines keep working, it's a valuable part of running their business. Today it's nearly impossible to find replacement parts, but smarter shop owners bought extra pieces when they were disappearing from the market long ago. If something breaks, these people are willing to pay a premium to people who can help them. They know it's not a great situation, but it's much better than spending hundreds of thousands to replace everything that depends on old systems.

Proprietary interfaces, boards and drivers that integrate machinery with computers are the legacy components that makes it hard to replace these old systems. If they used an RS232 interface for low bandwidth data and Ethernet for higher bandwidth, it wouldn't be hard to reverse engineer what's going on and write software that runs on modern systems that could serve as a replacement. But a proprietary interface that requires an ISA slot and custom cables means there is no way to modernize that doesn't require new custom hardware.

The space shuttle is another good example of what happens when something is decades into its service life, but has components that were never expected to live that long. NASA can't just load everything on an iPad and hope each crew member bringing their own is enough fault tolerance and stands up to the extreme environment of space.

XP isn't all that old, as evidenced by the number of users who don't want to get off of it. It makes sense that Microsoft wants to get rid of it - there's no price for a support contract that would make it mutually beneficial to keep tech support trained on it and developers dedicated to working on it. But at the same time, Microsoft is not the kind of company that is likely to release it to the public domain either. The last thing they would want is an open source community picking it up, keeping it current with security patches and making it work on new hardware. That's the antithesis of the forced upgrade model.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why the EULA of microsoft windows says that you are not allowed to use this software for mission critical purposes. Specifically mentioned is nuclear power plants and medical devices.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[gl4ss]

it's a pretty easy barrier if enforced on _everyone_.

you see, a supplier wanting to hide something based on "trade secret" or whatever(often used to hide just blatant copying anyways) ? well fuck then they don't sell on one of the biggest markets.

if eu and usa did it at the same time then manufacturers would have no option really - and their suppliers would need to either comply or get out of the business, making the barrier for 3rd parties to start making competing products smaller - not bigger.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is a bit more complex than that. Microsoft has not really been all that informative about their end-of-life policy for their operations systems, and it is certainly nowhere to be found in the EULA or the contracts they happily signed for $$$ with the companies, that are now in a pickle because of it.

If so, those companies must be extraordinarily clueless, because Microsoft are very open and up front at a very early stage about their official and public end of life policies. Much much more so than Apple and Google and most other software vendors. http://windows.microsoft.com/e... . In a few cases, as with XP, they have later extended the official EOL date, but that doesn't change the fact that they from the launch of the OS had an official support lifetime.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[will_die]

Microsoft has been really clear on their end of life policy for probably a decade if not more. The only way to say they have not is if you say all those increases in time they have given are an indication of unclearness.
However with your definition of $100 USD, cost to upgrade OS from XP to Windows 7, as being "an arm and a leg" not to sure about the rest you wrote.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[qwijibo]

That may be a good idea for things like medical or aviation related devices where people can die if they fail. There are regulations in these fields for exactly this reason, and that's why it's such an expensive and long, drawn out process to bring new products to markets in highly regulated industries like these.

However, putting that burden on every industry would just move all technology jobs to countries without such regulations. Then what would you do to stop people from buying crappy, poorly supported products from those countries? Moving production doesn't help solve the underlying problem.

For software, it should be sufficient for them to release the code and let someone else take over the market they've given up on. Culturally, we only recognize the profit oriented side of business, and ignore the benefit to society that could come with allowing that intellectual property to go into the public domain once it's no longer commercially viable.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[Anonymous Coward]

The paper (if you read it) claims that the requirement should be enforced based on the Microsoft having monopolistic power in the marketplace. Apple doesn't wield monopolistic power in the marketplace for desktop operating systems.

This is all a bit more subtle than that. The problem is; how do you define the market? When you go out and buy a computer and operating system in a shop, it's clear that Apple an Microsoft have a duopoly (which is a bit dodgy when you consider that they have cooperation on patents locking competitors out of the market; but we will leave that aside). When you come to look after your old computer that is no longer true. Microsoft will not generally provide OSs for Apple computers and Apple will certainly not willingly provide them for PCs. This means that, whilst Apple does not have a monopoly on computing in any way, they do have a monopoly on support for old Apple computers.

The correct answer would probably be that there is already competition in this market. By changing to a Linux os perating system you can maintain your 15 year old computer fully supported. Unfortunately, in many cases that's not true. Device manufacturers only provide full documentation and support to Microsoft and the Linux drivers cannot be guaranteed. This means that while your computer will work and your operating system will be supported, your actual whole system may not be.

The correct place to attack would be the device manufacturers who are effectively deliberately constructing a cartel with the active or passive cooperation of Microsoft. Any device manufacturer who has failed to provide documentation should be liable to either replace the entire computer or provide access for support until such time as either RedHat or Ubuntu declare the device fully supported.

Of course, this is all before we get into discusions of locked in proprietary data. Google's Data Liberation Front would be a good example of how a company could escape liability by ensuring their customers are not locked in. Unfortunately the original DL homepage seems to have been converted into a redirect.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[Y-Crate]

Rosetta was licensed from Transitive, which was eventually bought by IBM. Apple didn't own it, so they couldn't open-source it.

I'm willing to bet that Classic drew on an ancient codebase with bits of licensed code mixed in. Getting it in a state where it could be open-sourced was probably more trouble than it was worth.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[TheRaven64]

Apple would have continued to ship Rosetta, but IBM bought Transitive (from whom it was licensed) and was still annoyed at the publicity that Apple had given them in the switch from PowerPC to Intel, so decided to return the favour and refused to license Rosetta for a new version of OS X. Apple tried to spin this in a positive way ('look how hip we are, stopping supporting that old crap!') but it didn't really work.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[TheRaven64]

Why try to enforce it on the supply side when you can do it on the demand side. Require that all software that your organisation purchases be under an open source license. That way, you have the rights to go to any company you like for extended support. There are lots of options, ranging from in-house support through small businesses with a dozen or so coders up to behemoths like IBM.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[ShieldW0lf]

That may be a good idea for things like medical or aviation related devices where people can die if they fail. There are regulations in these fields for exactly this reason, and that's why it's such an expensive and long, drawn out process to bring new products to markets in highly regulated industries like these.

However, putting that burden on every industry would just move all technology jobs to countries without such regulations. Then what would you do to stop people from buying crappy, poorly supported products from those countries? Moving production doesn't help solve the underlying problem.

For software, it should be sufficient for them to release the code and let someone else take over the market they've given up on. Culturally, we only recognize the profit oriented side of business, and ignore the benefit to society that could come with allowing that intellectual property to go into the public domain once it's no longer commercially viable.

Same way SparkFun lost those yellow multi-meters. Stop the boat at the shore, destroy all the illegal merchandise. Any idiot can manage this task. Many do.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[gnasher719]

Oh c'mon, you know how it would work in this time and age. If some blunder in MS software caused a nuclear meltdown, MS would be declared too big to fail and you can shove your damage claims where the sun doesn't shine.

If you use MS software (or anyone else's software) in a situation where it could cause a nuclear meltdown, you are using it against Microsoft's explicit terms and conditions, so they wouldn't be at fault at all.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[ShieldW0lf]

Really? Even with simple products like decorative candles? If I were come up with a novel process of coming up with a unique looking decorative candle that made me distinctly different from my competitors and gave me a competitive advantage, I would be required to publicly disclose it for everyone to see, including my competitors and would immediately lose any advantage I had.

Sounds an awful lot like communism to me.

We don't live in a world where most people are illiterate and working 60 hour weeks. Someone will invent those candles just because it's fun and they have time to be bored. They'll enjoy the respect people give them for having created them, and that will be all the compensation they need. So... if you're that put off by the idea of doing anything useful unless you have a "competitive advantage" over your peers, frankly, it will cost us nothing if you decide to go sit on a tree stump until moss grows on you. Why the hell should we care to be your enforcers?

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[FlyHelicopters]

Or do the right thing and release XP as open source.

What makes you think they legally can?

There is probably all sorts of entangled code all over XP that Microsoft doesn't have the right to just "release".

On top of that, some of that code remains current in 7 and 8.

To add another point, if XP is still updated, then why would anyone buy 8 or 9 when it comes out? Microsoft is not in the business of being nice, they are in the business of making a profit.

Or did you miss that part?

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[FlyHelicopters]

For software, it should be sufficient for them to release the code and let someone else take over the market they've given up on.

Two things:

1. Microsoft hasn't given up on the Windows market, they currently sell Windows 8.1. XP is a competitor to this, as in, it is the installed base that Microsoft is trying to upgrade to 8.1. Windows XP and Windows 8 are the same market, desktop operating systems.

2. Your call to "release the code" sounds nice, until you figure out that Microsoft doesn't own exclusive rights to all the code. Much of it has been licensed from other companies, some of it is entangled in other ways. Just like Apple couldn't release Rosetta since they didn't own it, the same is true with XP.

Microsoft isn't in business to be nice, they are in business to make a profit. Getting everyone to move to 8 is in their own best interests. Helping you stay on Windows XP is not.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[FlyHelicopters]

That sounds like a nice idea, but a lot of software doesn't have an open source option.

Take Medisoft as an example:

http://www.medisoft.com/

Find me an open source program that does what that does and I'll be impressed.

For vertical software, there is often only one or two choices, and not much else.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[tlambert]

The paper (if you read it) claims that the requirement should be enforced based on the Microsoft having monopolistic power in the marketplace. Apple doesn't wield monopolistic power in the marketplace for desktop operating systems.

This is all a bit more subtle than that. The problem is; how do you define the market? When you go out and buy a computer and operating system in a shop, it's clear that Apple an Microsoft have a duopoly (which is a bit dodgy when you consider that they have cooperation on patents locking competitors out of the market; but we will leave that aside). When you come to look after your old computer that is no longer true. Microsoft will not generally provide OSs for Apple computers and Apple will certainly not willingly provide them for PCs.

That's not true. Microsoft will happily sell you Windows to run on anything capable of running it, and Apple went out of their way to support ACPI and SMP tables that are acceptable to Microsoft OS's, even though it required adding some substantial EFI modules, as well as providing driver support for Windows for Apple proprietary hardware.

Apple will certainly not provide Mac OS X for non-Apple hardware; however, this has been upheld multiple times in court cases as being acceptable because Apple does not wield monopolistic power in the desktop computer marketplace. Courts have led exactly the opposite in findings of fact when it comes to Microsoft.

In this instance, we define "market" as "market for desktop computer operating systems".

This means that, whilst Apple does not have a monopoly on computing in any way, they do have a monopoly on support for old Apple computers.

Agreed; however, the IRS amortization schedule on computer hardware is 5 years - and unlike Windows on PC hardware, Apple desktop computers consist of both the hardware and the software, not just the software running on white-box/grey-box machines. You could make the argument on the basis of hardware only for hardware sold with Windows installed, if it was considered part of the hardware. But again, we have court precedent forcing companies such as Dell and HP to offer white-box/grey-box hardware without the so-called "Windows tax", This means that the software is not subject to the same accelerated depreciation.

Specifically, IRS Publication 544, Chapter 2, under "depreciable business assets".

The correct answer would probably be that there is already competition in this market. By changing to a Linux os perating system you can maintain your 15 year old computer fully supported. Unfortunately, in many cases that's not true. Device manufacturers only provide full documentation and support to Microsoft and the Linux drivers cannot be guaranteed.

This is very much a red herring; while Open Source OS vendors and advocates, such as FreeBSD and Linux would dearly love for this to be the case, the problem is actually not with the platform, but with the capitol investment as a lump sum business asset, in software components, such as Microsoft Office and other components which can be assembled together with glue code to implement vertical market solutions.

Microsoft explicitly does not support Visual Basic, Visual Studio, Microsoft Access, or other software on non-Windows Platforms for the use model of implementing vertical market solutions (i.e. neither Linux nor FreeBSD nor Mac OS X have such support).

Further, the software packages of this type from Microsoft are tied to a specific version of the Windows Operating system; that is, you can not take a version of Office intended for use on Windows XP, and run it on Windows 7 or later versions of the Microsoft OS platform. This explicit and intentional tying is monopolistic in nature. Further, the glue code for the vertical market systems previously mentions, *also* will not run on non-XP platforms.

Effectively, this means that Microsoft is le

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[tlambert]

Further, Microsoft can support Windows XP, they just want more $$$ to do it (so, if they can do it for one company, and the goods they're selling are infinite, why can't they for all the rest?).

Actually, no. The reason they are willing to continue to provide the updates to some entities is because of the purchase and support contracts they entered into as part of a bulk purchase agreement. So they offer it not because they want more $$$, but because they are contractually obligated to do so. They'd just as soon give all these companies free updates to Windows 7 (or whatever) to get released from these contracts, which is the reason they are unwilling to extend support, for any amount of $$$, to other people caught in the same situation, but without benefit of contracts adding additional clauses on top of the clauses present in the public licenses themselves.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[Anonymous Coward]

Respect won't help me pay my bills. Why should I invest money and innovate when I will get absolutely nothing tangible in return? My labor gave them something better than the status quo thus I should be allowed to be compensated a bit more that the status quo for in return for my technological advancement. If there is no reward than it is not worth it to innovate, or do better. Rational human beings know this. It's a basic part of psychology. Only communists such as yourself completely ignore it as it is a very inconvenient fact that goes against the very foundation of the viability of your ideology. Its the reason why under communism technological and economic stagnation is prevalent.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[Zontar The Mindless]

You might claim I could patent it, but you anti-intellectual property advocates naturally oppose those as well.

If you're talking about a new and different way of making decorative candles and you can demonstrate it working--then by all means you should be granted a patent. This is what patents are for. If you don't wish to reveal the process, you can instead take your chances at keeping a trade secret--but in this case, you are not protected from independent reinvention, only from actual theft of your trade secret.

If you're talking about a software programme, that's just a mathematical formula, which should not be patentable. However, the source constitutes your own expression of this formula, and thus should be (and is) copyrightable. This is what copyrights are for.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[Anonymous Coward]

XP isn't all that old

XP is old.
It came out in 2001; it's almost 13 years old.
At that age you start thinking about getting a new car, or a new washing machine.
At that age you replace things because maintaining the hardware is more expensive than buying a new one.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[negablade]

I don't know of a car flaw that can tank an economy, cause a nuclear disaster or cause oil to spill out into the sea. But a software flaw can do all these things.

Let me think...An army truck is secretly transporting a nuclear device through downtown New York. A random pothole bounces the truck and jars the device, accidentally changing it to armed status, while also tearing the break cables. The truck loses control and crashes into the Wall Street Stock Exchange. The armed and unstable nuclear device detonates wiping out the financial district, crippling the US economy in the nuclear disaster. The skipper of an oil supertanker is blinded by the detonation flash and crashes into Manhattan island, tearing the hull and spilling 2million barrels of oil into New York harbor.

No single software bug can do all those things either. Most bugs only end up with someone swearing at the computer while they reboot. Quite often it's the human in the control loop doing something unexpected that leads to failure of mission critical systems.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[viperidaenz]

Helping you stay on Windows XP is not.

Helping you stay on Windows XP for the tidy sum of $9M per year is though.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[Sique]

Respect won't help me pay my bills. Why should I invest money and innovate when I will get absolutely nothing tangible in return?

Because of the fun doing so? If you plant flowers in your front yard and mow the lawn inbetween and repaint the facade, it looks nice for everyone walking along. But you are not entitled any remuneration of the passers-by. So why you are doing it anyway?

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[Kaenneth]

You would also be a goddamned idiot for using unqualified software in public safety situations.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[Kaenneth]

The disasters caused by Y2K were so quickly forgotten...

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[Hategrin]

And if someone clicks a link I suppose you could "stop the packet before it reaches the shore" too? What you're saying then, is, the US should setup a "great firewall" like China or Russia?

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[Anonymous Coward]

3. They are providing support after this month. It just gets really expensive as the years go by.

Like:
Year 1: X
Year 2: 3*X
Year 3: 7*X

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[cyber-vandal]

Then why did they make it so difficult to do so?

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[gerddie]

I don't know what exactly medisoft does, but I read somewhere that VistA may be what you're looking for. There is also work going on to get it into Debian.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[Anonymous Coward]

More like over $100 for an OS locked to a single piece of hardware. If you don't think that is expensive, "not to (sic) sure about the rest you wrote".

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[gbjbaanb]

and yet everyone who comments on the XP obsolescence issue always mentions health-care situations where some microscope or other device is hooked up to a controlling workstation running XP..

Though maybe such devices aren't mission critical in the same way as nuclear reactor control software.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[Anonymous Coward]

Using an obligatory car analogy:
It is in Ford's interest to sell you a new car. Therefore, after a few years they should stop providing spare parts and not allow anyone else to provide them either. Then, when your car breaks down, or needs a service, you get a new one instead.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[Anonymous Coward]

[quote]I don't know of a car flaw that can tank an economy, cause a nuclear disaster or cause oil to spill out into the sea. But a software flaw can do all these things[/quote]

If you rely on MS to stop nuclear meltdown from happening you are doing it wrong in the first place. And no, software flaw cannot cause any sort of safety issues, safety is always implemented through hardware interlocks(wetware interlocks in case of economy), software working or not working is irrelevant. Safety is designed with assumption that software is not working correctly, as software is one of the main causes of unsafe conditions in the first place. If you make a safety critical design, where lives and health of employees depends on software working correctly that is grounds for criminal investigation, for your company and for you as an engineer. There are standards, regulations and laws for this sort of thing.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[Rich0]

That probably wouldn't work for software. For starters, it can often be delivered online so now you need a great firewall to block it. Even for physical shipments, if the OS sells for $100 and the box costs $2 to produce, then they can afford the odd seizure at the port if it is sold direct to consumer.

The FDA has a lot of trouble intercepting shipments of pharmaceuticals to individuals for just that reason. You would never get a pallet of them through without documentation, but how many nondescript 8" boxes declared as containing toys are they going to open at the docks?

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[mrchaotica]

Mod parent -1, megacorp shill. Disclosure of the manufacturing process is the opposite of a barrier to entry!

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does a operating system need a new clutch? No - it works as is, warts and all. BMW would not replace all their car locks when thieves find a new way to open them. Same with software. You want to use obsolete software? Up to you, don't go crying to manufacturer if its no longer up to the task. In some specific instances MS-DOS still serves as its has from the days of olde, software doesn't need updates when the work its supposed to do doesn't change. So don't build new systems on decade old software and if a decade old system still needs needs changes then that's a hole you dug yourself.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[drafalski]

There's no cost to releasing it to the public domain

Doubtful. Some code may have licensing issued preventing it, and even trying to sort that out could be time consuming and expensive.

Maybe there is code in there they still use in other products. Maybe they consider some proprietary and don't want to release it. Maybe it could reveal bugs in those current offerings. Maybe it is a mess they don't feel reflects well on the company? All of those could create costs for MS.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no cost to releasing it to the public domain.

Releasing the code allows competitors and patent trolls to search the code for patent infringement. Lawsuits aren't cheap.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[Bengie]

We don't live in a world where most people are illiterate and working 60 hour weeks.

When did that ever happen? Last time the world was full of illiterate people, they only worked 16 hours a week.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[NapalmV]

What does their EULA for Windows for mobile phones say? Does it mention that it shouldn't be used if the device is supposed to be able to call 911 in a life threatening situation?

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[NapalmV]

If I were come up with a novel process of coming up with a unique looking decorative candle that made me distinctly different from my competitors and gave me a competitive advantage, I would be required to publicly disclose it for everyone to see, including my competitors and would immediately lose any advantage I had.

This is what "patents" were originally intended for. To allow public disclosure of the new manufacturing process without losing the competitive advantage.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[ShieldW0lf]

Respect won't help me pay my bills. Why should I invest money and innovate when I will get absolutely nothing tangible in return?

Don't, then. Let other people live, you just sit there on a lump and grow moss.

My labor gave them something better than the status quo thus I should be allowed to be compensated a bit more that the status quo for in return for my technological advancement.

I don't see anyone asking you to invent better candles. I just see you asking the world at large to be your goon squad and enforce your right to be "The Candle Guy". Where is our reward? Don't say "my innovation", there is abundant evidence that need causes parallel development, that the answer to the question is right there in the problem for anyone to see, and that you are not a special sort of genius who needs to be won over at all cost.

If there is no reward than it is not worth it to innovate, or do better. Rational human beings know this. It's a basic part of psychology.

No, rational beings pursue excellence in everything they do, because excellence is habit forming, and recognition is emotionally gratifying. You never know what threats tomorrow will bring, the rational thing is to pursue excellence in everything you do regardless of compensation and try to be respected so you have allies against future misfortune.

Only communists such as yourself completely ignore it as it is a very inconvenient fact that goes against the very foundation of the viability of your ideology.

My ideology has brought me to achieve great things, be elected to positions of authority in projects that enriched my life, that of my loved ones, and that of my community. Aside from my terrible taste in women, I'm the living embodiment of both my childhood dreams and my values.

Its the reason why under communism technological and economic stagnation is prevalent.

That's a ridiculous statement. Russia were the first ones to space. Their contributions to science and engineering, literature and philosophy are among the finest of any nation on Earth. Americans can't even get to the ISS without their help.

And Cuba have been thumbing their nose at you and producing a proud culture that is largely self sufficient, has some of the finest medical and dental professionals on the planet and have multiple cultural exports such as cuisine, dance and music. You contribute Big Mac's, Twerking and Lady Gaga.

Frankly, the only reason the US has any success to speak of is the fact that they corrupted foreign officials into accepting their monopoly on printing worthless fiat currency. You're bandits and thieves. Your manufacturing base is not at all respectable. You don't compete to elevate the best man, you compete to subjugate anyone and everyone you can. You are the Prison Culture, locking up more people than China despite their population dwarfing yours. More wasted resources, caused by a system that is unsuited to humanity. You are not efficient, you are wasteful. Despite all that you steal, your population still has poverty. Despite all the communications technology that floods from the four corners of the earth to your shitty country, you still have people kept uninformed as to what the hell is going on.

You couldn't wish for a worse neighbour. So, I say to you, fuck the candles. Sit down and grow moss.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[Anonymous Coward]

That may be a good idea for things like medical or aviation related devices where people can die if they fail. There are regulations in these fields for exactly this reason, and that's why it's such an expensive and long, drawn out process to bring new products to markets in highly regulated industries like these.

However, putting that burden on every industry would just move all technology jobs to countries without such regulations. Then what would you do to stop people from buying crappy, poorly supported products from those countries? Moving production doesn't help solve the underlying problem.

For software, it should be sufficient for them to release the code and let someone else take over the market they've given up on. Culturally, we only recognize the profit oriented side of business, and ignore the benefit to society that could come with allowing that intellectual property to go into the public domain once it's no longer commercially viable.

Same way SparkFun lost those yellow multi-meters. Stop the boat at the shore, destroy all the illegal merchandise. Any idiot can manage this task. Many do.

One wonders what your position is on the "War on Drugs", as that's going so wonderfully well while spending how many billions of dollars to prevent drugs from being smuggled into the US.....

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[mpe]

Further, Microsoft can support Windows XP, they just want more $$$ to do it (so, if they can do it for one company, and the goods they're selling are infinite, why can't they for all the rest?). If they offered a path to upgrade that didn't cost an arm and a leg, they wouldn't see this kind of lingering on XP that they do.

The current "upgrade" path is one of reinstall from scratch.

If they spent a little more time streamlining their upgrade process and provided proper support for older binaries, maybe. Try to run a Win16 binary on Windows Vista+ and see what happens - hell, even binaries officially supposed to run under Windows 8 won't.

Not just Win16 binaries are affected. Also refusing to run can be less of a problem than running, but doing different things some of the time. Desling with such software can rapidly become expensive.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[GordonBX]

I think you're misunderstanding 'End of Life' - that just means end of support for the operating system and provision of security patches. You can carry on driving your perfecly good Windows XP car for as long as you like - but if suddenly the government decides that all cars must be electric, or (more realistically) a systematic problem is found in XP then Microsoft is telling you that you are out of luck as far as any kind of fix goes.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[mpe]

However with your definition of $100 USD, cost to upgrade OS from XP to Windows 7, as being "an arm and a leg"

It';s only 100 USD if your time is free :)

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[dcw3]

I don't know of a car flaw that can tank an economy, cause a nuclear disaster or cause oil to spill out into the sea. But a software flaw can do all these things.

If your company is in a mission critical business, running unsupported software like this, then someone's head should roll. It's not the products fault, and it's not like there aren't other options. If you want a product to supply the things you're requiring, you shouldn't expect to get it out of a tiny box at Best Buy.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[FictionPimp]

It will be interesting to see how that plays out. My car today is more computer than car. Sure I can get replacement parts, but who is going to be upgrading the communication system with new maps? Who will fix that ECU bug that the manufacturer missed before EOL?

The only way 3rd parties will be able to fix the computer components of my car is to replace them, just like the suggested solution to using windows xp...

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[Lawrence_Bird]

Excellenet idea comrade!

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello? Ford? I'd like some spare parts for your Model T...

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[Bill_the_Engineer]

The paper (if you read it) claims that the requirement should be enforced based on the Microsoft having monopolistic power in the marketplace.

The proposal seems dubious and restricting it to Microsoft with some handwaving and using "monopolistic power" as a condition doesn't make the proposal sound any better.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Take Medisoft as an example:
http://www.medisoft.com/ [medisoft.com]
Find me an open source program that does what that does and I'll be impressed.

I don't know what makes Medisoft so special, but here is a list of open source healthcare software to get you started on your search.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[geminidomino]

OpenEMR

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[mrchaotica]

2. Your call to "release the code" sounds nice, until you figure out that Microsoft doesn't own exclusive rights to all the code. Much of it has been licensed from other companies, some of it is entangled in other ways. Just like Apple couldn't release Rosetta since they didn't own it, the same is true with XP.

Do you realize what you're saying? Your argument is essentially "it's not my fault I can't comply with requirement A because I fucked up requirement B" which should never be a valid excuse. In a sane world, if Microsoft failed to license the code properly then that would be Microsoft's problem, not anybody else's!

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[mrchaotica]

At [13 years old] you start thinking about getting a new car, or a new washing machine.

Sure, if you're a consumer whore with a hard-on for disposable junk...

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[Wootery]

Not to mention it opposes Microsoft's business-model of planned obsolescence.

Depending on how you look at it, this can be either:

• * They want to force people to buy their new offerings (Windows 8.1, or at least 7)
• * They don't want to support their old products indefinitely

In addition, it would help the Wine and ReactOS projects enormously (indeed, it would render ReactOS rather pointless), and would harm Microsoft's 'lock-in'. A Free-and-Open-Source fork of Windows could do violence to Microsoft's prospects.

(I guess in doing so it might take away one reason to move to Linux, and so perhaps drive custom to Microsoft's ecosystems, but ultimately I doubt it would play out in MS's favour.)

It would be interesting to see how many new exploits could be uncovered by making the source public, though - a high-profile, real-world test of 'more eyeballs'/security-through-obscurity.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[Amtrak]

This statement may not apply to actual lawyers but I cannot confirm as IANAL.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[Anonymous Coward]

XP is a competitor to this, as in, it is the installed base that Microsoft is trying to upgrade to 8.1.

Is there any computer that came with XP that is capable of running 8.1?

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[Anonymous Coward]

What percentage of XP machines are capable of running Windows 7?

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[dcw3]

Yeah, some of us live on planet Earth. Let the rest of us know when your Utopia is up and running.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Microsoft hasn't given up on the Windows market, they currently sell Windows 8.1. XP is a competitor to this, as in, it is the installed base that Microsoft is trying to upgrade to 8.1. Windows XP and Windows 8 are the same market, desktop operating systems.

I disagree, it's not the same market at all. Windows 8 is not a desktop OS no matter what Microsoft claims. It is a mobile OS that masquerades as a desktop, and very poorly too if you talk to anyone actually using it on a desktop. Windows 8 is designed to consume content (like youtube videos), not to create any. That is one reason why businesses are avoiding it like the plague, they can't MAKE content with Windows 8, it's not designed for it.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[NatasRevol]

Yeah, maybe.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[Anonymous Coward]

>Find me an open source program that does what that does and I'll be impressed.
You mean and OSS package whose homepage is completely worthless is letting you know what it does? Sure, that should take around 5 minutes.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[fustakrakich]

It's all very simple. If they refuse to sell, license, or support it, they should lose all copyright and patent protection, and the product should be taken into the public domain.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[NatasRevol]

They'll enjoy the respect people give them for having created them, and that will be all the compensation they need.

Dumbest sentence I've read in a long time.

Especially in a discussion about *business* practices.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[Anonymous Coward]

Says the communist who admits he owns a Nexus 5. Phone manufacturers made incremental inprovements on smartphones to make money and to have an advantage over their competitors. They did not do it to improve the human condition nor to satisfy a personal itch. If there was no profit to be made from creating smartphones and everyone made the same amount of money they never would have invested the capital necessary to create them.

Yeah, Cuba is great if you want to see a culture stuck with 50 year old technology and subsistence living. Never mind the vast famines and shortages there and everywhere were communism was practiced. Cuba hasn't created created jack shit besides cigars and are dependent on whatever capitalist created technology and medicine they can import or steal. Sort of like how Soviet had to steal our microprocessor and computing technology and they had to to steal information from the USA to create their nuclear bomb. They had an early lead in the space race, but then the USA upped the ante, then all the USSRs moonshots all blew up on the launchpad then their government lied to the people about what happened. If the USA space program is worthless, then why did the USSR copy the shuttle?

Communism killed an purged millions of it's own citizens for thought crimes, then you have the gall to call the USA a prison culture. Ignore the splinter in thine eye jackass!

You sir are a hypocritical parasite. You are your ilk are willing take all the benefits of capitalism by whatever illicitly or not, then decry it when someone gets to make more money than you or asks you to pay for what use.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.modeltford.com/

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[sandytaru]

You think about it, but you don't actually do it til it dies. The same can go on for XP. Microsoft isn't saying no one can use XP any more. And you'll still be able to find parts to repair the older PCs for decades, I'm sure. It's just that there always comes a point where the cost of continued repairs is more than the replacement cost. That applies whether it's a computer or a car.

Microsoft did offer an extension of support for commercial hardware running XP, for a price.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[Ol Olsoc]

Do you force Apple to let 'competitors' support OS X 10.5 on G5 Macs? Do you force Google to let competitors still support Google Wave?

You are 100 percent correct. If Microsoft wants to dump a third of it's users, that's their right and a business decision they and only they should make.

Then again, I have a couple of old XP computers sitting around that I'll probably take to best buy to trade in.

Only one thing is for certain, and that is that the computer I bring home will not be a Windows OS product.

See how that works?

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[HBI]

I've been around the whole world and I know one thing: I kiss the ground with every entry stamp into the US. The majority of the rest of the world is a shit hole in comparison. There are some uncommonly nice places elsewhere (like Australia and Germany) but they are definitely the exception to the rule.

As for US accomplishments, you forgot the nuclear weapons. Then again, you sad sack communists always forget the nuclear weapons pointed at you. Also, who got people to the Moon? I don't think it was Cuba. For that matter, modern computer technology, including this Internet we're using right now, pretty much all originated in the US. The USSR barely managed to directly copy Z-80s and 8088s before its collapse.

Get back under your rock!

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[LordLimecat]

That's a ridiculous statement. Russia were the first ones to space.

And we were the first ones to the moon. We also managed to do that without starving entire nations.

Keep touting the glories of communism, just dont come running when you're relegated to starve in squalor so that they can get another world first.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[operagost]

Most people who keep a car for 13 years will have put at least 150,000 miles on it. Besides the possibility of needing a major overhaul, or facing a constant repair cycle, a lot of advancements in fuel economy, emissions, and safety have been made. I think it's reasonable to buy a new one, and I don't understand your claim that every new washer or automobile is "disposable junk".

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[Grismar]

Most photocopiers aren't on the internet and even if they are, the essential risk and impact attached to failure is far lower than that of a business PC running XP.

I don't see how the Apple one even maps to the XP question. The problem is with support of an essential piece of software being discontinued.

Google Wave was free and never sold or supported as a piece of business software as far as I know. Apart from that, the Wave protocol is open and you were able to migrate the content to open alternatives at the time.

Windows XP is an essential piece of software to many, replacement of which is neither trivial nor free. It's almost exclusively used on machines that frequently (or continuously) require internet access and the software didn't come for free in most cases. You can call OEM versions free, but we know that's not exactly true.

The article seems to make the point that, unless MS extends support, it's only fair (and possibly legally enforceable) to make MS share the source with parties that want to support XP and offer assistance to such parties. Or, just release the source outright.

Re: Where do you draw the line?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Not every company has a bottomless budget for IT and development to remake their critical software"

True, so you continue to run a Windows XP box on old hardware (of which there are mountains of in the world) even though it's out of support. And you use that wonderful Virtualization technology to run it should the needed hardware cease to exist.

For those companies that the above options don't work for some GOOD reason, then you need to look into a backup plan. I've worked at companies that had software reliant on Windows 95 that didn't run on XP. We had a plan for how to sustain, and we had a plan for getting out of the situation. And those plans were made long before Windows 95 support ended. It would have been irresponsible to do anything else.

For the majority of companies, upgrading away from XP was not an expensive venture over the long run. Microsoft announces it and you start to upgrade systems. If a company is being forced to buy a ton of new boxes right now, it's because they didn't plan ahead and maybe have learned a lesson about business in general?

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[Anonymous Coward]

The OP was implying mandatory disclosure without any protection from the information being used by competitors.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[phantomfive]

Apple would have continued to ship Rosetta

No, Apple wouldn't have, they are actively hostile to backwards compatibility.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[jader3rd]

Who decides when the "end of life" of a product is reached? Its maker, or its user?

The maker.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[Grishnakh]

Why? What benefit is there to the company to do this?

How about this: if you don't like the product as offered by the company (for instance, the limited support period), then go find a different product from a competing company. It's not like there's a lack of competition in OS software; there's dozens of Linux vendors like Red Hat who will happily provide you an OS that really is open-source just in case you want someone else to support you later.

The problem here is proprietary software; because of its proprietary nature, it becomes impossible to support after the vendor decides to move on. The solution isn't to force the vendor to alter their business practices or to give away their source code; the solution is to move to vendors that already have open source code, and/or better business practices. If doing that is too difficult for you, too bad; you should have chosen better.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[Anonymous Coward]

Borland did quite a lot of things in a very consumer-friendly way. That's part of why Microsoft defeated them again and again.

The other parts were advertising and the leveraging of vertical monopolies.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[BUL2294]

XP was legally sold on netbooks made as late as October 22, 2010 ( http://windows.microsoft.com/e... ). Those computers were still in the sales pipeline into early 2011.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[TheRaven64]

Bullshit. They shipped Classic support right up until the last PowerPC release (10.5, 10 years after the first Rhapsody releases), years after pretty much every Mac user was running OS X-only applications. Try talking to some people who work at Apple or worked at Transitive some time about the dropping of Rosetta. Apple tried to rush a license agreement through when IBM announced that they'd buy Transitive, but were too late.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[Grishnakh]

I don't know of a car flaw that can tank an economy, cause a nuclear disaster or cause oil to spill out into the sea. But a software flaw can do all these things.

The risk to society is too high for things to continue in this way

If software carries these risks, then stop using proprietary software in these applications. If your proprietary software causes a disaster like this, the fault is with the persons who chose to use proprietary software for high-risk applications.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[Grishnakh]

The US did some really amazing stuff 40-60 years ago. But it hasn't done anything at all of note in the last 15. It's really quite pathetic that Americans can only trot out stuff they (or more likely, their now-elderly grandparents) did 40+ years ago, and which they have absolutely zero capability to do right now.

Did America put men on the Moon? Sure. Can America put men on the moon now? Not a chance. America can't even put men into low-earth orbit now. America is a sad shadow of its former self, and even resembles Stalinist communist states like East Germany with its constant NSA surveillance and its ridiculously high prison population.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[Grishnakh]

I'd like to see more companies release the software, code, etc. to the public domain as a formal way of walking away from it, but leaving customers with something more than "gee, must suck to be you" for support.

That'd be nice. It'd also be nice to have a pony that farts rainbows.

If you don't like the terms offered by the company (i.e., "we keep the source of the software, and when we decide to drop support, you're up shit creek."), then don't buy it. You have alternatives, you're just too fucking lazy to make use of them.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[mrchaotica]

My cars are 16 and 18 years old with about 200K miles each, and are still worth fixing.

One of them, a 1998 VW Beetle TDI, has exactly the same safety rating as one built as recently as 2011 (because it's the same unibody!), gets better fuel economy than a 2014, and pollutes less (except for particulates) because the older engine technology can use 100% biodiesel while the new one can't.

The other one is a 1996 4-cylinder Ford Ranger that gets better (or at least equal) fuel economy to any new (or newish) truck. (I tried to find the most efficient new 4x4 trucks to compare against; if you find any that are better let me know!) It admittedly is probably marginally less safe and marginally more polluting than a new truck, but not enough to be worth the 10x difference in cost!

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[LordLimecat]

I might remark that all of the top tech companies are right here in the US. We have the best microprocessors, the best software companies, etc etc. Google, Intel, AMD, Microsoft, Apple-- all US companies. Surely that is saying something?

And while we arent rock solid financially right now, we're doing a heck of a lot better than just about anyone else.

Can America put men on the moon now?

We can, theres just not much point. I believe we just got done putting (another) rover on Mars, but I guess thats less impressive in your book.

America is a sad shadow of its former self, and even resembles Stalinist communist states like East Germany with its constant NSA surveillance and its ridiculously high prison population.

The NSA surveillance is a problem but that comparison is ridiculous. We dont arrest people for political opinions, something they STILL have trouble with in Russia. We also manage to have fair elections. Seriously, pull your head out of conspiracy websites, the NSA thing is a problem but its not even close to what we saw under Stalinist states.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, if you're a consumer whore with a hard-on for disposable junk...

Said the banking whore with a hard-on for paying interest on loans.
Note I never said you replace it then, I said you think about it. This means planning ahead for the machine's eventual irreparable failure, so that you've got the cash set aside and do not need to take out an unnecessary loan.

I suppose an argument could be made that you should start doing such well before the machine hits 13 years old. But only an idiot or a troll would say "don't bother putting aside any money, just take out a loan for the full cost of a replacement when the old one dies".

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[mrchaotica]

WTF are you talking about? 150K miles is when I buy cars, not sell them, and I pay cash.

And there's no such thing as "eventual irreparable failure" except getting totaled in an accident.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[qwijibo]

Rainbows are just an illusion created by the different refraction angles of sunlight coming through rain drops. Do you realize how large those pony farts would have to be to create rainbows? That's the kind of science that would win you an ig nobel award.

*I* have alternatives to running XP, but I'm also a Unix admin and programmer. I think it's fair to say the average person doesn't really get much choice once they get locked in to proprietary drivers, hardware, etc. The "don't buy it" argument is like the idea of original sin. By the time you have a choice, it's already been made for you. There are those who can and will rise above, but those people aren't in the bottom 99% of computer users.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[jellomizer]

That was because Microsoft Screwed up on their development of Vista aka Longhorn. They paid a huge price for this delay. It allowed Apple to come in and beat them up and people switched to Macs. When Vista did get released none wanted it and more people switched to macs. It took until Windows 7 to really get people off the platform.
That said, 3 1/2 year is the point where your PC starts getting old and out of date. Normally it is 4 years, you probably can keep it for about 6 years. But that PC that you got in October 2010 can probably be upgraded to 7.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[Darinbob]

You forget the large amount of effort that were spent to try and fix most of those bugs.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[Darinbob]

This is the part so many people forget. They claim how "old" XP is by basing it on the first day it was released rather than the last day it was sold. Or more importantly, the last day it was sold while being the preferred Windows choice (ie, anything before W7). Or maybe the day when Microsoft publically announced (even to computer illiterates) that it had a built-in expiration date.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[kwbauer]

... said the asshole who isn't working and living off of whatever the government has taken from those who do work to give to those who have chosen not to.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[Grishnakh]

There isn't much hardware that doesn't work with a modern Linux distro. The main exceptions are winprinters, and you don't need those; you can just buy a new printer (the printer isn't a vital part of the computer). It's unlikely you have a 13-year-old winprinter still working anyway; those things don't usually last very long, and the consumables cost is outrageous anyway.

Ford isn't still on the hook for safety updates to cars made in the 1970s. House builders aren't on the hook for aluminum wiring installed in the 1970s. Why should MS be on the hook for an OS made almost 15 years ago? If people don't want to be victims of hackers, they can get a new computer with a newer OS, or they can upgrade to Linux for free. They aren't owed anything. They can either let the salespeople at Best Buy make a decision for them, or they can choose to educate themselves and avail themselves of Free offerings.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[jbolden]

Microsoft has not really been all that informative about their end-of-life policy for their operations systems

They seem pretty clear to me: http://windows.microsoft.com/e...

So, Microsoft, live with the consequences of your greed and offer free upgrades, it's not going to hurt the bottom line - hell, it might even prop up those dismal sales figures for Win8.

How is a free upgrade a sale?

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[FlyHelicopters]

Then you'd end up with an OS that doesn't do much.

Think about the USB stack, or the FireWire stack, or DVD playback? All of those are licenced and none are "free for MS to give away", yet you wouldn't want an OS that doesn't support USB.

How about networking, or video drivers, or a hundred other things...

You're asking for a perfect world, but that just doesn't exist. Modern OS are complex, even Android and iOS are complex and involve a lot of patents and cross licencing. To just say "well, they should have done it better" ignores the reality of the world.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[FlyHelicopters]

I took a look at this list... clearly some people have been trying to make inroads here, but none of those are ready for prime time.

Full disclosure, my wife is a Chiropractor and she uses Medisoft, I'm her technical support so I have an idea of what it has to do.

Accountability, upgrades, support with insurance billing, etc. are all mission critical applications. It also is fairly easy to find a front desk girl who knows Medisoft already, those others would take a lot of training.

So it isn't just the cost of the software (Medisoft is many thousands of dollars), but the cost of training and the ease of finding someone already trained in the software.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[msi]

Further, the software packages of this type from Microsoft are tied to a specific version of the Windows Operating system; that is, you can not take a version of Office intended for use on Windows XP, and run it on Windows 7 or later versions of the Microsoft OS platform. This explicit and intentional tying is monopolistic in nature. Further, the glue code for the vertical market systems previously mentions, *also* will not run on non-XP platforms.

Effectively, this means that Microsoft is leveraging their monopoly position in operating systems - specifically, with regard to the discontinuation of support for XP - into additional sales of non-OS Microsoft products, and to sales of middleware components and development tools. As a necessary side effect, they create a market for third parties to port code they've already written to the new middleware and applications components running on the new platform, without actually providing additional value for the intentional binary incompatibility of the user space code.

...

Forced "upgrades" which aren't actually "upgrades", since they don't provide fixes without damaging binary compatibility, are almost always a bad idea.

Not that Apple is completely innocent of this tactic with regard to new iOS versions; they've recently disabled the ability to turn off sync and update downloads happening over the cellular data connection, even though there are usage caps and extra costs to the user if this is left on, and they consistently pop up complaint dialogs when they can't fit the update into the storage on a 16G iPhone, and suggest you delete stuff to make room.

...

In any case, the Windows XP end of life has been handled very, very badly, and the papers author has some great points, from a legal perspective, given the findings of fact on the monopolistic power by the courts in the Netscape case.

I have read this a number of times and I can only assume you have never used a windows computer. The versions of office and windows are in no way restricted, I am running components form Office 2003, 2010 and 2013 on Windows 7 and Office XP, 2003 and 2010 on windows XP.

Windows Vista, 7 and 8 all have compatibility mode which tries with varying degrees of success to fool older pieces of software that they are running old versions of windows.

Apple and Steve Jobs who you seem to hold up as the paragons of backwards compatibility virtue are(where) awful at any form of backwards compatibility or support Snow Leopard (10.6 released 08/09) does not get the same level of patching that the Lion (10.7 07/11) and Mountain Lion (10.8 07/12) and Mavericks (10.9 10/13) get Leopard (10.5 10/07) is unsupported.

Microsoft is no longer considered to be anti-trust the sanctions imposed expired in 2007, Microsoft agreed to a two year extension and offered to continue complying until 2012 although the DOJ turned down the offer. So a case brought in 2001 for actions in the 90s and all punishments or restrictions expired five years ago probably has little baring on 2014 where their market share has dropped form 95% to 65%

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[Anonymous Coward]

If anything, the automotive aftermarket exists in spite of the automakers' attempts to quash it. There's an important difference that enables this aftermarket. Almost all of those aftermarket parts are reverse-engineered from the corresponding original equipment parts. As tangible objects subject to first sale doctrine, the automakers have limited capacity to prevent such reverse-engineering of their product. Microsoft has no such challenges, as they only sold licenses to run the object code, and said license prohibits reverse-engineering.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[Anonymous Coward]

what a dreadful life you lead

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[mrchaotica]

Remind me to laugh in your face when I'm independently wealthy at 40.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[mrchaotica]

Think about the USB stack, or the FireWire stack, or DVD playback? All of those are licenced and none are "free for MS to give away", yet you wouldn't want an OS that doesn't support USB.

Yet somehow, Linux manages it. You're gonna need to come up with a better straw-man to fool me...

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[exomondo]

Do you realize what you're saying? Your argument is essentially "it's not my fault I can't comply with requirement A because I fucked up requirement B" which should never be a valid excuse.

Do you realize what you're saying? Requirement A did not exist back then, in fact it doesn't even exist now. How can they be expected to plan to comply with a requirement that doesn't exist?

In a sane world, if Microsoft failed to license the code properly then that would be Microsoft's problem, not anybody else's!

They did license it properly, they just didn't license it in a way that was sufficient for this non-existent requirement.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[exomondo]

I don't know of a car flaw that can tank an economy, cause a nuclear disaster or cause oil to spill out into the sea. But a software flaw can do all these things.

So you either use software designed and warranted for this kind of situation (Windows XP is not) which explicitly puts the responsibility on the vendor or you use open source software and take on the responsibility yourself. Either way it's your choice and if you are the party tasked with making that decision and you chose Windows XP for it then you are in the wrong.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[phantomfive]

ok, you seem to know, so you're probably right. If so, that was the last vestige of caring about backwards compatibility at Apple; they're annoyingly aggressive about sunsestting technology.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[Opportunist]

Again, if all cars need to be electric and there is a huge love for a model the maker doesn't want to support anymore, the aftermarket will instantly take over and provide a kit that allows you to replace your ICE with an electric one.

Try that with an operating system and you'll be swarmed by lawyers who'd like to know how you could do that without reverse engineering the system, which is forbidden...

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[Opportunist]

So the maker of a product is allowed to tell me just how long I may use his product?

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[Opportunist]

You say that like it should be that way.

First, that the automotive aftermarket is a thorn in the side of automakers is a good thing. The law is not there to protect the monopoly of a manufacturer. Quite the opposite, the law is supposed to protect plurality on both sides of the fence (supply AND demand) to ensure the market can work. There are very, very few cases where monopolies are beneficial to the market, and none of them include a for-profit organization in a monopoly position.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[tlambert]

I have read this a number of times and I can only assume you have never used a windows computer. The versions of office and windows are in no way restricted, I am running components form Office 2003, 2010 and 2013 on Windows 7 and Office XP, 2003 and 2010 on windows XP.

Windows Vista, 7 and 8 all have compatibility mode which tries with varying degrees of success to fool older pieces of software that they are running old versions of windows.

32 bit Office 2000 doesn't work on Windows 7.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[msi]

I have read this a number of times and I can only assume you have never used a windows computer. The versions of office and windows are in no way restricted, I am running components form Office 2003, 2010 and 2013 on Windows 7 and Office XP, 2003 and 2010 on windows XP.

Windows Vista, 7 and 8 all have compatibility mode which tries with varying degrees of success to fool older pieces of software that they are running old versions of windows.

32 bit Office 2000 doesn't work on Windows 7.

Neither does it work on Windows 1. I have just had a quick google and there are lots of posts claiming to have it working on windows 8 however, you are looking back five versions of office before you find one which does not work.

Please name another software vendor who provide this level of support.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[Anonymous Coward]

so much for getting the "minimum 10 years support" claimed in microsoft's life cycle policy back in the day.. time frame used to be based upon a product's withdrawal from market (general availability).. which in this case would be 10/22/2010.. but with xp, it's some date microsoft made up instead.. and then extended.. and since xp, they now base dates on original product release, not the end of the period of time a product is produced for sale.

some lawyer is going to rip through microsoft's policies and contracts and find something to take a run at microsoft with, to get updates to xp through 2020 or some compensation for their clients (read as: big payday for lawyers).. wait and watch.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[tlambert]

32 bit Office 2000 doesn't work on Windows 7.

Neither does it work on Windows 1.

Sure. And if we were talking about forward binary compatibility, which would require accurate predicting the future, that would be a valid argument.

We're not, we're talking about intentionally breaking binary backward compatibility, so that when you force someone to buy a new OS when they want to buy a computer, you force them to also re-buy application software, which they already own, to run on that OS.

This isn't any different than any other form of tying, where you leverage a monopoly in desktop OS's to force, for example, use of a particular browser. The money spent on Office 2000 is a sunk cost, and you're forcing them to re-spend.

I have just had a quick google and there are lots of posts claiming to have it working on windows 8 however, you are looking back five versions of office before you find one which does not work.

Please name another software vendor who provide this level of support.

Please name another software vendor with a monopoly in desktop operating systems, and I'll be happy to describe how they provide binary backward compatibility to avoid leveraging their monopoly position to force re-purchase of existing software by not tying that software to a particular platform.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[msi]

Apple

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[msi]

Sorry I fat fingered a one word answer

Apple have a monopoly on Apple goods which can tie you into their ecosystem as easily as the Wintel ecosystem and they discontinue much earlier and less transparently.

Capita have a monopoly on school management systems and discontinued their original SIMS product in the mid 00s and forced an upgrade to SIMS.net

Nokia dropped symbian like a rock in 2011.

Cisco EoL IOS releases after 48 months from release or 12 months from last sale.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[jader3rd]

So the maker of a product is allowed to tell me just how long I may use his product?

The maker can say how long he's going to give a crap about how long he's going to care about you using his product. Once that time passes it will be considered 'end of life', not because it stops functioning at that second, but because it's just a matter of time until it stops functioning. Manufacturers say how long a warranty is: ie, the amount of time they'll work to ensure that the product behaves as advertised. Once that time passes they don't care any more.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[MooseMiester]

Not to mention it opposes Microsoft's business-model of planned obsolescence.

Wootery says with a hint of disdain. So how do you propose Microsoft earns money to pay for all those nice buildings and programmers?

Software should all be free, but as a programmer I want a huge salary. These are the same people who complain with their free email goes down for an hour LOL

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[Anonymous Coward]

This.

Honestly if you bought something that depends on XP, you are the fuck-up - you made an ignorant, short-term and stupid economic decision. You as a customer. And any vendor who based long-lived products on a short-lived thing like a PC operating system. They did it to cut corners and now they and their customers are going to get burned. This is simply economic realities "coming home to roost". This the the "blow back" from foolish decisions that had short-term benefits only. The mismatch was always obvious and if you look at knowledgeable sources like Comp.risks, this was 100% foretold by people who actually understand computers and systems.

Basically with the freedom to be cheap, you get the downsides as well. I say - let these systems all fail and let any company that bought or sold such systems suffer the economic consequences - it's the only way people will learn.

In case you think I'm a Mac-lover bashing Wintel, using a Mac as an embedded controller/computer for any long-lived system would be equally stupid. Maybe linux but linux can have the same problems and must be carefully considered - most systems don't do open-source in their system level design either.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[Anonymous Coward]

XP was legally sold on netbooks made as late as October 22, 2010 ( http://windows.microsoft.com/e... ). Those computers were still in the sales pipeline into early 2011.

IBM was still shipping ThinkPads with WinXP until the end of 2013. They only stopped because the new models have magic pixie dust that prevent XP from running.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[BUL2294]

Those are the downgrade rights offered by Win 7/8 Pro to XP Pro (and even 2000 Pro). My post was about new PCs of the time, where the only OS available was XP as it was the only reasonable choice on that hardware. Remember that since Vista was such a dog on Atom hardware (only consumers of Atom at the time were netbooks) & given Microsoft's uncertain future for Windows 7 at the time (Microsoft was hoping it would pay off), XP Home was the only sane choice on 2009-2010 era netbooks. In fact, Windows 7 Starter was a stripped-down Windows 7 requiring lower hardware...

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's important to use the police power of the state to impose its will through force or the threat of violence to ensure we don't use out of date software.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[Wootery]

Wootery says with a hint of disdain.

Wootery can see it comes off that way, but 'planned obsolescence' really is the correct term.

I hoped Depending on how you look at it would clarify that I'm not set against payware closed-source software.

their free email goes down for an hour

GMail (and co) isn't free. You pay in privacy for directed-advertising, rather than money, and as Eben Moglen has persuasively argued, the price of privacy should not be treated as transactional, but rather as ecological: Google now knows not only intimate details about you, but also about everyone with whom you communicate via email.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[MooseMiester]

The comment about free email reminds me of my favorite Russian saying "Cheese in Mousetrap always free". You're spot on.

I don't think it's planned obsolescence at all. Software never really "wears out" nor does it even have wear and tear. Sure, all operating systems create endless log files and other crap that are difficult to keep clean, and Windows is burdened with a Registry Database that defies all logic, but it doesn't wear out, you can install it over and over.

Appliances now days have planned obsolescence - if you're old enough to remember the appliances of twenty years ago, or thirty years ago you can appreciate this. They die quite predictably a month after the warranty runs out, and the new one doesn't work as good as the one it replaced. That's... a crime committed against the consumer. But I digress...

For the record I'm no lover of MS. I run plenty of Linux servers, and Linux desktops and own both an iPhone and an iPad, love 'em.

Microsoft could care less about you, and me, and the guy buying five, ten, or even twenty licenses. They are all about their two biggest clients: The U.S. military, and the Fortune 100. Windows 7 had the features, drivers, and updated service stacks that those guys wanted, and paid for, we got the crumbs off the floor. My point is that it's a business, not a charity, and they do what their biggest customers ask for. Which is not us.

If you've ever worked in the Fortune 100, and had a platinum plated Microsoft support agreement (these things are probably written on human skin parchment or something), you'd discover a whole new Microsoft. They pick up the phone - instantly. They offer to put the guy who wrote the kernel on the line, if you ask, and offer to patch the O/S instantly with a hotfix for whatever you need. They once offered to put five core Windows developers on a corporate jet and fly them to our office, cross country, for a small issue we were having. I am sure they would have put two or three beautiful women on the plane to serve us coffee while we waited. That's the real Microsoft, and if one of those big customers says "We want a crappy interface that works on a phone, a tablet, and a desktop..." Microsoft says "Is this crappy enough, SIR? Are the colored tiles plain enough? Can we make them more dumbed down for you? Yes SIR, right away!!!"

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[Anonymous Coward]

sorry but where i live i need $299 plus costs for ugrading my apps.

Re:Where do you draw the line?

[vandamme]

It takes me a half hour to upgrade an XP machine to Linux Mint, with only a few minutes of actual typing time. And it costs nothing, so let's get going.

Nah just have copyright last for 14 years

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah just have copyright last for 14 years max.

Then Microsoft will have to actually build stuff significantly better than XP rather than disappointing stuff like Windows 8.

You think progress would be slow because the shortened/reduced monopolies would reduce investment into innovation? Well Microsoft has spent billions and what we got is stuff like Vista, Windows 7 and Windows 8.

A shorter copyright term would definitely "help them focus" on innovating rather than extending or leveraging the reach of their existing monopolies don't you think?

Re:Nah just have copyright last for 14 years

[Opportunist]

Shorter copyright would actually not hinder but force innovation to happen. Right now, you can invent something and if it turns out to be "gold", you can milk it forever. No need whatsoever to ever invent anything again.

That's supposed to spur innovation? Could someone show me how?

Re:Nah just have copyright last for 14 years

[Camael]

Right now, you can invent something and if it turns out to be "gold", you can milk it forever. ...That's supposed to spur innovation? Could someone show me how?

I agree with you, and its not. Copyright extension was a blatant cash grab engineered by a corrupt legislature to rob the public through the Mickey Mouse Act .

I suppose we should be thankful there is a limit of any kind. Actual quote :-

Actually, Sonny wanted the term of copyright protection to last forever. I am informed by staff that such a change would violate the Constitution.

Re:Nah just have copyright last for 14 years

[ShieldW0lf]

Shorter copyright would actually not hinder but force innovation to happen. Right now, you can invent something and if it turns out to be "gold", you can milk it forever. No need whatsoever to ever invent anything again.

That's supposed to spur innovation? Could someone show me how?

Imagine living in a world where half the population is illiterate and the majority are required to work labor from dawn till dusk, where free time is scarce and every single moment spent pursuing "flights of fancy" instead of pursuing "real work" has a significant cost to the individuals involved.

Copyright was created for such an environment. Did quite well by us in moving beyond that way of living. Now that a high school student has access to publishing tools that will reach a global audience, it's just holding us back, but it was effective when it was created.

Though, it was patents that were responsible for unleashing innovation. Not because they enticed people to innovate, but because they gave us tools to force trade secrets to be disclosed. Patents WERE an "open source movement". That was their reason to exist. It was never to "motivate companies to compete". Hell, companies were non-profit by law back in those days, and had to justify the social good they brought to the community each year or they were dissolved. The idea of motivating them to do the duty they were given after the fact is kind of ridiculous in such a setting.

Re:Nah just have copyright last for 14 years

[Anonymous Coward]

but it was effective when it was created.

The scientific evidence for that claim is nonexistent.

Re:Nah just have copyright last for 14 years

[Hognoxious]

Hell, companies were non-profit by law back in those days, and had to justify the social good they brought to the community each year or they were dissolved.

[citation needed]

Re:Nah just have copyright last for 14 years

[ShieldW0lf]

but it was effective when it was created.

The scientific evidence for that claim is nonexistent.

People who think science is the right tool for every problem domain are not as smart as they think they are.

Re:Nah just have copyright last for 14 years

[FlyHelicopters]

The copyright running out on XP wouldn't solve the problem of a lack of support.

It also brings into question, which version of XP? Is XP SP2 a "new work" and thus an extension of copyright? Or is SP1 out of copyright but SP2 is not?

What a horrible situation, you could legally make copies of the original release of XP, but not install any service packs or updates.

Yea, THAT would be good for the Internet. :)

Re:Nah just have copyright last for 14 years

[ShieldW0lf]

"The Joint Stock Companies Act 1844 was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that expanded access to the incorporation of joint-stock companies.

Before the Act, incorporation was possible only by royal charter or private bill and was limited owing to Parliament's jealous protection of the privileges and advantages thereby granted."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J...

Prior to this Act, companies were governed by the Bubble Act of 1720. They had a charter given to them by the nation. They earned profits, ridiculous profits, but they were a governmental entity responsible for enriching the nation at the expense of other nations, in the same way that a non-profit earns profits but reinvests them in the pursuit of the company charter rather than paying out to shareholders. This was the time of Mercantilism, not Capitalism.

In the USA, forming each individual corporation required a separate act of legislation until New Jersey adopted an "enabling" corporate law, with the goal of attracting more business to the state in 1896. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow. States also limited corporate charters to a set number of years. And, if you broke the rules, you didn't get a fine, the company had its charter revoked.

In 1819 the U.S. Supreme Court tried to strip states of this power by overruling a lower court’s decision that allowed New Hampshire to revoke a charter granted to Dartmouth College by King George III. This was done on the basis that the charter was a contract between the King and the College, and that it violated the Constitution to pass laws to invalidate a contract. The US was no longer a part of the Commonwealth at this time, but that was deemed non-relevant to the contract.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...

That decision was the beginning of the modern corporation. This was when they moved beyond the control of democratic processes, were relieved of any duty to serve humanity and became all about contracts and shareholders and their duty became empowering the shareholders above all other concerns.

Re:Nah just have copyright last for 14 years

[Anonymous Coward]

Shorter copyrights spur innovation by allowing inventors to build upon other innovations in a shorter period of time and by forcing a more rapid product cycle to maintain a lock on customers.

Example: Set copyright duration to 10 years and assume there is a 2 year development time on average... That gives copyright holders 8 years to recover innovation, manufacturing, and marketing costs while making a profit. It, importantly, brings out an 8 year innovation cycle where it is possible to bring new ideas based on previous innovations no more than 8 years old.

The problem occurs when development times or costs move into a large portion of the lifetime value of something. So a product will sell 1m units in 10 years (using the above referenced timeframe) with an average profit of $10 will only come to market if the development, manufacturing and marketing costs are well under $10m.

Copyright them is a balance of profit protection, investment protection and innovation protection.

Re:Nah just have copyright last for 14 years

[gsslay]

Could someone show me how?

Inventing something that might set me up for life, never need to do anything ever again? Sounds like a good spur for innovation to me.

You want some of that? Then invent something that's more "gold" than mine. Another spur.

If I don't want you making my "gold" obsolete, robbing me of my easy profits/retirement? Then maybe I better keep innovating myself. Yet another spur.

Not saying its perfect, but it works.

Re:Nah just have copyright last for 14 years

[DerekLyons]

The copyright running out on XP wouldn't solve the problem of a lack of support.

Precisely this, support only happens where there is money or self interest in doing so. And the kind of people who've been coasting along on Microsoft's free patches aren't going to suddenly start paying Bob's Computer Support and Lawn Maintenance for patches just because the code was released into the public domain.

Re:Nah just have copyright last for 14 years

[dcw3]

but it was effective when it was created.

The scientific evidence for that claim is nonexistent.

People who think science is the right tool for every problem domain are not as smart as they think they are.

Reference?.../duck for cover

Re:Nah just have copyright last for 14 years

[Anonymous Coward]

WIth all the hype about XP support ending, people are trying to lump all of its successors into some miserable heap of failed replacements. Windows 7 is actually very likely the best desktop OS available (of any platform). I'm a career linux guy, but am forced to use Windows for a variety of reasons. Having said that, Win 7 was actually a very pleasant breath of fresh air. I still like linux for many things, but Win 7 is a bonafide superior replacement to XP.

The problem that people have isn't that there's no suitable replacement, the problem is that some people have apps or hardware that are tied to their old XP-powered systems. The vast majority of people could move to Win 7, and would in all likelihood enjoy the experience.

Re:Nah just have copyright last for 14 years

[Opportunist]

You can look around yourself and honestly say that it "works"? With companies that do nothing anymore, let alone innovate, but "defend" their patents and use them to keep others from inventing?

That's a "working" environment for you? I guess Communism "worked" too...

no.

[globaljustin]

I am a critic of M$ but I do not think they should be required by law.

Only in the case of some sort of long-term contract that is still in effect, that mentions specifically updating software until a time in the future...unless that is the case.

These laws are complex and the photocopier example is interesting.

I am against artificial scarcity for sure...that's one reason I hate M$...but I think this may cross the line. If M$ wants to let XP die then they have the right to refuse to make vital trade secret info available to people who want to keep it alive.

I have a feeling the photocopier example is more about purposefully creating artificial scarcity. It's not quite analogous b/c it's an actual machine not software.

I'm not giving M$ a pass. Its about property rights. If people love XP so much (i remember it was the only windows version i could really get work done using...would still choose it today) then the community will come up with a solution...which should be legal to give away for free.

Re:no.

[Anonymous Coward]

I HATE Microsoft, I frigging HATE them. I hate how they have created an IP bubble. I hate how they did all that monopoly crap and messed up a lot of good companies and people. I cannot wait for Microsoft to fail. I miss Steve Balmer, but NO!

If you want to try to pass some laws to prevent this sort of thing in the future have at it. You want to know who is to blame it is the consumers. Don't blame a snake for being a snake. The pro-linux crowd has been warning you about this for a decade!

So here is your big wake-up call. If you don't do something about the future guess what is gonna happen?

Re:no.

[phantomfive]

If M$ wants to let XP die then they have the right to refuse to make vital trade secret info available to people who want to keep it alive.

Hard for me to believe there's any vital trade secret info in Windows

Re:no.

[tlambert]

I am a critic of M$ but I do not think they should be required by law.

Only in the case of some sort of long-term contract that is still in effect, that mentions specifically updating software until a time in the future...unless that is the case.

These laws are complex and the photocopier example is interesting.

A potentially more interesting example is replacement auto parts, which automobile manufacturers are required by law to stock for 10 years after the last date of manufacture so that owners of the vehicles can repair them or have them repaired by a third party. Since the last ship date for Windows XP was the last contractual date that Microsoft allowed vendors to bundle it with new computers, that would give them about an 8 year support requirement for "replacement parts". Note that the automobile example would apply to the GM ignition switch, which had an engineering change to correct a design defect - and any security flaw is technically a design defect.

I think that the more companies attempt to treat intellectual property as real property, the more that the negative aspects of real property law should be applied to their products.

E.g. if I use your patent, and you don't stop me using it, then I've engaged in adverse possession, and have "established an interest" in the intellectual property which you must therefore allow me to continue to use, just as if my driveway had been over the property line for 10 years, and you didn't do anything about it, or if I'd been parking my car at your curb, and it didn't bother you until I started parking my RV there and blocking your view.

The paper's argument seems to be along similar lines of thinking.

Re:no.

[sjames]

An interesting angle though, MS is in the process of officially declaring that they have no further commercial interest in XP whatsoever. They won't sell you a license even if you beg them. It's a little hard to call it 'valuable intellectual property' with a strait face when they refuse to derive any value from it.

Not really sure how much to make of that, just throwing it out there.

Re:No.

[Opportunist]

The problem is, exactly, that it's getting harder and harder to justify upgrading your OS. It worked up to XP, but from there on ... but let's take a look down the MS OS timeline.

3.11 -> 95. A no brainer. 95 was leaps and bounds ahead of 3.11, which was at best a GUI to DOS.
95 -> 98. Finally networking that really works and doesn't need you to resort so some kind of third party tool to actually USE your network.
98 -> 98SE. Stability increase, far, far better support for various bits of hardware.
98SE -> ME. Erh... Well, let's be honest here, there were some ... hey look, is that George Clooney?
98SE -> 2k. The compatibility of the 9x line combined with the stability and the security from the NT line.
2k -> XP. Where 2k was "a business system that got some touch from a private user system", XP was where the private user became home again. 2k was a bit sterile, XP now offered everything they needed. Much better USB support, WLan out of the box, a much smoother user experience altogether and near perfect stability (outside of driver woes).

And that's where the "must have OSs" end, pretty much, from Joe Randomuser's point of view. He needed 95 for "true" 32bit stuff. He needed 98(SE) for easily working networking. He needed 2k for complete USB support. He needed XP for WLan support. But what would he need Vista/7/8 for? Nothing he could possibly want to plug into his computer has a problem with XP. Nothing he could want to run has an intrinsic problem with XP (yes, some newer games want a DX version that MS deliberately did not make available for XP).

What will in the near future possibly convince people to move away from XP and towards 7 or 8 (or, probably, by the time it really matters, 9) is 64bit support, something that didn't really work out well for XP, and about the only thing where I can say with a straight face that 7 trumps XP in every way, from OS itself to drivers. But to most "normal" users, a limit of 3.something GB isn't that big a deal, considering that most of the software they'd want to run is suffering from exactly the same problem, since it's 32bit soft.

Re:no.

[Anonymous Coward]

So here is your big wake-up call. If you don't do something about the future guess what is gonna happen?

The big wake up call is that anybody not willing to continue to provide full support to a 13 year old OS version should be avoided? Got it. Now checking current official Apple support for Mac OS 9.2..., and commercial Linux distro support, bug and security fixes for their 2.4.0 kernel based releases.

Re:No.

[FaxeTheCat]

Not all reasons to upgrade is obvious to the user. Like security. A lot has happened to the underlying OS since XP. The only way to back port that to XP is to ....upgrade XP to use the Vista/7/8 kernel. Which would introduce the same compatibility problems the users may want to avoid.

Re:No.

[dkf]

2k was a bit sterile, XP now offered everything they needed. Much better USB support, WLan out of the box, a much smoother user experience altogether and near perfect stability (outside of driver woes).

The stability only really came with SP1 if I remember right; there were a few core problems (especially with networking) prior to that.

Re:no.

[MouseTheLuckyDog]

Yeah there is. If MS ever made the source code to XP public, tons of guys would look at it and laugh.
So they have a trade secret how badly they write code.

Re:no.

[Anonymous Coward]

I am against artificial scarcity for sure...that's one reason I hate M$...but I think this may cross the line. If M$ wants to let XP die then they have the right to refuse to make vital trade secret info available to people who want to keep it alive.

Agreed. But I also think that if someone who doesn't sell or support a product should be able to restricts its distribution.
If I need XP for whatever reason I don't expect Microsoft to help me get it running but I don't like the idea of them saying that copying the binaries would be copyright infringement when they don't make it available themselves. The intention of copyright was to increase availability, nor reduce it.

Re:no.

[FlyHelicopters]

Is it valuable in that it contains some code that has been reused in Vista, 7, and 8.

It is valuable in that it is currently the primary competition MS is facing in getting people to buy 8.

MS doesn't want XP around, it is now a competitor that isn't earning them any money.

Trying to make MS do something that will make it easier to NOT upgrade to 8 is nuts, they would fight that tooth and nail.

On top of that, it is reasonable to assume that MS doesn't have exclusive rights to all the code in Windows XP, much of it may be licensed or otherwise entangled with 3rd parties and it isn't theirs to give away.

Re:No.

[FlyHelicopters]

7 is a nice upgrade over XP, if you don't see or understand that, I'm not sure what I can say, 5 years on, that will help you understand.

Besides proper 64 bit support, the seamless way it installs and updates drivers and software for almost anything you plug into it is vastly improved over XP.

XP still wants a floppy disk for drivers needed during install, it was developed in another time, the world has moved on.

I have played with 8, it doesn't do enough over 7 to make the upgrade worthwhile for me, but I suspect 9 will when it comes.

Re:No.

[Anonymous Coward]

I worked at a place that refused to install XP on machines until SP2 came out because it was so shit.
It wasn't until SP3 that it was a real alternative to 2000 in terms of stability.
It's just been so long that no one remembers how crap XP was in the beginning.

Also, the new windows version have improved performance in terms of boot times and installation times.
The new installation method makes it easy to do USB installation, or USB boot.
They also have proper tools for doing unattended installs, that don't require you to have a CD drive.

Saying that old systems need support is one thing.
Saying that newer versions of windows aren't improvements is something completely different.

Re:No.

[Kaenneth]

Not prematurely burning out your SSD with automatic defragmenting?

Re:no.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh come on, you know damn well there are newer versions of Windows which they do have a commercial interest.

Re:no.

[Hategrin]

+1

Re:No.

[vux984]

XP -> Vista -- probably need a new computer or at very least a RAM upgrade, but worth it for the complete overhaul of the security model and desktop compistor. No longer run as administrator by default alone is worth upgrading. Most important, if not the most sexy, update ever. Bit of a rocky launch though caused by a lot of 3rd party driver support issues, 3rd party software dragging their feet on supporting not running as administrator, and microsoft allowing it to be installed on under-specced units; all really tarnished the customer perception. The OS itself though was big step forward.

Vista -> 7 -- a no brainer. Nearly everything that was wrong with Vista got fixed. And really the only reason 7 wasn't a vista service pack was due to the Vista brand having no value, due to the rocky launch. If your still on XP, there's no reason not to move to 7 (although your XP hardware might be getting old by now...)

7 -> 8 ... meh... there's improvments in some areas, but problems in others. MS brings an app store nobody really needs, and a start screen nobody really likes.
7 -> 8.1 not massively compelling, but 8.1 has a lot more incremental improvements; and a lot of the rough edges of 8 are smoothed over now. (8.0 to 8.1 is a no-brainer tho)
7 -> 8.1 "start menu update" -- bringing back the start menu? Plus everything else that has been incrementally upgraded since 7? Yeah, I'm in. Only kicker is the price ... $240 to go from 7 pro to 8.1 pro is awfully steep for an incremental upgrade... and I've got 5+ computers in my house.

Re:No.

[Anonymous Coward]

This upgrade treadmill the software industry has everyone on motivates them to do exactly nothing beneficial to the users giving them money.

You're kidding, right? Microsoft's a bunch of turds but since their original Windows XP purchase users have had IPv6 support out of the bo from day one, four major Internet Explorer releases, four major DirectX releases, 12 years of free software addons as well as free software and security updates. Show me where you get that level of support from Adobe, Apple, AutoDesk or any other software supplier. Or even a Linux distribution. And moving aside slightly from software even Apple end-of-lifes their iPhone hardware after only four years.

Re:no.

[cyber-vandal]

I bought a netbook in 2010 that had XP on it so support until 2020 please.

Re:no.

[gerddie]

... and commercial Linux distro support, bug and security fixes for their 2.4.0 kernel based releases.

The difference is, that the source code for the 2.4.0 Linux kernel is freely available, so anybody can hire a developer to fix security problems and hardware incompatibilities. With MS Windows and Mac OS there is only one vendor for each who has access to the source code and the permission to change it and fix things. If they don't want to do it, you're lost.

Re:No.

[Anonymous Coward]

XP still wants a floppy disk for drivers needed during install, it was developed in another time, the world has moved on.

Software Republicans, yearning for the good old days that never existed in the manner by which they imagine them.

Damned libruhls and your socialized Aero.

Re:no.

[Anonymous Coward]

... and commercial Linux distro support, bug and security fixes for their 2.4.0 kernel based releases.

The difference is, that the source code for the 2.4.0 Linux kernel is freely available, so anybody can hire a developer to fix security problems and hardware incompatibilities.

Not sure if this is meant as sarcasm, but if not: You seriously expect everyone to be able to fully maintain a Linux kernel, fixing bugs and vulnerabilities? By hiring "a" developer?

Re:no.

[kyrsjo]

I agree - the customer decided to buy a proprietary OS for something which needed indefinite-term support and is a critical function / expensive to replace, and the customer got what they payed for.

Re:no.

[kyrsjo]

Also agreed - especially for books etc. - if they are not available from the publisher for a "reasonable" fee, the publisher should loose their rights to deny others from publishing it (effectively loosing copyright).

Re:no.

[kyrsjo]

(This may very well be extended to "if the publisher doesn't make the book/movie/whatever available to a given geographical region in a reasonable format, they loose rights in that region/format")

Re:no.

[Rich0]

I bought a netbook in 2010 that had XP on it so support until 2020 please.

You do realize that Windows is already the longest-supported consumer operating system around, right? Not even RHEL comes close.

They support their OS for 10 years from the day the replacement version (Vista in this case) was released.

I don't really have a problem with the 10-years-from-last-sale thing, but that probably wouldn't be that big of a deal for MS to deal with, since they're already not all that far off (even your 2010 netbook has been supported for 4 years). The folks who will really have trouble are those like Apple/Samsung/etc selling smartphones. Apple is the leader here as far as I can see, but even they will drop support a year or two after the last sale (a few years after first sale). Google supports their Nexus phones for about 1.5 years after first sale, or about 6 months after last sale. Most of the other Android vendors barely support their phones at all, with them often being obsolete while they're still being sold.

Now, support would mean security updates, not new features, but 10 years from last sale would be a revolution in terms of expectations in the software industry.

Re:No.

[NJRoadfan]

XP still wants a floppy disk for drivers needed during install, it was developed in another time, the world has moved on.

Microsoft fixed this in XP based Windows Embedded POSReady 2009. They used WinPE to give it a graphical setup program like Vista/7/8 and allow storage drivers to be installed from CD/USB. Whats sad is that they could have ditched that text based setup program (that dates back to NT 3.1) way back in 2001 for WinPE.

Re:No.

[Christian Smith]

Not all reasons to upgrade is obvious to the user. Like security. A lot has happened to the underlying OS since XP. The only way to back port that to XP is to ....upgrade XP to use the Vista/7/8 kernel. Which would introduce the same compatibility problems the users may want to avoid.

I'd be surprised if much has changed beyond the shell. Win Vista/7/8 use basically the same kernel as XP. Sure, it's had some enhancements to support newer tech, but nothing ground breaking. It's more like the changes between Linux 2.4 and 2.6+.Sure, there's some implementation changes, but the ABI is still the same, and the Linux userspace from 2001 would most likely work unchanged on a Linux 3.14 kernel.

The biggest change I can see between XP and subsequent Windows is in security policy. But that's policy build on top of the same underlying mechanisms.

Re:No.

[FaxeTheCat]

I'd be surprised if much has changed beyond the shell

There must be a reason why so much XP based software apparently does not work on Win 7/8?

Re:no.

[VortexCortex]

It's a little hard to call it 'valuable intellectual property' with a strait face when they refuse to derive any value from it.

It's like when they killed the Halo2 servers. You could only play single player, no online games over XBL, even though Bungie had the PC version still playable online, and even though while directly connected to a party of peers and chatting them up you could view the Halo2 logo next to their names on your friend's list which proved that all the XBox360's knew the others' IP addresses and that the game was loaded in their trays; Even though the only thing the game actually needed to play online was the IPs of the other players who wanted to play, you couldn't do it over the XBL service you paid for. So, fire up a VPN or Hamachi or XBox Connect, etc. and you could do a system link match over the Internet, hell, without even using XBL.

So, why disable the Halo2 online gameplay? Ah, a newer product (Halo3) had came out and everyone was supposed to move over to it, just like with XP. You see?

Planned obsolescence IS USED to derive value from old products, explicitly by limiting their lifespan artificially so you have to purchase a new product. That's why pantyhose still get runs so easily: The first nylons were given to the engineer's wives and they loved them, they didn't get runs! So the manufacturer made the engineers go back and figure out how to make them get tears. Planned obsolescence is why your stuff breaks right after the warranty runs out -- It's engineered to do just that. Planned obsolescence is why light bulbs all last the same length of time. There's an old bulb at a fire station that the town throws a birthday party for every year, because it's been burning for over a hundred years. Bulbs burn out so quickly for the same reason that hardware should come with open source drivers, but doesn't. So you have to buy new hardware to go with new OS's instead of recompiling the driver. It's the same reason you shouldn't use closed source operating systems that you can't pay a coder to maintain for you.

Would you like to know more? Educate yourself with a documentary about planned obsolescence.

Re:no.

[Anonymous Coward]

If those secrets are so vital, why are they letting it die?

Re:no.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea, you get one guy, that does everything on the computer and for free because I'm an entitled millennial. That's how it works, right?

Re:no.

[Nemyst]

You think every small or medium corporation using a 2.4.0 kernel release has the means to hire enough developers to keep a whole Linux distro up to date? Think about it for a second. That's the problem with a lot of the open source advocates: most people don't have the means to maintain stuff by themselves.

Re:no.

[Anonymous Coward]

So here is your big wake-up call. If you don't do something about the future guess what is gonna happen?

The big wake up call is that anybody not willing to continue to provide full support to a 13 year old OS version should be avoided? Got it. Now checking current official Apple support for Mac OS 9.2..., and commercial Linux distro support, bug and security fixes for their 2.4.0 kernel based releases.

Mac OS and Mac OSX are entirely different operating systems.

Re:no.

[neonKow]

You are full of it.

The panty hose thing is silly: there are a million brands of hose you could buy instead if any company tried to create such a scheme for such a cheap and replaceable product.

The XP thing is also nothing like panty hose. Your copy of XP doesn't "wear out" more quickly because something MS did. It doesn't rely on servers like Halo. You're complaining that something that MS is no longer doing something that costs lots of money (writing patches for an old OS to keep it secure) for little benefit (XP's architecture was create in a different era of computing and at this point cannot be made meaningfully secure).

There are no technical reasons to keep XP on life support, but if you want to keep running XP, no one is stopping you. Meanwhile, since XP's release, we've gone through 7+ iterations of Moore's law and there's no way to make XP keep up. This is not planned obsolescence. Stop being stupid.

Re:No.

[neonKow]

Then you should read up on it and be surprised?

Re:no.

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't hire the developer unless you're wealthy. This argument is old and so is my rebuttal.

The "advantage" of Linux in this case is that you're at the mercy of what's popular, as opposed to XP where you're at the mercy of MS. The perception is that popularity is somehow less capricious than MS. I'm not so sure of that.

Re:no.

[dcw3]

valuable intellectual property can include trade secrets, and those were likely carried forward into later versions of the OS. You don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Re:No.

[perryizgr8]

you should probably read up on these:
1. ASLR
2. UAC
3. BitLocker
4. Kernel patch protection
5. Better process and service sandboxing

Re:no.

[cbhacking]

Oh, bullshit. XP isn't a single monolithic and atomic (indivisible) entity. Microsoft has no further commercial interest in the particular combination of executable binaries, resource files, patents, and support obligations which, when combined, make up Windows XP. That doesn't mean "no... interest in XP whatsoever" at all.

Win7, Win8, WP8, and Windows RT are all based on the same kernel and user-space as XP. Presumably you agree that Microsoft can, with a "strait[sic] face", claim that those products contain "valuable intellectual property", right? Well, some of that valuable IP is also in XP. You cannot, with a straight face, reasonably claim that Microsoft has no further commercial interest in NT-based operating systems, can you?

If at some future point they completely drop Windows-as-we-know-it - the kernel, the subsystems, the shell, the libraries, the tools and utilities, etc. - then you can make that claim. Right now, they still have a lot to lose if they release that IP.

As for begging, I'm sure MS would happily sell you an XP copy if you could completely absolve them of all responsibility for it. That means not only remove their responsibility to maintain it (which, incidentally, you *can* pay them enough to do... it's just hideously expensive) but also to test compatibility and attach their reputation to its behavior. XP is substantially less secure than newer Windows versions, lacking important security features which have been standard for over five years now; if you buy XP and then get pwned, that reflects poorly on MS (especially if the news is publicized). How much are you willing to pay them to account for those kinds of risks?

Re:no.

[sjames]

I'm merely contemplating a few factors that might one day contribute to new law. It could easily justify required (though limited) continuing support to prevent XP becoming a nuisance (more then it already is). Part of the reason a few are clinging tenaciously to XP is that they fell into the lock-in trap exactly as MS intended. It's not the user's fault that MS went so overboard on the lock-in that even a newer version of MS software was incompatible.

It's a bit odd all around. Consider, the need for continuing patches indicates that even now, 14 years later, they have yet to fix all of the design defects. If not for that failure, XP would remain a dated but viable choice even without MS support. I do realize that we don't really know how to design bug free software, so any OS is likely to contain unfixed bugs, I just question that a vendor should benefit from it's own defects.

OTOH, MS is not exclusively at fault for the hard place some users are in. Surely the manufacturers of fantastically expensive equipment bear some responsibility to provide a reasonable path to maintain that equipment past XP's EOL. Old analog only TVs have seem better support than some of these $100K to $millions hardware in some cases.

Re:No.

[cbhacking]

Wow, you have *no* fucking idea what you're talking about, do you?

Let's see... there is simply nothing equivalent to the Mandatory Integrity Control system in NT versions before 6.0 (Vista/Server 2008). You can't build that on top of the existing ACL system, because the existing ACL system didn't support anything that behaves that way. ASLR is a major change in the way processes start and load libraries. The "split token" model for UAC - where the same account can usually be a non-Admin but sometimes be an Admin without actually changing to a different user - is also completely new and wasn't possible before, because that kind of group membership used to be tied to the user's identity.

Then there's all the tons of other stuff that changed. One good example is the removal of the global scheduler lock, which substantially improves performance on machines with multiple hardware threads when making frequent context switches (as desktop OSes often do). The switch to user-mode drivers for most things - including video drivers, which were one of the primary causes of BSODs on XP - is another big deal; the video driver model of XP requires kernel-mode drivers and it was a major effort to re-architect the driver model so that the kernel could simply restart a crashed video driver. Full IPv6 support required substantial changes to the network driver interface.

The fact that the ABI hasn't changed *more* is a testament to Microsoft's backward compatibility efforts - usually in the form of leaving legacy interfaces in place for legacy code to use, but deprecating them for new code - but it has definitely changed. Leaving aside the stuff that is purely additions to the ABI, you still have things like the updated NDIS requirement causing some legacy WiFi drivers to be unable to get IP addresses, and the removal of the XP video driver model in Win8+ makes anything pre-WDDM incompatible at the binary level.

Re:no.

[sjames]

Sure, but those new versions have updated code that wouldn't need releasing until they declare an end to commercial interest.

Re:No.

[cbhacking]

*MOST* of that is because the software expects to be running as Admin all the time. The vast majority of general use software can be coaxed into working on NT 6.x, sometimes just by changing ACLs on things that it wants access to (like being able to write to its home directory). Of course, to most people, if they double-click the icon which the installer put on their desktop and it doesn't work just like that, then "it doesn't work" and they complain.

With that said, there's definitely other stuff that changed. Older Windows versions allowed opening block devices directly if you have enough permissions, while newer versions require an extra call into the driver to enable a given user-mode process to do so. There have been some similar changes to low-level access to hardware, especially legacy hardware interfaces, in other places too..

Re:no.

[sjames]

Minor quibble, MS doesn't 'keep' XP secure by writing new patches, they fix defects in the product. Some were there from day one, some were introduced when MS decided to update something. If XP was free of defects, it would never need security patches. (Admittedly, we don't know how to produce non-trivial software without defects).

Re:no.

[Anonymous Coward]

I belie that refers to first party/direct sales not third party sales. Otherwise ford would still have to stock model T parts as collectors still occassionally sell them.

Re:no.

[sjames]

So you're saying the kernel and user space in XP is the same as in Win7 but Win7 is secure and XP isn't? Seems to me a lot of things must have changed between XP and Win7.

As for a copy of XP, as long as it has all of the patches, it is more secure right now than it was when they were actively licensing it.

Re:no.

[Darinbob]

But Windows XP support being removed is also about creating artificial scarcity in a way, scarcity that forces customers to move to newer/expensive replacements, as opposed to scarcity to drive up part prices.

Re:no.

[FlyHelicopters]

Something to consider... it isn't that XP is now 13 years old and they have "yet to fix all the bugs", the fact is, XP SP3 is not really the same OS as XP RTM.

So a lot of new features were added over the years, many of those have added bugs and security problems. SP2 really could have been a new OS, give it a new coat of paint and call it Vista and it would have sold. MS is not given enough credit for all the feature updates over the years they have given away for free.

Another point... the more people demand "support", the more MS might decide that future OSs only come with three years of patches and after that are $19 a year to continue to update.

Would everyone prefer *that* solution?

Re:No.

[Darinbob]

2K was not an upgrade for 98SE. Windows 2000 was essentially Windows NT 5 and intended for the commercial market, whereas 98 was intended for home users. Just from a pricing perspective, W2K was too expensive for casual home use. 98SE+2K were sort of merged to become XP.

Re:no.

[sjames]

If that $19/year would give them a smooth gradual transition and keep them in the current OS, they might actually prefer that.

Re:no.

[FlyHelicopters]

More likely, that $19/year would get them the "current or last generation OS".

So they could have stayed on XP during the Vista years, but 7 would have been a required upgrade as XP would have gone away when 7 came out.

Likewise, staying on 7 would be fine, 8 is optional, but 9 will be required (or at least move to 8.

Keep in mind that "support" might well be giving everyone still running XP a free copy of Vista.

Would that make everyone happy?

Re:no.

[sjames]

If it retains compatibility, that would be fine.

Re:no.

[FlyHelicopters]

There is never any assurance that updates or service packs will do that.

SP2 broke a few things when it came out, most of which were quickly fixed. Some special software not only demands XP, but a specific version of XP, such as SP1.

So Vista or XP SP3 are both incompatible, the problem is third party software companies that are stuck in time and refuse to update anything.

Re:no.

[sjames]

And there's the problem. The third parties should update but won't, MS should enable self-help but won't.

I'm guessing none of this came up in the respective marketing department's TCO figures.

Re:No.

[Christian Smith]

Wow, you have *no* fucking idea what you're talking about, do you?

Maybe not....

Let's see... there is simply nothing equivalent to the Mandatory Integrity Control system in NT versions before 6.0 (Vista/Server 2008). You can't build that on top of the existing ACL system, because the existing ACL system didn't support anything that behaves that way.

The ACL system was a user space component? I'm not overley familiar with how security is implemented in NT as well as later Windows, but doesn't the application say "I want to do this" and the response is either OK or not? The application doesn't give a hoot how that decision is implemented. It's allowed or denied.

ASLR is a major change in the way processes start and load libraries.

You're kidding, right? ASLR is a change in the how the loader chooses a base address. The loader in XP already has to be able to handle relocations in DLLs. ASLR is an extension of that.

The "split token" model for UAC - where the same account can usually be a non-Admin but sometimes be an Admin without actually changing to a different user - is also completely new and wasn't possible before, because that kind of group membership used to be tied to the user's identity.

A neat feature, but again, does this require changes in the API/ABI? Or is it just implemented in the background. Anything that operates as a black box, *should* be relative simple to change.

Then there's all the tons of other stuff that changed. One good example is the removal of the global scheduler lock, which substantially improves performance on machines with multiple hardware threads when making frequent context switches (as desktop OSes often do).

Implementation detail. The Linux kernel did a similar change between 2.4 and 2.6, but it had zero impact from an API/ABI point of view.

The switch to user-mode drivers for most things - including video drivers, which were one of the primary causes of BSODs on XP - is another big deal; the video driver model of XP requires kernel-mode drivers and it was a major effort to re-architect the driver model so that the kernel could simply restart a crashed video driver.

User mode drivers are available for WinXP too:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-u...

But perhaps not for video drivers. I haven't checked.

Full IPv6 support required substantial changes to the network driver interface.

What? IPv6 sends ethernet packets differently to IPv4 packets?

Does that also mean WinXP doesn't have full IPv6 support? Perhaps not. Can it not support IPv6? I doubt it.

The fact that the ABI hasn't changed *more* is a testament to Microsoft's backward compatibility efforts - usually in the form of leaving legacy interfaces in place for legacy code to use, but deprecating them for new code - but it has definitely changed. Leaving aside the stuff that is purely additions to the ABI, you still have things like the updated NDIS requirement causing some legacy WiFi drivers to be unable to get IP addresses, and the removal of the XP video driver model in Win8+ makes anything pre-WDDM incompatible at the binary level.

Most of the work in security patching apears to be in the user level components. Things like .NET updates, browser updates, Silverlight updates. These transcend the Windows versions, and don't rely on any changes in driver models and such like.

Kernel level updates are usually bug fixes in things like standard drivers. Sure, a driver bug could open a privilege escalation hole, but access to the machine is required first, and that usually comes from attacking the user space components or duping the user into running a trojan.

All the stuff you listed is

Re:No.

[qubezz]

The main reason so much needs to be rewritten and the reason that new drivers were required on Windows Vista (making it's initial release a fustercluck) is that big media got to Microsoft.

Vista, 7, and 8 have end-to-end DRM encryption support, required for logo compliance with Blu-ray, where the data comes out of the disc encrypted, and goes to the monitor encrypted. The DRM audio comes from Microsoft encrypted, and only comes out of your Zune's headphone jack unencrypted. This fundamentally broke the audio framework, digital audio workstations, video card drivers, imaging devices, etc, because none of these drivers or applications were previously written to prevent users from using data on their own computers.

Re:no.

[Bacon Bits]

It's a little hard to call it 'valuable intellectual property' with a strait face when they refuse to derive any value from it.

No it isn't. It's a revised and ongoing work. They own the old version 5.1 (Win XP) and the new version 6.3 (Win 8.1). They both have much of the same code in them. So by selling the new version, they're still deriving value from the old version. If you want to buy Windows, MS will sell you a recent version containing much of the same code that was available in Windows XP.

Re:No.

[FaxeTheCat]

I can still use the sound editing software (same binaries) I used on Windows 2000 and which was written pre XP.
I have used it on both Windows Vista and 7 (Cool Edit 2000 and Cool Edit Pro - not available anymore).
So new sound drivers do not break the end user software.
Missing DRM support in the driver only means you cannot use protected media. Very little business software (pretty much none) use multimedia.

Re:no.

[sjames]

The old version of a current work isn't necessarily all that valuable.

Re:no.

[servant]

So I guess opening the source for 'public use' isn't enough?

Personally, I think since they EOL'ed it years ago and have kept (under corporate customer pressure mainly) extending its life, it should be allowed to die, or live as an 'open' project. Toss a million at it to start a foundation, give the foundation full rights for whatever and let it fly 'free from continuing Microsoft Support'.

But that is just my idea of what is 'right'.

Re:No.

[Anonymous Coward]

such hostility

Depends

[fredprado]

Microsoft or any software company should be forced to provide full support for their commercial products for as long as they hold copyright over them.

Re:Depends

[Maxo-Texas]

I like this concept.

However, it would probably drive the companies bankrupt.

(Imagine supporting win 3.1, win 98, win me, win nt, win vista, win xp, win 7, and win 8 all at the same time because they share copyrighted code.

Re:Depends

[TubeSteak]

For corporations, copyright lasts 110 years.
That strikes me as unreasonable.

Yes, both the length of the copyright and requiring someone to provide support for that long.

Re:Depends

[hawguy]

I like this concept.

However, it would probably drive the companies bankrupt.

(Imagine supporting win 3.1, win 98, win me, win nt, win vista, win xp, win 7, and win 8 all at the same time because they share copyrighted code.

Well, they could sign away the copyright and release the source code for any software they no longer want to support.

Re:Depends

[buybuydandavis]

Let them be let off the requirement to support (excepting for other contractual arrangements) when they relinquish copyright.

Re:Depends

[Cenan]

Well, then don't release a "new" system every other year. There is no reason we all couldn't still be on Windows 3.11.7000, except MS renamed it and sold it again and again and again.

Re:Depends

[Cenan]

Relinquish copyright on the product and the problem is solved. Release the source and there is no problem.

Re:Depends

[mysidia]

However, it would probably drive the companies bankrupt.

It should suffice to retain copyright but make publicly available: complete machine-readable compilable corresponding source code, with a grant of permission for any third party to publish patches, compile binaries, and redistribute them after taking reasonable steps to ensure they distribute them only to lawful possessors of a copy of the original software.

Re:Depends

[sjames]

All they have to do is formally release the source into the public domain. That would end their obligation.

Re:Depends

[Opportunist]

Great, that way they would still have to support XP for all those that didn't want to upgrade and we didn't have that argument now in the first place.

Re:Depends

[Opportunist]

Gladly. Know a company that would gimme support for XP? Preferably not MS, they're kind expensive, or so I heard from the UK.

Re:Depends

[hardtofindanick]

Unless fredprado steps up and explains why copyright should be linked to support this comment is not insightful 5.

Re:Depends

[master5o1]

Confusion over mixed copyright ownership.

Re:Depends

[dcollins117]

Oh, did you PAY for a decade of support when you bought win xp? No you paid only for the product - as is.

What we paid for was quality software, but that's not what we got.Long term support s not such a burden if the product works well in the first place.

Re:Depends

[MouseTheLuckyDog]

Actually, consumer protection laws would say different. After all these are not upgrades we are talking about. These are repairs to existing defects.

Re:Depends

[FlyHelicopters]

That is a nice idea...

Two problems:

1. Define "full support"? There is a lot of wiggle room in that.

2. Using that rule, MS would have to support MS DOS 1.0. Ok, fine, on what hardware? Running what programs? Exactly what is "full support" for MS DOS 1.0?

Re:Depends

[FlyHelicopters]

Microsoft likely does not own the copyright to everything that is in the Windows XP source code.

Just like Apple licensed the Rosetta software from another companies, MS has stuff in there that they didn't write.

It isn't MS's to release.

Nice idea, but the issue is FAR more complex than that.

Re:Depends

[FlyHelicopters]

Another way to look at it...

Lets say that you force MS to provide updates and support.

What can they charge for this? Car companies have to provide parts and service for 10 years, but they don't have to do it for free.

MS could simply raise the price of support each year until it becomes insane.

Re:Depends

[Anonymous Coward]

This actually sounds like the best idea to me.
This way once there will be some incentive to either reduce copyright length, or at least give up copyright on things that don't make money any more.

Re:Depends

[Kaenneth]

Because no new exploits that require immediate patches, with no central authority to distribute said patches, would be found in that released source code...

Re:Depends

[Hategrin]

Copyleft as well!

I'm sure the entire FOSS community would love providing security fixes for the 1.x.x releases of the Linux kernel and/or every little fringe peice of GPL software that may or may not even be used by any members of the public, you know, just to avoid staying out of jail.

Please Guberment Windows 8 is so much better than Linux you have to do something to make Microsoft release their sources so that we can stop sucking and add it all to gnu/wine!

Re:Depends

[gnasher719]

Actually, consumer protection laws would say different. After all these are not upgrades we are talking about. These are repairs to existing defects.

You are simplifying too much. In UK consumer law for example, a product isn't required to be free of defects - it must be of sufficient quality to be sold. If there is a bug that nobody has noticed for ten years, you can't really argue that this makes the product "not good enough to be sold".

Re:Depends

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really. They could simply write a check to the copyright holders to release any claims for those specific versions used in XP. There's maybe a few dozen at most and since the components are certainly obsolete by now, it shouldn't be a big deal.

Re:Depends

[deimtee]

Then they document all released code, labelling it as either released by Microsoft or owned by $third_party.
If $third_party wants to enforce their copyright, then $third_party becomes liable for its maintenance.

Re:Depends

[Lawrence_Bird]

Are you making the same argument of authors? Must they make and publish corrected editions for as long as their work is under copyright? Will they then also publish a redaction edition too if said work becomes outdated or is determined to be wrong (in the case of non-fiction)?

Re:Depends

[VortexCortex]

Microsoft or any software company should be forced to provide full support for their commercial products for as long as they hold copyright over them.

That's retarding you idiot. It would put open source contract coders out of business.

Re:Depends

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, they could sign away the copyright and release the source code for any software they no longer want to support.
 
Except they can't.
 
How many times does this dead horse have to be beaten around Slashdot before people get it through their thick skulls: Windows is not solely a MS product. There are plenty of licensed technologies that are part of the source code that MS has no right to publish. MS cannot legally publish extensive source code on just about any of their commercial offerings even if they wanted to.
 
It's 2014. Get over it.
 
Oh, and BTW, if you really support this bullshit then I want Google, NetFlix and Motorola to support streaming on my first generation Droid. After all, they published software and produced the hardware. I want support NOW!!
 
Oh, that's right, they're not the terrible Micro$oft so they get a pass even though they didn't support me while the product was still being offered at a premium rate.

Re:Depends

[fredprado]

But it is simple. Forget the source code. Just sign out any claim they have over the copyright and let the others who do not want to sign out take the liability.

Re:Depends

[MouseTheLuckyDog]

Actually the best example is the kryptonite lock program. When they discovered the flaw they replaced all locks, with the ball mechanism. Even those that went back more then ten years.

Re:Depends

[fredprado]

At your orders, my good sir. Copyright is an artificial restriction imposed by the government to protect the developer. It has its reasons to be, but like all rules imposed by law a balance should be met between the good and the harm it does.

Copyright was never meant to be used as a means to make a product or service unavailable. Quite the opposite. If a company decides to sabotage their own product by either refusing to sell it, making it prohibitively expensive or denying support and forbidding others from providing this support it should lose this right.

Re:Depends

[fredprado]

They could just give up on the copyright of those products that are not their interest to support anymore.

Re:Depends

[fredprado]

That is why I told "commercial" products, as in things they sold to people.

Re:Depends

[fredprado]

Sure. In any sane world if you sell a book with any critical error, like a chapter missing for example, you should have the obligation to provide a fixed version to the customer or to give him his money back, and I personally like the obligation to fix factual mistakes any time in the future as long as they hold copyright too. Copyright is a privilege given by society and it should come with adequate responsibilities to society.

Same logic applies to security patches for OS.

Re:Depends

[fredprado]

No, it wouldn't. Unless they sell their products, then yes, they would be forced to give support for as long as they decide to hold the copyleft. That is not a problem as copyleft is a reaction to copyright and this solution would make far more to control copyright than copyleft ever could.

Re:Depends

[LordLimecat]

Windows 2000 / XP are completely different and ground-up rewrites compared to 3.11. 2000 is based on the NT kernel, 3.11 is not.

Re:Depends

[Anonymous Coward]

Long term support s not such a burden if the product works well in the first place.

Which is this magical several million line OS code base that has never needed patching? Certainly not any shit that Linux distros shovel these days. I have a Linux on my laptop that I need for work and there is some piece or the other thats getting patched every goddamn week. Why cant they just write it properly ?

Re:Depends

[Merk42]

Except for the part that some of the code in XP isn't Microsoft's to relinquish.

Re:Depends

[CauseBy]

Agreed. This is the answer. Copyright should depend on your willingness to sell the work and to support it if it is the kind of thing that requires support. You could easily escape the sale/support requirements by releasing the copyright. Done; you and GP are the winners of this discussion. Someone turn out the lights, because this thread is finished.

Re:Depends

[CauseBy]

Correct. And the reason all that is correct is because that is what is best for the most people, which is the entire point of democracy and the entire point of copyright.

Re:Depends

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the result will not be the release of source code. A lapse in copyright does not mean you have to release your source code.

What this would do is provide MS with an even stronger incentive to build their software in such a way that it becomes completely crippled when they're done supporting it. Then you'll be free to copy the crippled software to your heart's content, whatever good that does you. You'll also be free to modify it to re-enable it... but good luck doing that without the source code.

Re:Depends

[avandesande]

Or maybe you could write them a check. See how easy that is!

Re:Depends

[dcw3]

This would force the breakup of what's included in an OS. While some parts become obsolete, others carry forward into future OSs. So, should they be required to release all of those trade secrets? And, for the sake of this discussion, let's please not get into the "all trade secrets are evil", "give them all away" argument.

Re:Depends

[dcw3]

If the product was not suitable for use when you purchased it, why did you wait until now to complain?

Re:Depends

[sjames]

I'm sure there would be, but at that point, 3rd party support is possible and since it would be in the public domain, anyone could distribute patches.

Re:Depends

[Anonymous Coward]

For corporations, copyright lasts 110 years.

You're right. Copyright lasting 110 years is extremely unreasonable.

Re:Depends

[Hognoxious]

Yup sirree. If they ain't gonna piss they should get off the goddam pot.

Re:Depends

[Kaenneth]

And, on the downside, anyone could distribute patches.

Re:Depends

[FlyHelicopters]

Yes, they could... but giving up the copyright and releasing the source are NOT the same thing...

Right now you can go copy MS DOS 1.0, and while that is copyright infringement, I doubt MS really cares unless you try to make money from it.

But having a "free" copy of MS DOS 1.0 or Windows XP doesn't fix any security holes in it, now does it?

Re:Depends

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet dollars to donuts all iterations of Microsoft OSes past xp (and prior) share the same 'source code', and not just a small part, a significantly large enough part that each OS upgrade is just that, a bolt on extension. That much is evident in all their 'software' product lines. Code reuse is rampant in their core os technologies and I seriously doubt they would ever 'open source' it.
What's to keep the monkeys from coming back for more?

Re:Depends

[fredprado]

No it does not automatically fix it, but it does allow anyone who wants to try and fix it, for any reason, to do it. On the other hand, as it is today, if anyone tries to start to charge in order to support XP, he would be automatically sued by MS, and the same would happen if by any means they felt that you, by some miracle, made enough money with MSDOS 1.0 to be worth their attention.

An Alternative Law

[l0ungeb0y]

Personally, I think they are going about this the wrong way. The Gov't should be sending Death Squads to kill all members of any household still running XP, or running any version of IE less than 10. Brutal? Maybe. But, boy will it do wonders for the social lives of us Web Developers.

Re:An Alternative Law

[hawguy]

Personally, I think they are going about this the wrong way. The Gov't should be sending Death Squads to kill all members of any household still running XP, or running any version of IE less than 10. Brutal? Maybe. But, boy will it do wonders for the social lives of us Web Developers.

Of course, it would also put a lot of web designers out of a job if they no longer need to spend hours working around quirks in older browsers, so be careful what you ask for.

Re:An Alternative Law

[tlambert]

Personally, I think they are going about this the wrong way. The Gov't should be sending Death Squads to kill all members of any household still running XP, or running any version of IE less than 10. Brutal? Maybe. But, boy will it do wonders for the social lives of us Web Developers.

I might agree, if the versions of IE eligible for that treatment also included greater than or equal to 10...

Re:An Alternative Law

[Tablizer]

Gov't should be sending Death Squads to kill all members of any household still running [old stuff]

War on the Poor. Lovely, Mitt.

In many cases you have to buy new hardware to upgrade.

Re:An Alternative Law

[Richard_at_work]

We still have to work around issues in newer browsers, and not just IE either :(

Re:An Alternative Law

[Anonymous Coward]

Because customers would rather spend their budget on quirks than features?

Re:An Alternative Law

[neonKow]

Don't worry. Mobile browsers and tablets solved this for us. We used to charge you extra so that you site would work on 600x400 pixel screens. Now it's for 400x600 pixel screens instead. In a few years, we'll have you convinced that your site needs to work with 20x600 px columns (thanks to wraparound displays from Samsung and Apple: http://www.patentlyapple.com/p...), and on wearable t-shirts.

Re:An Alternative Law

[Anonymous Coward]

or running any version of IE less than 10.

You know, MSIE 9 is the latest version of IE available for Windows NT 6.0 aka "Vista" aka "Server 2008".

No.

[epyT-R]

It would be nice if they moved it to public domain and released source. However, I think limiting copyright would be good enough. Then they'd have to offer something better than free xp if they want more money. This upgrade treadmill the software industry has everyone on motivates them to do exactly nothing beneficial to the users giving them money.

Wake up and succeed

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a damn business opportunity for anyone with business sense.

No

[scream at the sky]

It's 12 years old for crying out loud, let it die.

That's like arguing that Nokia should still be providing support and software upgrades for the 6100.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...

Re:No

[Rollgunner]

It might be a sound argument if 27% of the world's cellphones were Nokia 6100s (the estimated percentage of the world's computers still running XP).

Re:No

[Opportunist]

You can actually still get parts for old Nokia phones. Not from Nokia, of course...

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

It's 12 years old for crying out loud, let it die.
That's like arguing that Nokia should still be providing support and software upgrades for the 6100.

Open source it. Support provided. Done.

If you can't compete with the previous generations of your own product that's your own problem.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

May I install my latest "security" "patch" to your XP? ^_^

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

It might be a sound argument if 27% of the world's cellphones were Nokia 6100s (the estimated percentage of the world's computers still running XP).

Of course, most of those machines have pirated copies of XP on them. Should Microsoft be required to support pirates?

Re:No

[sjbe]

It's 12 years old for crying out loud, let it die.

Why? Works fine for me. Why should I spend money "upgrading" to something that will provide me zero tangible benefits that I don't already have? The fact that it is relatively old is irrelevant and Microsoft's bottom line is something I could not be less concerned about.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

Think about who you are asking.

This is a group who have an almost irrational hatred of Microsoft, and who would push for some horrible laws without any appreciation of the potential consequences just to punish them.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it? last i remember 2 or 3 years ago it was sold NEW in netbooks and those little Atom boxen...

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

Then live with the fact that you will no longer be receiving support.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

So because you are able to develop and sell a successful long term product you should be required by law to support it, while someone who builds something that doesn't happen to last as long should not be?

Great incentive there for people to develop something that only works for a few years before it's obsolete.

Re:No

[CauseBy]

What do you think is the threshold for such a requirement? I'd propose, oh, something like about five percent.

Re:No

[dcw3]

It might be a sound argument if 27% of the world's cellphones were Nokia 6100s (the estimated percentage of the world's computers still running XP).

It's still a sound argument. Nobody paid for a lifetime guarantee or support when they purchased these products. Stuff gets old, worn out, obsolete, etc. Suck it up, and stop blaming the OEM because you're too cheap, lazy, or stupid to upgrade.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

Please tell me which FOSS project was created in 2001 where that very version is still supported to this day. "FOSS" is not some panacea that means support forever.

Re:No

[hazee]

Who cares when it was first released?

Surely it's more relevant that they were still selling it up to just over 3 years ago?

Re:No

[Darinbob]

It is not 12 years old. It was last sold as a fully supported operating system on new computers only 4 to 5 years ago. Next up, is MacOS over 30 years old because it's BSD, or how old is the Ford Mustang?

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

who modded up the parent ?! the analogy is downright stupid, and misses the critical core: how many commercial enterprises and critical infrastructure are still dependent on the nokia 6100? scream at the sky, use that thing between your ears!

sure

[Anonymous Coward]

just look around the internet afte rit goes EOL. too many systems run windows xp embedded CNCs atms etc..

Re:sure

[FaxeTheCat]

Windows embedded is still supported.

Re:sure

[kyrsjo]

A lot of these systems are built as a normal PC controlling some expensive piece of hardware, possibly via a specialized interface board which is only supported on XP/Win9x/DOS/whatever.

Many of these systems will be running 10-15 years from now, disconnected from the internet, with a pile of dusty old PC's (with winXP/whatever installed) as spares in the backroom.

Car analogy

[NoKaOi]

I'm trying to come up a car analogy for this. Is it like typical manufacturers defects, where it can be fixed under warranty for a limited number of years, or is it like a safety recall, where there is no expiration?

Re:Car analogy

[Opportunist]

It's where some third party company pumps out spare parts and addons long after the original maker of the car stopped supplying anything. It's not so uncommon actually, considering there are quite a few car enthusiasts that enjoy modifying and remodeling their cars. There's a whole industry that does nothing but that, actually.

Re:Car analogy

[MouseTheLuckyDog]

Can anyone say Stingray, just to name one model.

Re:Car analogy

[FlyHelicopters]

Not true about the safety recall thing.

That law is 10 years, except in rare cases.

After all, you don't hear about recalls of 1970s cars anymore, do you?

Also, recalls are done for safety related things, in other words, stuff that CAN KILL YOU.

Windows XP isn't going to kill you, even if it gets infected or crashes. So the whole "defect" thing is way over blown.

Re:Car analogy

[gsslay]

And if Windows XP is running my kidney dialysis, or controlling my nuclear power station?

Re:Car analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

It's where a car comes free with a set of tires if you buy road hazard protection (actual cost to tire company: $14) and then we place extraordinary demands on the car manufacturer to document and disclose everything, expecting it'll stay a $14 car.

Look, there were dozens of open source operating systems anybody could have bought and used instead of XP in 2001. They made a choice where the limitations were easy to understand (had they bothered) and now, trying to force a company to go against its business model 15 years later due to laziness is, well, laziness.

Re:Car analogy

[coofercat]

How about the Microsoft Engine XP gets designed into a variety of cheap cars and some specialist vehicles like combine harvesters, diggers, the 'crawler' that Nasa use to move rockets and a few others). Since most of those vehicles weren't galvanised, they've all got so rusty that nearly all of them have been replaced with new cars (some of which has Microsoft Engine 7, but some have Apple or Linux engines of various types).

The problem now becomes that there are a few old vehicles still running the Microsoft Engine. Their owners have taken good care of them, so they're not rusty and they're still road-legal. However, they don't have all the fancy lane guidance, GPS and airbags of their more modern counterparts. That means they're more dangerous if they are involved in an accident, but otherwise much the same as their modern counterparts if they aren't. The roads are getting busier though, and the chances of anyone being in an accident have gone up (although it's unclear if you're more likely to be in a bad accident, or just a bump/scratch type incident).

How long should Microsoft be required to supply spare parts for the old Microsoft Engine XP? Good question... and should the car makers that decided to put Microsoft Engine XP be required to stock parts if Microsoft decide to stop doing so? If so, how long for? Lastly, who pays for all this? After all, Microsoft gave parts for their engine away for free in the early days, and you could buy a contract to give you parts for free after that. Now who should do what in all this?

Re:Car analogy

[almitydave]

Then you'll have a backup plan for failure scenarios, and most certainly will not allow the OS access to the internet. Or you're crazy/suicidal and are fine with the consequences.

Re:Car analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

It's where some third party company pumps out spare parts and addons long after the original maker of the car stopped supplying anything. It's not so uncommon actually, considering there are quite a few car enthusiasts that enjoy modifying and remodeling their cars. There's a whole industry that does nothing but that, actually.

Not entirely accurate.

It's more analogous to requiring that the car manufacturers (at their own cost) provide advisors to help any competitor who wants to set up a factory to build parts for any of their discontinued lines of cars.

Re:Car analogy

[Jumunquo]

Same as if you're using that 1970s car to transport that kidney or as a electric generator for your nuclear power station - you sign a support contract w/ the manufacturer to cover that, or you're out in the cold.

But realistically speaking, you could just keep using XP. If you're not surfing the 'net on IE w/ it, then most of those security updates don't even do anything for you.

Re:Car analogy

[FlyHelicopters]

It is against the EULA to run Windows XP for either of those tasks, so you shouldn't be doing either anyway.

The EULA specifically states that XP should not be used for such mission critical applications.

Windows XP Embedded is for that, and MS is still supporting that and the contracts for that are written differently than the consumer version.

Microsoft has gone above and beyond...

[Antony T Curtis]

No other publicly available product has ever had such a long support duration as Windows XP has had.

Microsoft should be under no further obligation to its customers with respect to Windows XP.

However, if individual customers are willing to _pay_ a subscription for further support from Microsoft, they should be allowed to do so.

Re:Microsoft has gone above and beyond...

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is exactly what people proposes. The possibility to pay to get extended support for a product. If not from the original manufacturer, then from a third party which shall get what is needed fom the original manufacturer the day they decides to definitely drop support.

You might agree with this or not, but no one said Microsoft should give support away for free indefinitely.

Re:Microsoft has gone above and beyond...

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft will sell you extended support... last I checked they STILL were selling extend support for IE6. Its going to be expensive... but that's great IMO its holding back the internet and windows devs everywhere.

Re:Microsoft has gone above and beyond...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong.. check out IRIX.

Re:Microsoft has gone above and beyond...

[Lawrence_Bird]

SGI Support of MIPS® IRIX® Products Changes December 2013

As of December 31st, 2013, SGI will move IRIX products support from Maintenance Mode to Retired Mode.

Retired Mode
Technical phone support is available to honor existing support obligation, but only known bug fixes and workarounds are provided. No new development, maintenance, or security fixes are provided by SGI. Product media and/or downloads remain available through the support organization. Software is no longer available for sale, and support contracts cannot be renewed (see exception for IRIX above).

BTW - tell us how long SGI provided free support to all users of IRIX?

For certain Software, SGI will provide limited telephone support for a period of ninety (90) days. Telephone technical support will include available Software patches and Software workarounds and generally available fixes to common SGI Software issues; however, such support shall not include consulting services or any other software development. Software updates are not included. This support applies only to operating systems preinstalled by SGI.

So guess if you dumped a ton of dough on some SGI hardware you would get "free" IRIX updates. That is analagous to Windows XP how?

iPad series 1

[Anonymous Coward]

I have an iPad series one that cannot be upgraded or any software updated, it is now a brick with Angry birds on.

Why?
Apple have forced all app developers to only release code that supports later iOS 6/7 where the iPAd 1 can only support version 5.

Reason?
Only to obsolete it.

Forget Microsoft force Apple to play the game.

Re:iPad series 1

[Opportunist]

Why only force one of them?

Re:iPad series 1

[Anonymous Coward]

As an iPad 1 owner I was disappointed too by that move, but look on the plus side: did you really want to find out how slooooooow iOS 6, never mind 7, was going to be on that thing?

Re:iPad series 1

[noh8rz10]

How is it a brick? Does it still surf the web and do email and all that other stuff it did straight out of the box?

Microsoft still provide support for Windows XP

[FaxeTheCat]

The case is based on false assumptions.
Microsoft still provide support for Windows XP to those who are willig to pay for it: http://arstechnica.com/informa...
Case closed.

Re:Microsoft still provide support for Windows XP

[SeaFox]

Please link me to the page where I can sign my mom up for this extended support for XP. I'm sure she'd be willing to pay a nominal fee.

Her Microsoft Security Essentials is now trying to spook her into upgrading too, by becoming a System Tray-based reminder that XP support is about to end.
I'm waiting for her to crack so I can move her over to Linux Mint/Cinnamon.

Re:Microsoft still provide support for Windows XP

[bemymonkey]

But why wouldn't Microsoft release security updates for XP if they're going to developing them anyway? Hell, I know some people who'd probably be willing to pay $100 a year (privately) to not have to go through the motions of upgrading to Win7.

Re:Microsoft still provide support for Windows XP

[FaxeTheCat]

If she is willing to pay a nominal fee, why not spend that money to upgrade the OS? After all, it seems that you are willing to help move her to Linux (which is not a bad idea), so I guess you could also help her upgrade to Win7 or Win8.1?

Re:Microsoft still provide support for Windows XP

[FaxeTheCat]

Because the point is that they want to stop supporting it. Making users feel the pain for getting upgrades is one way to do it. If the patches are free, the problem continues.
And no, I simply do not believe that people would pay $100 per year for patches to XP. They may say that, but when the bill comes, they will not.

Re:Microsoft still provide support for Windows XP

[Opportunist]

The case would be closed if someone could open up a competing business. Else we're talking a monopoly situation where the monopolist can (and obviously does) charge through the nose.

Extortion is what comes to my mind looking at that business model, not support.

Re:Microsoft still provide support for Windows XP

[NoKaOi]

Please link me to the page where I can sign my mom up for this extended support for XP. I'm sure she'd be willing to pay a nominal fee.

Her Microsoft Security Essentials is now trying to spook her into upgrading too, by becoming a System Tray-based reminder that XP support is about to end.
I'm waiting for her to crack so I can move her over to Linux Mint/Cinnamon.

Your mom likely has no excuse not to upgrade. What essential software is she running that only runs on XP? The only legit reason to not upgrade is if an organization is running old crappy software that only runs on XP and would be too expensive to replace, which unfortunately is pretty damn common, especially software written for large organizations (like medical institutions) whose development was focused on checking off requirements rather than quality. I blame those software vendors, but there's not a lot the organizations can do about it. Many of them make their software crap so that they can make a ton of money off of implementation (to make it do what it should do out of the box anyway), which is why it's often too expensive to upgrade (and that's in situations where the vendor still exists). While it would be easy to blame the bureaucrats who chose that software, in many situations there's just no better alternative, they or their predecessor had to choose between a turd sandwich and a giant douche.

Re:Microsoft still provide support for Windows XP

[FaxeTheCat]

There is no monopoly. There are alternative OSes you can install on the exact same hardware.

Re:Microsoft still provide support for Windows XP

[FaxeTheCat]

In my organization, they have found that most of the XP software will work on Windows 8 32 bit. Thet will not help if there is dedicated hardware, but for a lot of cases, it is simply about testing the software on a new OS.

Re:Microsoft still provide support for Windows XP

[MouseTheLuckyDog]

I thinka KDE variant would be better for someone used to Windows. Though you may have to add on a graphics card depending on how old the machine is.

Re:Microsoft still provide support for Windows XP

[Anonymous Coward]

Why, for the love of Stallman's beard, are people still using 32 bit operating systems?

Re:Microsoft still provide support for Windows XP

[Opportunist]

And those OSs will run all the software I need? Mission-critical software that the existence of my company hinges on?

Before you retort with the obvious, i.e. why I allowed myself to be locked into the dependence on an OS that I have no control over, tell me what the alternatives were. I could have started out on a free OS. That would have entailed, though, that I'd have had to hire a programmer that can develop for this other OS, which would have been quite a bit more expensive some 10 years ago when cross platform libraries (like, say, Qt) were virtually unheard of. And more expensive was out of the question, because competitors did hire people who developed for WinXP, and my choice back then was only to either put my money on WinXP as well or fold right then and there because I could not compete on price, because my customers in turn didn't give a shit what my back office was running on. Why would they?

That is the situation as it is now in many companies. They are locked into XP for good or ill because they simply could not afford to have Linux tools developed. Like it or not, and while the situation has changed considerably in the least decade or so, but a decision for Linux usually meant one for more freedom and flexibility but also higher cost. That Linux doesn't cost anything doesn't mean much. It changed considerably, but 10 years ago it was a higher risk to migrate completely rather than simply going for the next Windows version.

That has even little to do with managers' inability to see past the next quarter report. For many the choice was just "fold now or deal with the consequences later".

Re:Microsoft still provide support for Windows XP

[FlyHelicopters]

If they release them for free, then why would anyone pay for them in the first place?

In addition, they are providing extended support only for very large companies and governments, only because they must maintain those relationships.

It is not in MS's interest to keep XP around for the average user.

If you don't like or agree with this, there is always Apple, they provide decades of support for OS X, right?

Or Linux? After all, 2001 releases of Linux are still supported, right?

Re:Microsoft still provide support for Windows XP

[Kaenneth]

Sadly, I have a high dpi document scanner for which driver support ended with XP.

My TV tuner cards also only worked up through XP, but they have no analog signals to receive now anyway; except I'd like to use them to digitize old VHS tapes.

Re:Microsoft still provide support for Windows XP

[Kaenneth]

4,294,967K should be enough for anybody.

Re:Microsoft still provide support for Windows XP

[gnasher719]

There is no monopoly. There are alternative OSes you can install on the exact same hardware.

Doesn't actually matter, because Microsoft isn't trying to sell Windows XP to anyone.

Re:Microsoft still provide support for Windows XP

[Rockoon]

And those OSs will run all the software I need? Mission-critical software that the existence of my company hinges on?

So its not windows that is the monopoly.... its this other software you insist is too important to part with. You claim that you locked yourself into OS dependencies... no.. quite clearly you just admitted that you locked yourself into being dependent on other non-os software.

Re:Microsoft still provide support for Windows XP

[FaxeTheCat]

In my view, your points do not counter the simple truth: Microsoft do not have a monopoly. We may not like that they stop the support, but the legal avenue of claiming they have a monopoly is a dead end.

Regarding your specific issues:
The majority of XP systems can easily be upgraded to later versions. In the company I work for, only approx 1% of the systems cannot use Win7 64 bit (still a significant number). For these, we use various workarounds and fixes:
- Connect the XP machines on closed networks, behind restricted firewalls, or not on a network at all. Much of the malware out there will need an internet connection to do any harm, so network restrictions will both prevent infection and reduce the impact of any infection.
- Then there are solutions like bit9 which (when properly configured) prevent unauthorized code from running on the system.
- Our company has had good success with Windows 8 32 bit. From what I have been told, most of the software which does not run on Windows 7 64 bit (our standard platform) will run on Windows 8 32 bit.

Re:Microsoft still provide support for Windows XP

[Mike Frett]

You forget Windows isn't designed to run Mission-critical software. Microsoft even makes a point of it. Linux is, after all NASA uses it in the Space Station and id say that's pretty darn critical.

Re:Microsoft still provide support for Windows XP

[Anonymous Coward]

You should have been testing your "mission critical" applications on Windows 7 when it came out and been ready to deploy the update at the end-of-life of Windows XP. It is 100% your own company's fault that they can't upgrade. Stop blaming Microsoft for your own failure to prepare.

Re:Microsoft still provide support for Windows XP

[Trax3001BBS]

4,294,967K should be enough for anybody.

640K ought to be enough for anyone.
http://quoteinvestigator.com/2...

Re:Microsoft still provide support for Windows XP

[Trax3001BBS]

Please link me to the page where I can sign my mom up for this extended support for XP.

As a good sibling you should provide her with the updates that will be available by those willing help out. Reputable third parties, no mention is made of those not recognized as a legitimate company.

Re:Microsoft still provide support for Windows XP

[Anonymous Coward]

That's still not a monopoly, that's just the software vendors deciding to only develop for Windows. Big difference there...

Re:Microsoft still provide support for Windows XP

[mpe]

In my organization, they have found that most of the XP software will work on Windows 8 32 bit. Thet will not help if there is dedicated hardware, but for a lot of cases, it is simply about testing the software on a new OS.

It also depends exactly which software this applies to, Not much help if all of the "trival" is easy to migrate, but the "critical" is difficult/impossible.

Re:Microsoft still provide support for Windows XP

[mr_mischief]

In the US there's a good chance that medical office software mentioned needs to be upgraded by October to deal with ICD-10 anyway. Anyone who does that large of a code change and still won't support a newer operating system than XP needs to not be writing software that stores medical data.

Re:Microsoft still provide support for Windows XP

[adolf]

Sadly, I have a high capacity 8-bit ISA XMS memory expansion card for which driver support ended with MS-DOS.

My Voodoo3 3500TV also only only worked up through XP, but has no analog signals to receive now anyway; except I'd like to use it to digitize old VHS tapes. ...which, while all true, is more-or-less meritless. Nothing stops you (or me) from having an old XP box in the corner, securely disconnected from the network (or just properly firewalled), just in case you want to use some cherished old hardware.

Computers move on. This isn't a new trend. XP is twelve years old. You know what also doesn't work on modern OSs? My Diamond Speedstar 24x video card. (Oh, the humanity!)

And whose fault is this? It's not MSFT's -- they didn't write the drivers to begin with. In the case of the XMS card, I can blame Intel. For the Voodoo3 3500TV, I can blame a mixture of 3dfx and nVidia.

That all said, USB 2.0 NTSC input devices can be very cheap, indeed. Modern scanners tend produce very high-quality output for very few dollars.

Re:Microsoft still provide support for Windows XP

[PPH]

Which is how Microsoft can keep third parties out of the support business.

You might make a valid argument that an orphaned s/w package can legally be reverse engineered for the purpose of support without running afoul of the DMCA and other laws. But as long as Microsoft is still in that business (for a loose definition of 'in'), you'd be violating their IP.

Re:Microsoft still provide support for Windows XP

[cmurf]

This is malfeasance. It's arguably fraud.

From the outset the arrangement was unethical because the government is renting software rather than owning it, which means having full rights to understand, maintain, and modify the source code. But now the government is taking it a step further by convincing Microsoft to be a slum lord, and Microsoft is accepting this status rather than evict the tenant, destroy the dilapidated building, and enable easier migration to proper tenancy adhering to modern standards.

The incompetency required by government legislators and government IT to get into this situation, planned a decade in advance to the apparent dissonance of public decision makers, should be very concerning to the public.

Re:Microsoft still provide support for Windows XP

[jones_supa]

4,294,967K should be enough for anybody.

4 GB is actually 4 * 1024 * 1024 = 4,194,304 kB.

Re:Microsoft still provide support for Windows XP

[FaxeTheCat]

From the outset the arrangement was unethical because the government is renting software rather than owning it, which means having full rights to understand, maintain, and modify the source code

Unless they have a unique arrangement, the software is licensed for use, not rented. Also, if the covernment want it, they may have access to the source code. There have been (and I assume there are) programs for giving large customers access to the source code under NDA. Whether this would give them rights to modify the code is an issue, and even more of an issue is if the government are able to set up an entity which are competent to actually fix the code. Do you think they are? Because if they are not, then why have the code in the first place?

Re:Microsoft still provide support for Windows XP

[FaxeTheCat]

The "trivial" software is moved to Windows 7. The "difficult" software is tested on Win8 32 bit where most of it works. The "impossible" software is kept on XP with the measures I mentioned.

Re:Microsoft still provide support for Windows XP

[Joey Vegetables]

Sorry, but I was doing software development 10 years ago, at which point XP was already several years old, and there were DEFINITELY alternatives to the Microsoft technology stack for rich client development (including but not limited to Qt, Wx, GTK, Python, PostgreSQL, Java, and, very shortly afterward, Mono) and a lot of what we really needed to be future-proof was already being deployed as a Web application on Java servers. All of those alternatives are better, more mature and more mainstream now, but they certainly did exist in 2004.

Now, I knew that XP would not be around forever, because Vista hadn't been, 2000 hadn't been, ME hadn't been, 98 hadn't been, 95 hadn't been, 3.1 hadn't been, and so on and so forth. Win 7/8/8.1 won't be either. I was constrained by my employer's insistence . . . contrary to my own recommendations . . . to develop rich-client software using the Microsoft tool stack almost exclusively. So I did. But I also did what I could, as a conscientious employee, to minimize and isolate dependencies on specific OS and software versions, and to protect the source code (even though our SCC deployments were in their infancy at that time), so there would always be a clear and relatively inexpensive upgrade path.

There certainly were people back then still making IE6-only "Web apps" infested with ActiveX crud. There were still people using VB6 even though it was already known it would not be supported indefinitely and .NET was already in production. There were people who did not make future-proof decisions. And many of them built software that was marginally cheaper to build, or got deployed marginally sooner. But none of that rot lasted. It all died slow, painful, and expensive deaths. The stuff that was built to last, whether by me, or anyone else, generally did. So I'm not buying the excuse of "no better option existed 10 years ago." Many better options did.

Re:Microsoft still provide support for Windows XP

[jbolden]

10 years ago when cross platform libraries (like, say, Qt) were virtually unheard of.

10 year ago Qt was being used for major projects. I was using it in 2001 for security related projects it was so solid. KDE an entire GUI based on Qt was founded in 1996, and on KDE 3 by 2004. GTK+ was 1997. wxWidgets is even older, 1992. Open Interface dates to 1991. MKS which was quite good is from 1994.

  As for being dependent on XP I don't see how that happened because of libraries. I can understand the TCO argument for Windows but that doesn't say anything about XP.

Re:Microsoft still provide support for Windows XP

[Rich0]

Nobody said the fee would be "nominal." For just about anybody the cost to maintain support is going to be less than the cost of just buying a new computer. Companies don't buy extended support because they're too cheap to replace their PCs - they do it as an interim measure to delay having to update internal applications.

Re:Microsoft still provide support for Windows XP

[Hognoxious]

A hundred bucks isn't what I'd call a nominal fee.

Re:Microsoft still provide support for Windows XP

[Anonymous Coward]

...and you won't find support for 2001 versions of that either

Re:Microsoft still provide support for Windows XP

[FaxeTheCat]

Considering that Windows 8 will be supported until 2023, I think it is. If you think it is too much, then there is Linux.

Re:Microsoft still provide support for Windows XP

[Kaenneth]

Awww, how cute, I bet you still think Pluto is a planet as well?

Re:Microsoft still provide support for Windows XP

[FaxeTheCat]

Considering the cost, I think the most accurate description is "desperate". The cost of two years extra support ($200 first year and $500 the second year according to Dell) is more than a new PC with a new OS...
Not the best way to spend money, but I guess some have no choice...

Re:Microsoft still provide support for Windows XP

[SeaFox]

If she is willing to pay a nominal fee, why not spend that money to upgrade the OS?

Because the computer is too old to run anything newer. So it would be a whole new machine we'd have to buy.

Re:Microsoft still provide support for Windows XP

[Darinbob]

Microsoft's goal is to extract money from their customers, and being nice to the customers has never been anywhere in their business plan. If they can kill XP (which was still a very viable and actively supported system only 5 years ago) then they suppose that customers will have to pay to upgrade to later systems which are essentially the same thing anyway.

What if someone said your car or bike was now obsolete and that you must throw it away and get a new one, not matter how well it is running for you? Or more like Microsoft's model, just your tires needed replacing but the new supported tires wouldn't fit unless you bought a new bike/car first?

Re:Microsoft still provide support for Windows XP

[FaxeTheCat]

Considering the price of a cheap desktop these days, it is probably a good idea anyway.
Having to replace the PC every 8-10 years is not that bad.
My main home computer is a 7 years old desktop which runs Win7 just fine, so I assume any PC not capable of running Win7/8 is close to 10 years old?

Then again, with an updated antivirus and being a little careful with the browsing, the risk is not really that high anyway.

Re:Microsoft still provide support for Windows XP

[Hognoxious]

Win 8? They'd have to pay me to use that.

If you think it is too much, then there is Linux.

Thanks for pointing that out, I'd never heard of it. *eyeroll*

Re:Microsoft still provide support for Windows XP

[FaxeTheCat]

Win 8? They'd have to pay me to use that.

I just pointed out that the price is not high for what you get. If you do not like it... well, there are still Linux. Lots of them.

Re:Microsoft still provide support for Windows XP

[silent-listener]

To be honest MS had given a long time ago the date that it would stop with free updates to XP and Vista and 7. That they sell it still 3 years ago for Notebooks give maybe a false impression. How many of the running computers with XP have all, by MS publicised, updates and additions, 50% ? Not think the world will stop due computers still running XP.

Re:Microsoft still provide support for Windows XP

[cmurf]

Software licensed for use is in effect a lease or rented. It isn't purchased, isn't an asset, the buyer has no right to full code access, including no right to share the code with anyone they want. And yes public institutions should have this ability, they already function this way when it comes to public archives, and buildings. It does not mean the government must directly hire programmers, they can hire one or more services to meet this function if they don't have sufficiently sized or competent IT staff on hand. But the right to code access and right to share it with anyone means vendor lock in isn't possible. It means document formats can be read 50 years from now. And it means public funds endure longer and benefit more people.

It's seems self-evident the immensely wasteful resources being spent on proprietary software. The Federal government alone has 30,000 licenses for renewal for XP? Imagine every single seat by every federal, state, county and city government in just the U.S. how massive those licensing fees are. And by EULA we have no right to read documents produced by this code 50 years from now, unless we've paid an on-going mafia fee to the people locking public records behind proprietary formats.

It's not OK. Fortunately governments are slowly waking up to the fake this is a serious archiving problem at the least, if not also simply a misuse of public funds to depend on single provider software, especially for general purpose software like what's under discussion.

Aftermarket patches already exist

[TubeSteak]

The pdf seems to completely ignore that in the past, security researchers have written patches for Microsoft operating systems as a stopgap until MS could get its shit together and issue their own security updates.

I also take issue with the comparison to cars.
If you want to drive a car on the road, it requires a safety inspection, no matter how old it is.
WinXP, even patched, is the equivalent of driving around a rust bucket with bad wiring and bald tires.
It's an accident waiting to happen.

About the only thing I really agreed with was this:

For these reasons, Microsoft Windows XPâ(TM)s end of support, combined with a collective action problem stemming from individual usersâ(TM) failure to realize or internalize the costs of not migrating or upgrading their operating systems, could prove catastrophic.

The problem is definitely a failure to internalize the costs of running out of date software.
That's why the police fine people for having broken tail lights or other obvious safety issues.
There's no internet equivalent, but I don't see why this is Microsoft's problem.

Sometimes you can't convince end users there's a problem that needs fixing unless it causes them pain.
MS needs to pull the plug and the chaos that follows will sort itself out fairly quickly.

Re:Aftermarket patches already exist

[slugstone]

Not sure when my 1933 model A sport coupe was inspected last. I wonder where I would find the records of inspection.

Re:Aftermarket patches already exist

[dmbrun]

WinXP, even patched, is the equivalent of driving around a rust bucket with bad wiring and bald tires. It's an accident waiting to happen.

A bad analogy.

It is more like driving around in an old 1950s car with no seat belts and no air bags and no crush zones.

If it is has been maintained it will still do the job required of it but care must be taken. Why upgrade - spend the money - if the equipment is still capable of doing what is asked of it?

Re:Aftermarket patches already exist

[cyber-vandal]

Microsoft failed to provide a decent upgrade path to NT6.x. That is most definitely their fault. End users are well aware of the need to upgrade, but when you have 800,000 desktops all running software that doesn't work on any flavour of NT6 then it's not a small problem, it's a hugely expensive problem that even when solved will provide no real improvement in the day to day functioning of the organisation.

Re:Aftermarket patches already exist

[neonKow]

Poorly maintained XP machines are actively causing other people lots and lots of pain as zombie botnets, the same way bad cars are dangers to other people as well. And it's quickly getting to the point where a well maintained XP machine on the internet is not much better than a poorly maintained one. No one else is forcing people to switch to a mordern OS, so the stuff MS is doing is pretty necessary. They even offer rebates for turning in an old XP machine.

Linux needs to step up

[Barlo_Mung_42]

MS is trying to push people off XP. There are other alternatives after all. Many of them are even free. How bad does it make Linux and Chrome look if they can't compete with an 12+ year old OS that MS is actively trying to push people off of?

Re:Linux needs to step up

[Anonymous Coward]

>> How bad does it make Linux and Chrome look

It doesn't. GNU/Linux is not "free windows XP". It's a fully fledged operating system (with some of the distros being desktop oriented and quite user-friendly). People don't upgrade not because they hate Windows 7 and 8 (although some do hate 8 and I'm with them on that), but because they don't want change. Don't fix it if it ain't broken. Taking into consideration the need to replace the hardware to keep up with requirements also is a huge barrier.

Re:Linux needs to step up

[Anonymous Coward]

Make a linux distro that's basically a shell for virtualization. Make sure DX works without tinkering extra configuration files. Make sure all those key pieces of software that people can't live without work perfectly.

Re:Linux needs to step up

[FlyHelicopters]

Nonsense, it makes it look horrible for a desktop OS.

I've been reading about the "year of the Linux desktop" for 15 years now...

It won't be this year, or next, or 10 years from now.

Apple's OS X has 5 times the marketshare of Linux, and it costs an arm and a leg.

Windows 8's real threat is coming from Android and Apple, not Linux.

Re:Linux needs to step up

[Hategrin]

LMAO. Are we going to split hairs here?

"Linux and windows are apples and oranges." Next you're going to tell me that Word and Writer aren't both word processors, Apache and ISS aren't similar solutions... I guess AMD and Intel don't have anything in common either? NTSC and PAL aren't similar technologies?

PS: From a business perspective gnu/linux really is "free windows." Some office temp writing up trial research doesn't care about the kernel's threading capabilities or memory management subroutines, both Linux and XP will e-mail or print the fucking thing won't they?

GNU has been trying to hijack windows for years with the WINE project and they never will unless the big brother manages to force Microsoft to give them their source code. Exactly the kind of mentality you would expect from Richard Stallman's community of anti-capitalism communist sympathizers (use govt to take their property via violence/force).

Re:Linux needs to step up

[cyber-vandal]

It doesn't since neither of those have full Win32 compatibility which is required for a migration. If it was as simple as you pretend then XP would've have disappeared years ago.

Re:Linux needs to step up

[The-Forge]

I'm sorry, but Linux distros have worse forced upgrade policies than XP. How well does Ubuntu 13.10 run on 10 year old PCs with 10 year old graphics hardware? Not well. How does it run on 5 year old PCs? Not well either. But that is your only real option for Ubuntu since they only support releases for a YEAR AND A HALF! Ok, the LTS versions get 5 years, but still that's much shorter than XP and the system requirements move forward with each release for the GUI.

OpenSUSE, Cent OS, Mint all of them are the same way.

If you're running a PC that is 5 years old or less with XP, quit the whining and goto Win 7 (the new XP for corp) or 8. If it's older than 5, get a new PC because you've probably replaced your TV and got a new game console in that time which cost about as much if not more.

Re:Linux needs to step up

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux largely won the competition long ago on a feature-by-feature base, kind of like how IEC 60906-1 or IEC 60906-2 power plugs would presumably be superior to what you use right now.

But the migration isn't free (even with Linux, there's some cost in terms of time spent), and nobody wants to pay for it. Besides, many people just dislike it when anything changes.

Re:Linux needs to step up

[Anonymous Coward]

How about because it's not being sold where the computers are being sold and the computers come with a different OS. Why don't you fucking think a little. 99% of people don't even know what an OS is. How do you except them to find linux? You are nothing but a moron. Look at android, it has linux kernel and google userspace, most people with a smart phone now use it, but if 1% of people having an adroid phone knows about the linux kernel, color me surprised.

Re:Linux needs to step up

[Anonymous Coward]

... to continue with a car analogy. So, you are buying a car. You want a car for driving your kids to school and to get to work, you know A-B-C driving. You don't know much about cars. You go to a dealership and purchase a car. Now with that car, you get the manufacturer ECU. There are plenty of alternative ECU software around, but it isn't an option when you buy the car. Would you now go and get a new ECU software or would you stick with what you are given? I bet not even 1% of car owners has tried another ECU software, me including. I probably never will.

The same thing with linux. People buy computers and they get windows or mac os and that's what they stick with. People don't want to just change their software or even hardware, because they are used to something, and i understand that. And you come here as if people choose not to use linux, but that isn't the case. They get what they get and they choose to stick with it. Not only do they feel that because the software came with the machine, it's maybe safer, they maybe get more support etc, but they paid for it, so it's not that easy just to calculate how much you could possibly enjoy some unknown software more than the one you paid for.

Re:Linux needs to step up

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet not even 1% of car owners has tried another ECU software, me including.

I'm surprised you think 1% of the population is willing to void the warranty on their car.

The true of the matter is Linux sucks on the desktop, and this is largely because it doesn't have robust application support.

Re:Linux needs to step up

[nbritton]

PS: From a business perspective gnu/linux really is "free windows." Some office temp writing up trial research doesn't care about the kernel's threading capabilities or memory management subroutines, both Linux and XP will e-mail or print the fucking thing won't they?

You must have never dealt with the *nix printing system, it's up for debate wether Linux will printing the fucking thing.

Re:Linux needs to step up

[mr_mischief]

Actually OS X is free now if you own the hardware. The hardware is expensive, though.

Re:Linux needs to step up

[mr_mischief]

Hell, you can get a decent non-enthusiast desktop with the new operating system for under $400 now. What people should be bitching about is how much hassle it still is for the average non-geek to get the applications from the old XP machine to the new shiny 7 or 8 machine with settings intact.

Re:Linux needs to step up

[Nemyst]

A significant proportion of the people still using XP do so because their hardware has no modern drivers. The likelihood of Linux drivers, for XP-era drivers, is close to nil. For the people who use XP just because they can't be arsed upgrading (and for corporations/govt organizations who haven't planned an upgrade, too), screw them, they deserve everything they get.

What amuses me however is that while people here criticize Microsoft for not providing support for XP, they don't criticize the hardware manufacturers which haven't bothered making more recent drivers for their hardware. It's a strange double standard, especially since hardware has, if anything, more of a reason to have long term support; it's more expensive, rarer and possibly without a more modern replacement.

Re:Linux needs to step up

[baka_toroi]

Really bad, because Linux is shit (unfortunately).

inb4 "most servers use Linux!". Well, we're talking about a desktop OS.

Re:Linux needs to step up

[neonKow]

What do you have on XP that doesn't run on Linux these days?

Re:Linux needs to step up

[cyber-vandal]

Commercial software that my organisation depends on.

Re:Linux needs to step up

[Anonymous Coward]

The true of the matter is Linux sucks on the desktop, and this is largely because it doesn't have robust application support.

The only applications that have "robust application support" are ones that are (a) supported by a devote few in their spare time, (b) supported by some sort of ads, (c) supported as a by-product of coming pre-loaded (and pre-sold) on most computers, or (d) supported by people continuously buying newer versions--damn if they per se really need the new features--to maintain support of interoperability. Meanwhile, most Windows software lacks "robust application support" which is precisely why binary backwards compatibility is made to be such a big deal.

Without flexibility and compatibility hacks, lots of Windows apps fail (one reason why WINE has such a difficult time being complete because so many applications rely upon unintended quirks of the Windows API). Even then, Windows' robustness is a joke--a lot of the quirks are a precise byproduct of just how unrobust Windows was in the past and now has to continue to emulate to satisify badly written applications. The only group that could be said to provide any sort of "robust application support" is Microsoft and even *they* have partly given up that fight--look at all the breakage in Vista and onward--because application writers have long since given up on working on a lot of applications and certainly aren't providing any support of upgrade support for v3.0 of their software when they're only selling v6.0*.

The major way in which Linux is different is that to combat all the above, most Linux systems are based on distributions which are heavily source based such that v3.0 can be patched, if necessary, so long as there's at least a few people willing to work at it and the distribution is willing to accept that little bit of extra cruft. Yes, the inverse of that is binary-only applications can often be a clusterfuck because the only real APIs they can rely upon** are (1) the Linux kernel API and (2) the X11 API, but robust applications don't tend to have much problem***. In any case, most of it has little to do with being robust.

*This is the biggest argument for dropping Windows XP support, but as that analogy goes, V4.0 and V6.0 are heavily reviled by many and V3.0 was sold for many years after V4.0 was released just as plenty of people still buy V5.0. To that end, I can understand people pushing people to just migrate to V5.0 (Windows 7), ignoring that such a move isn't necessarily trivial for most people who honestly will, by the car analogy, will end up having to buy a new computer and possibly wonder into V6.0.

**There's QT, GTK+, etc but they're toolkits on top of X11 and the Linux kernel. They do change quite often, which is why static compiling or including copies of the libraries is such a much focused on option. Then again, that's true in the Windows world as well--though usually more for the newness of the libraries and less for the long-term backwards compatibility. Regardless, it's the same thing.

***The one component the fails this test most often is audio. Yet, with rare exception, the landscape has stabilitized on either using pulseaudio directly or using alsa which likely pipes through pulseaudio. Given that alsa, at least fundamentally, has been around longer than Windows XP, it's basically the point that the issue of sound is mostly settled so long as applications are written robustly. Of course, it's hard to do robustness and most developers are in the "works for me" camp, so it's little wonder there's such a mess in the Windows and Linux world. The major difference is the degree and which the Linux world has accepted shims in user space to accommodate user space bastardizations. Given the (near always) option to just statically compile against an older library, there's seen to be little reason to bother with such a mess. Meanwhile, Windows has taken a similar approach as well, honestly, but to a much broader scope because they have so little

Re:Linux needs to step up

[Kjella]

MS is trying to push people off XP. There are other alternatives after all. Many of them are even free. How bad does it make Linux and Chrome look if they can't compete with an 12+ year old OS that MS is actively trying to push people off of?

*waves hand* These are not the users you are looking for. The people who absolutely don't want to leave XP are going to make the smallest leap possible and Windows 7 is always going to be more "Windows-y" than Linux or OS X, particularly when it comes to running their existing Windows applications that they probably also don't want to abandon.

Re:Linux needs to step up

[cynicist]

You think those XP users know that Linux exists? Most people don't even know what a browser is, and you think they are competent enough to seek out and install an operating system? Until you see preinstalled Linux boxes advertised heavily, mainstream adoption isn't going to happen.

Re:Linux needs to step up

[Anonymous Coward]

Point, however security issues from Linux vs 7 or 8 can be very real & this sidesteps MS lack of response about "Live" privacy fails. XP had strengths that are being ignored by MS in the public medium, businesses that go towards 7 or 8 face some pitfalls that are publicized.All the while uploads of service pack 3 for XP were heavilly laid with errors for last 9 months of MS support. Smells like a game plan crumbling...

Whole.
Lot of.

Infrastructure

[Tablizer]

One can argue that an OS is infrastructure, and not a product. Like water pipes and electrical wires, other services depend on them. Thus, an OS is not comparable to radios or clothes.

One is not expected to dig up their house and start over if a company decides nobody is allowed to support the existing wires or pipes bought from them.

Re:Infrastructure

[Anonymous Coward]

Until you need a modification to your plumbing that is..

Re:Infrastructure

[N1AK]

One can argue that an OS is infrastructure, and not a product. Like water pipes and electrical wires, other services depend on them.

One could argue the same thing about Lorries and mobile phones... that doesn't automatically mean that MS should be forced to support a product, or release source code, when they don't want to. If the government takes a view that OS are 'infrastructure' and thus source must be released, support must continue for x years etc then it should apply to all providers and should only apply to products they release after that is decided.

Re:Infrastructure

[viperidaenz]

But an OS is comparable to clothes.

It's no different than undies.
Sure I could wear my jeans without undies, just like I can write software that runs on a computer without an operating system. But the undies, like the operating system, provide a layer of separation so I don't get my scrotum stuck in the zipper.

So tell me again how an OS is not comparable to clothes?

Re:Infrastructure

[FlyHelicopters]

Yep, and if the government came out tomorrow and said, "MS, you must support your OS for 20 years".

MS might well said, "ok, fine, we will do that... the price is $100 per machine per year for extended support, sign up here:"

Would everyone be happy with that answer?

Re:Infrastructure

[Nemyst]

That's nonsensical. What's the equivalent of a patch for water pipes? Infrastructure is designed to be put in once, and last for a very long time. Software is continuously being modified, updated, upgraded, fixed. It's not the same thing at all.

Re:Infrastructure

[jbolden]

Microsoft never promised forever support. This infrastructure was sold with an assumption of regular required upgrades. More like a waterheater than waterpipes.

What do the contracts say?

[jcr]

Microsoft should provide support for Windows XP if, and ONLY if they have a contractual obligation to do so, or they find it economically beneficial to their shareholders to continue this support. If neither are true, then they shouldn't.

-jcr

Define Support

[enter to exit]

You'll need to define what support means.They could provide support by turning your xp install into win7 with a xp boot screen. They won't necessarily provide the kind of support you want

No Linux distro provides decades of support either, you're just upgraded to the latest packages and that might as easily break things in the same way xp to win7 might.

Re:Define Support

[Anonymous Coward]

Worse yet, try running a 3 year old application on modern linux. (closed source binary only commercial application)
You might get it working, but it'll cost you hours.

Re:Define Support

[Karellen]

(closed source binary only commercial application)

Well, there's your problem.

Re:Define Support

[Anonymous Coward]

That's acceptable. Imagine the internals of Windows 8 with an XP interface. People would LEAP onto that.

Re:Define Support

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong.

In Linux you are upgraded for free (included in the subscription) to the new version of the same product.

In Windows XP you would be "upgraded" to a different product and have to pay for it. It's like throwing away this photocopier and buying a new one, and calling this "support" for the old one. Don't make me laugh.

Re:Define Support

[issicus]

I'm not sure this applies but why would 'supporting' an OS be any different from any other piece of software? I can't really think of a good example though. who cares, except for china anyway, just get windows 7 .

Hell no

[Anonymous Coward]

Should Microsoft Be Required To Extend Support For Windows XP?

Fuck no, that's just retarded.

Exactly

[Anonymous Coward]

I really don't doesn't understand where some people are getting so upset. 12 years is a good run and unlike some other companies, MS has given fair warnings to users. It's not like the software is going to be remotely disabled or revoked. People can continue to use it as long as they want. MS is just stopping support. No new updates or patches. That's it.

People don't get upset when Apple stops supporting their ancient (2-3 year old ) hardware. I can still use my iphone 3Gs, but I can't connect to iCloud. I can still use WinXp, I just can't (read: shouldn't) connect to the internet.

There are alternative OS out there, try one of those. Oh, your hardware isn't supported on Linux? Get upset with your hardware manufacture for not supporting it, they're the ones you bought the device from after all.

Re:Huh, every company charges for support

[Opportunist]

Fine by me, too. Then fork over Windows for free.

As much as I hate M$....

[pbjones]

MS has offered upgrades at a reduced cost, it has supported it for about a decade, if people hold onto it, they do so at their own peril. Who holds onto a photocopier for ten years and expects spare parts? Yes I own an old laser printer and sadly, if it breaks I don't expect to have spare parts available. The devil inside me says that people are also holding on to XP because many machines could be activated with the same code, or even without a code in the case of many laptops supplied with a restore CD.

Re:As much as I hate M$....

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody expects a printers' manufacturer to provide spare parts for so long. But if they don't do it, then law requires them to assist someone who want to provide the parts.

Re:As much as I hate M$....

[callmetheraven]

Speaking as an IT support business owner: you're off base on all counts.

XP users are generally boxed in. Most of them already have newer computers, but can't ditch the old XP box because it cant be replaced or costs too much to replace.

Windows 8 is not an "upgrade" to anything. I spend a lot of time helping people get their hands on Win7 boxen.

Copiers don't have compatibility issues with new paper and toner, extrememly weak analogy.

You don't seem to understand how OEM licensing and activation codes work. OEM licenses activating automatically is not the same as a free copy.

I still like my WinXP VMs

[mathew42]

I like my Windows XP virtual machines running in VirtualBox. I can use them to connect to client VPNs without having the VPN client disrupt my network access, run different versions of software in separate environments, etc.

I could possibly consider moving to Windows 7, but apart from being able to search for programs from the Start menu, i really don't see any advantage. For a modern browser, Firefox & Chrome run perfectly when I need them.

I fully intend to keep running my WinXP VMs well into the future, but obviously not on the public internet. I probably should investigate using a Linux VM, but why change what works?

Re:I still like my WinXP VMs

[Squash]

I've found "xp performance edition" to be a very reasonable setup for VMs. Way smaller and faster than a regular XP install.

Either continue support or Public Domain

[Esben]

1) Any country should require that the source code of all software (including embedded) should be sent to the National Library as most already require for printed material. Not to be made public, but for scholars to be able to study it in say 50 years. And to be able to do the following: 2) when the company do not publish security patches within a reasonable time, everybody with a legal copyright license should be allowed to get a copy of the source code to fix the security issues on their own (or hire a consultant to do so).

Re:Either continue support or Public Domain

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm with you on this, definately, but i would extend that requirement to specs of pretty much all hardware too (including all firmware and toolchains), but also released to public within a defined number of years, which would depend on the product and costs to produce it, so that companies that make products that last a long time and/or are expenssive to make would have more time to get their money than companies making cheap shit. For example an OS, 5-8 years, a cheap shit DVD player, 1-2 years.

Then give up the copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

If you do not want to support your software, give up the copyright.

Warranty

[Anonymous Coward]

1-2 year min is the warranty time in most EU countries. 12 years of support for a product is already pretty good.

Re:Warranty

[Chrisq]

1-2 year min is the warranty time in most EU countries. 12 years of support for a product is already pretty good.

That's a good point - since it was last sold in 2010 they have done more than enough to cover their legal obligations.

Re:Warranty

[kthreadd]

They're however not obligated to provide warranty.

What is freedom

[Jumunquo]

Personally, I think Microsoft should let anyone who wants to buy extended support do so. They're trying to get ppl to go to a subscription model for software (Office 360), and here they have a bunch of ppl that don't even need convincing - they are asking for it with open arms. It's not like they make money on computer hardware sales, so this seems much better for them. It's okay, I think, to just make tons of money, rather than try to be like the cool kids.

BUT if they don't want to, they totally have the right not to. A lot of those posts sound like they're written by communists, not freedom lovers. We tell people to chose free software - that's freedom. To force people to use free software, to force businesses to open source - that is not freedom. That's forcing your ideology onto others, like the communists found they had to do because people weren't being selfless by themselves. Freedom is letting this thing go end of life if that's what MS wants and letting the people chose again - this time, hopefully, they will chose better.

Re:What is freedom

[Hategrin]

Actually, they're speaking views exactly in line with their fearless/glorious leaders Richard Stallman and Linus Torvalds. According to them you shouldn't buy any proprietary software because it should not exist, at all. They do not believe people should be even given the option of choosing free software; closed software should be illegal/banned and they tell people that they should be ashamed of themselves for using it. Just go to gnu.org and you can read Stallman's rants. You can see this reflected in the GPL licenses as well, aka "copyleft" licenses which are impossible to apply to a "software as a product" business model, only "software as a service."

Stallman is so far to the left that he doesn't even believe a person should be able to attach their name to a piece of their mathematical contributions / artwork, evident in his condemnation of the original BSD license. No, the only thing he believes code can have attached to it is the GNU public license, which people will see and associate with his name/movement and not the original creator/author-- just like any other tyrannical megalomaniac you read about in history.

Re:What is freedom

[gnasher719]

I suspect both Stallman and Torvalds would strongly object to being mixed together like that :-)

As much as I hate MS

[future assassin]

the product line has been discontinued and dead for years, you were notified. Not MS's fault you were to cheap or your business plan didn't take into account that technology moves forward and doesn't sit there waiting for you.

What's next car manufacturers having to fix parts on 30 year old cars?

Re:As much as I hate MS

[Trax3001BBS]

What's next car manufacturers having to fix parts on 30 year old cars?

You didn't read the PDF :} while it says 8 pages half are cites, it addresses auto's. Auto companies provide third parties with details so they (third parties) can continue supplying parts.

Haha

[Anonymous Coward]

Sign away the copyright and delete the source code, more likely.

Desperate Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

They're trying hard to get WinXP users to upgrade to Win8, make the sales figures of Win8 look less embarrassing.

RTF(License)A

[DontScotty]

RTF(License)(Agreement)

"9. RESTRICTED USE. The Microsoft software was designed for systems that do not require fail-safe performance. You may not use the Microsoft software in any device or system in which a malfunction of the software would result in foreseeable risk of injury or death to any person. This includes operation of nuclear facilities, aircraft navigation or communication systems and air traffic control."

Re:RTF(License)A

[RabidReindeer]

RTF(License)(Agreement)

"9. RESTRICTED USE. The Microsoft software was designed for systems that do not require fail-safe performance. You may not use the Microsoft software in any device or system in which a malfunction of the software would result in foreseeable risk of injury or death to any person. This includes operation of nuclear facilities, aircraft navigation or communication systems and air traffic control."

But they do anyway. I seem to recall a situation where something like an aircraft carrier was malfunctioning while under control of Windows NT.

Granted, for stuff like this, MS would have a different license that would (if we're getting our tax dollars worth) would have included on-site dedicated systems support, but it was still Windows NT, and as the standard license points out, it wasn't designed for fail-safe performance.

And considering some of the things I've seen it do, didn't provide it, either.

Re:RTF(License)A

[jmauro]

It wasn't a carrier but a guided missile cruiser, the USS Yorktown.

Re:RTF(License)A

[Anonymous Coward]

And the Yorktown issue was a divide by 0 in the vendor provided code, which could have happened on ANY OS, so it wasn't related to Windows at all.

Complete access and indefinite support for free?!

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

it's a pretty easy barrier if enforced on _everyone_.

Supporting consumer grade software that is sold for ~$100 a time indefinitely, including providing full internal technical details to arbitrary additional parties, is a "pretty easy barrier"? I'm sorry, but that is absurd.

There are people in this discussion suggesting that someone who doesn't want to comply with such rules can go **** themselves and just give up on entering the US market. Well, guess what? They probably would. The burden imposed by this kind of requirement would almost certainly be prohibitive in cost. A vendor such as Microsoft would therefore do better to sacrifice the entire US market if it meant avoiding both an eternal unfunded mandate to support everything they ever sold and giving up their trade secrets to all their competitors.

There are also people in this discussion pointing out that other industries, such as automotive manufacture, involve a much higher level of safety standards and engineering approval. That is true, but cars typically cost 2-4 orders of magnitude more than commercial off-the-shelf software products, and they have working lifetimes that are probably shorter than Windows XP's 12+ years in many cases. Moreover, the auto manufacturers still aren't required to disclose the keys to the kingdom to the degree that is suggested here.

I'm all for developing good quality software, and if you're running a long-term software business then I think providing a reasonable degree of free-of-charge support to your existing customers is probably a good investment. But providing heavyweight support has a large cost, so unless you as a customer are willing either to regulate the industry and pay N times as much for your software purchases up-front or to pay the true cost of ongoing support via proper support contracts, I don't think it's realistic to expect that vendors will just cover that cost indefinitely out of their own pockets.

In fact, in the entire history of software development, that has almost never happened. Apple have released the first version of OS X around the same time as Microsoft released Windows XP, yet Apple have aggressively promoted numerous upgrades, most of which cost a significant amount of money, since that time, and somehow I suspect you'd have trouble getting full support for an original OS X system today. And to put this all in perspective Open Source darlings like Mozilla Firefox have "long term support" releases with lifetimes measured in months, not years. It's actually remarkable that Microsoft have offered free support to Windows XP for as long as they have, despite releasing not one but three successor generations of the product during that period.

Difficult decision.

[MouseTheLuckyDog]

When it comes down to it though. Other companies do support software for a long long time.
When I worked at Lucent they had the software for every switch they or AT&T ever sold. The had each version and each revision.
OS/2 is still being sold and supported, and it is at least ten years older then XP.

And the point of intellectual property is to grant exclusivity in exchange for making the object public.
If MS is not going to publicly support XP, then they should open source it.

As for those who say that people should buy everything new every five years. That ain't the way it works. If something is 20 years old and still works people keep using it.Get over it.

Re:Difficult decision.

[bloodhawk]

OS/2 was withdrawn from sale and ended support in 2006.

Re:Difficult decision.

[adolf]

OS/2 was withdrawn from sale and ended support in 2006.

Sorta.

Re:Difficult decision.

[MouseTheLuckyDog]

Think again.

Re:Difficult decision.

[Anonymous Coward]

That lead to the Great Recession...OS/2 support...

Re:Difficult decision.

[bloodhawk]

In that case Windows XP is also still for sale and supported. Now they call it Windows 8.1

Re:Difficult decision.

[Anonymous Coward]

Guess you missed http://www.ecomstation.com/ that is OS/2 supported by Serenity Systems who bought the code to support banks.

I think all obsoleteed OSs

[FudRucker]

should have the source code released as GPL-3 so communities can grow up around them, i would like to see that happen to all of Microsoft's obsoleted OSs and software, win9x, 2k, xp, etc...

maybe give the companies a short grace period between the software being declared obsolete and the release of the code like 3 years, and the same for any other obsoleted software

WGA?

[MouseTheLuckyDog]

i remember when XP was released and WGA ( or it's predecessor ) was new and people were worried that MS would shutdown their servers and make it impossible to reinstall in some cases.

MS promised that they would release a key or some sort of patch that would allow you to install without the server.

Where is it?

Re:WGA?

[Golden_Rider]

i remember when XP was released and WGA ( or it's predecessor ) was new and people were worried that MS would shutdown their servers and make it impossible to reinstall in some cases.

MS promised that they would release a key or some sort of patch that would allow you to install without the server.

Where is it?

They publicly stated that the activation servers will not be turned off, so there is no need yet for such a patch.

Re:WGA?

[jader3rd]

MS promised that they would release a key or some sort of patch that would allow you to install without the server. Where is it?

Can you point out a public location of that promise?

Re:WGA?

[Anonymous Coward]

you believed microsoft?

Green with envy.

[Hategrin]

It's funny watching all these Linux fanboys foaming at the mouth at the prospect of being able to add the WinXP codebase to the WINE project.

Just get with the times!

[danielzip53]

Why do people continue to cling onto things, like XP and Windows 7 for that matter...
I use Win 8 and Server 2012 in my testing environment and I swear by them...

My company still uses Win 7 in the production environment with no upgrade plans, and this just makes me angry. They're not even thinking about transitioning, as they have highly customized, legacy systems, hell we're still using IE8 for some of the ActiveX compatibility requirements.

Companies need to think more about future proofing when designing systems, I have to when I'm designing products.
Individuals should think about why their STILL using XP and what benefits newer tech offers...

Disclosure: I work for an MFD manufacturer

How do you define "support"?

[Golden_Rider]

The thing I always ask myself when I hear people claim that MS has an obligation to "support" Windows XP indefinitely is - where do you draw the line? What IS "support and fixing security issues"? XP is so old by now that it is lacking a lot of newer security features, so it "by design" is less secure than, say, Windows 7 or 8. If those people demanding eternal support got their way, would Microsoft have to "fix" these security issues by providing updates which effectively would turn Windows XP into a more modern operating system? Would Microsoft face lawsuits if they said "nope, those are features only Windows 7 and 8 have, we won't put those into XP" and then the machines running XP got turned into spam zombies due to someone exploiting those security holes?

Re:Complete access and indefinite support for free

[cmdr_tofu]

Honestly if there were barriers to creating a semi-monopolistic software monoculture, I don't think that would necessarily be a bad thing.

But two swing out of the realm of opinion, you compare Windows XP to "OpenSource darlings like firefox" whose long-term support is measured in "months, not years". This is a bad comparison. A better comparison would be Ubuntu LTS which includes firefox and whose support is measured in years not months. However Canonical having only a fraction of a percent of the marketshare that Windows XP does, is not making a business model in supporting releases for over 14 years.

The key difference is any independent software vendor can with a very low barrier to entry. At my previous employer we had production software stack (purchased from a company) which dependent on Redhat 7.3 (not RHEL 7), but you know the one with 2.4 kernel from the 90s. Of course it was impossible to get updates from Redhat, but I made the vendor provide tested procedures for upgrading zlib and openssh and it was possible for them to do this.

I think it would be a great idea to require Microsoft to "open up" even if it was outside of their interests. Hell if Windows 8 could not compete with community supported open source XP, it still means that people get better software :)

They already are supporting it...

[Karmashock]

Aren't certain companies and governments already paying MS to continue support for XP? Okay... then they're making the patches for those users... why not sell or otherwise provide those patches for everyone?

I'm not saying for free... but if they're already going to the trouble to do it... all they need to do is make the patches available to everyone at a reasonable price. Not a big deal.

The dumb thing is that MS was going to cut everyone off in any case.

Do it like any product... put it out there and if enough of it sells, then you maintain the product. Call it "long term support" or something. If people don't buy it then you stop the patches. If enough users do buy... provide it indefinitely.

I can't bring my Chevy to a Ford dealership

[EmagGeek]

I can't bring my Chevette to the local Ford dealer to get repaired, no more than I can bring my Pinto to the Ferrari dealer for service work.

So no, nobody should be forcing MS to do anything. Microsoft has never advertised any of their products as being "good forever," so there is no duty to hold them to.

Re:I can't bring my Chevy to a Ford dealership

[Anonymous Coward]

But you can bring the car to a more general car repair place, which can repair any brand. Why would it need to be a dealership? Besides where i live, car dealerships are not necessarely just for one brand. I don't see your point. If you car is under no support from the manufacturer, do you just ditch it, repair it yourself, take it to a general car repair shop? I'm building a car from the 70's, i don't get any parts from the manufacturer, still a lot of places have parts for it.

Re:I can't bring my Chevy to a Ford dealership

[Trax3001BBS]

But you can bring the car to a more general car repair place, which can repair any brand.

Yes, so what's needed is a front end for XP, many third parties can vie for that application.

Short answer: NO!

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF, require a company to give support beyond the lifetime of their product just because we think its inconvenient or expensive to upgrade? Screw that, totally against the tenets of a free market economy.

Microsoft has delivered a product for a certain amount of years and given sufficient warning they would stop supporting it. They also have given a viable alternative (as much as you may not like it: upgrading).

It's like telling Chrysler that they must keep making parts for the Dart just because a few people refuse to junk them.

Get off your cheap ass and upgrade

Re:Short answer: NO!

[Stumbles]

Agreed. Its their software/product, its been around now for how long(?) and they have given more than ample warnings about its "retirement".

Slashdot - the place where morons post retarded Qs

[terjeber]

Title says enough

Either it is valuable to MS or not...

[internet-redstar]

The should not be allowed to have it both ways: protect the source code because it's "valuable" but not support is any more because it has become worthless crap - and hell yes - why not make it a more general law: If you drop support for old software; your company should be enforced to open the source. This has several advantages:
1) Old hardware can still be supported, so there is less e-waste
2) Customers are not forced into anything
3) Even more world domination for Open Source software!

Whatever license, as long as it's OSI approved.

And I can't resist to post a link to our press release done today.

Re:Either it is valuable to MS or not...

[Ash-Fox]

You kind have missed a bigger problem. Windows sourcecode has been leaked multiple times, including Windows XP's.

Nobody knows how to compile it, it doesn't simply compile with compilers that Visual Studio comes with either.

Re:Either it is valuable to MS or not...

[Trax3001BBS]

And I can't resist to post a link to our press release done today.

" We advise current Windows XP users to install and use for example the Firefox or Chrome web browser instead of Windows Explorer and LibreOffice instead of Microsoft Office. " and that alone would protect XP users a lot. As for Linux, it has place here; it could be a front end for XP, even if were just a firewall.

Re:Complete access and indefinite support for free

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps if Microsoft hadn't developed a series of OS's that treated security like a two-bit whore, none of this would be a major issue. Proprietary software can be done right, with minimal effort to support it for decades.

Unfortunately MS has always developed via 1) features driven by lock-in at all costs and 2) if it compiles->ship (i.e. in the old days, clean it up through MSDN universal dvds).

Note that for 1 & 2, security never enters the conversation. Or at least it was way down on the list because their monopoly position afforded that comfort. That is Microsoft in a nutshell over the last 20 years. Adobe too btw.

Re:Complete access and indefinite support for free

[TapeCutter]

IMO the "right" thing to do is either release the source or provide full API and file format specs. Also, if we are going to grant software patents as well as copyright, an "implementation" requirement should be added to the patent - (electronically) attach the source/specs to the patent. I don't thing corporate bean counters will like any of those options, but as someone who has spent 20+yrs developing commercial software I think they are "cutting their nose off to spite their face". Anyone who has ever pinpointed an unknown bug in someone else's proprietary O/S or application will know just how much time and effort goes into just finding the "other geek" in the different department/company who can understand what the hell you are talking about, let alone convince them it's a bug that needs fixing in their code. Fortunately we developers don't see much of that activity, just the delays, missed deadlines, and contradictory requirements that flow from it.

However it must be said that in cases where public safety is an issue suppliers board members, managers and "principle engineers" are often in the legal crosshairs if it can be shown they were "negligent" (eg:Y2K issues). The gaping hole in this approach is an ISO (or similar) audit once every few years is generally enough to get you off the hook. In my experience such an audit can be anything from a full day inquisition with detailed and relevant questions to "I was audited? When?"

OT: Truth be known most IT corporates would love to have a "developer pool" just like the old "typing pool", ie: cheap, replaceable cogs. I'm only 10yrs from retirement, so I doubt it will affect me personally, however IBM's "Watson" is starting to look like a viable way to send many relatively expensive "IT knowledge workers" to the unemployment scrap heap along side the secretaries, typists, telegraph operators, tea ladies, bank tellers, etc. Now may be a good time in history for ambitious young developers to become an expert in the "art" of developing/training expert systems such as Watson. .

Let it fricking die

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows in general is bad enough, but XP has degenerated to become a festering pustule on the internet. If all XP computers spontaneously combusted today, the amount of spam and malware in the world would drop to a trickle.

sure

[superwiz]

And there should be have a law requiring Linus to backport everything to 2.2 and 2.4 kernels... in the interests of national security (or something).

Competition...

[fazookus]

Even a card carrying bleeding heart liberal such as myself realizes that if MS doesn't continue to innovate they'll be chewed up and spit out by the brutally competitive generic general purpose PC market. BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAA-snort-giggle.... Sorry, where was I?

Re:Complete access and indefinite support for free

[Rich0]

Perhaps if Microsoft hadn't developed a series of OS's that treated security like a two-bit whore, none of this would be a major issue. Proprietary software can be done right, with minimal effort to support it for decades.

So, who is backporting security patches to linux 2.0, or KDE 3.0?

No OS is free from vulnerabilities. Sure, I'd take Linux over Windows any day, but if you're running ancient FOSS you probably have a ton of vulnerabilities that you'd never be able to keep up with on your own.

Sure, lots of proprietary software is supported for decades, but most of that stuff just doesn't get much attention from the hacking community. Just look at SCADA - it was considered secure for ages until some government decided it was worth going after, and then you had the mother of all worms come along. Since then I haven't heard a peep, and it isn't because it is any more secure. The fact that the widget inventory system at your warehouse has never had a security update doesn't mean that it doesn't contain vulnerabilities.

Due to its nature, Windows will always be a target (well, until everybody finally gives up on using it). The same is true of Linux and OSX, and if you run a version of either that isn't being actively maintained then you're going to be vulnerable.

Re:Complete access and indefinite support for free

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Perhaps if Microsoft hadn't developed a series of OS's that treated security like a two-bit whore, none of this would be a major issue.

That's just silly. Microsoft has done a huge amount to further software security over the years, and objectively their track record isn't bad at all compared to other large software vendors. They had the misfortune to be the biggest target in town for a long time (today that "honour" probably goes to Android) and so had to deal with both a relatively high number of attacks and a lot of bad press when something got through.

I suppose Obama could buy it

[gelfling]

Nationalize it and give it away.

Who's gonna pay the rent?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who's gonna pay the rent after they shoot your Mom?

AC

It's Microsoft's right not to support

[Anonymous Coward]

Sadly, I know way to many people still running XP, why? Because there 10 year computer is still running, they don't see a problem waiting 30+ seconds for their browser to open, or the 3+ mins for the computer to start. Is this MS fault? Absolutely not. MS as the creator of windows, should have the right to kill the OS after 6 months, if they so choose. They most likely wouldn't last for very long, but it is there right to do so.

As for the original story, a company I work for, had to buy new set of label printers when they upgraded their computer because there were no drivers for windows 7. They also had to buy an upgrade for the label software, because the software was not compatible for windows 7. If MS were to stop supporting windows in general, then Yes I could agree with them having to release sourcecode so someone else could pick up the ball and continue.

Re:Complete access and indefinite support for free

[Antique Geekmeister]

> IMO the "right" thing to do is either release the source or provide full API and file format specs.

Microsoft has a very poor history of providing API's. Examine the history of the "OOXML" API, which was broken from its publication and has never been actually followed by Microsoft Office products. Or look into the Samba and EU lawsuits against Microsoft, mentioned at http://www.linuxinsider.com/st.... The original specifications that Microsoft provided were _horrible_, and quite useless. And they're still patent burdened, which can block third party developers from being able to safely update such products.

Re:Complete access and indefinite support for free

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

But two swing out of the realm of opinion, you compare Windows XP to "OpenSource darlings like firefox" whose long-term support is measured in "months, not years". This is a bad comparison.

Fair enough, though it wasn't really meant as a direct comparison, more an illustration of how much effort is required to support old software for extended periods.

A better comparison would be Ubuntu LTS which includes firefox and whose support is measured in years not months.

It is. In fact, the period is now five years for both desktop and server versions.

Again, just to put that in perspective, Windows 7 (two generations after Windows XP) was released around 4.5 years ago.

I think it would be a great idea to require Microsoft to "open up" even if it was outside of their interests. Hell if Windows 8 could not compete with community supported open source XP, it still means that people get better software :)

Well, it would be great, in the short term, for everyone except Microsoft. But who is going to build the next software product that is so successful that almost everyone uses it for nearly a decade in that world?

Re:Complete access and indefinite support for free

[silanea]

Supporting consumer grade software that is sold for ~$100 a time indefinitely, including providing full internal technical details to arbitrary additional parties, is a "pretty easy barrier"?

It is the other way around: Once a company deems a product uneconomical - subject to mandatory or voluntary warranty that is priced into the product anyways - to support they could simply release their internal documentation, source code, diagrams etc. to the public and be free of any further liability regarding bugs, future incompatibilities etc. That would be a fair compromise considering that IT is one of the very few industries that get away with delivering faulty, unstable and insecure products as the accepted norm. If houses or clothes or refrigerators were produced like software...

Implied warranty.

[plebeian]

In the state of Maine we have an implied warranty law that states that if an item fails to function as advertised due to a manufacturers defect within 4 years the consumer can initiate legal action against the manufacturer. As 4 years is about an average lifespan for a computer I feel four years is fair. I for one feel that Microsoft has gone far above and beyond the call of duty maintaining XP for as long as it has. Personally I wish MS would ditch the one OS to rule them all mentality and develop multiple operating systems with multiple UI's and turn them over faster. Given their resources they could foster a atmosphere of friendly competition within the company to see which Operating systems sold the best. I would be willing to bet companies would snap up a pre-packaged locked down desktop OS that came with a simple to use application distribution system (build a secure APT like system for windows). Anyone who has used System Center to lock down desktops would agree that it should not be this complex, if you built a desktop OS to be centrally managed from the get go it could be so much easier.

Re:Implied warranty.

[gnasher719]

In the state of Maine we have an implied warranty law that states that if an item fails to function as advertised due to a manufacturers defect within 4 years the consumer can initiate legal action against the manufacturer.

You'd have to show then that any bugs actually stop the item from functioning as advertised. And there is a difference between "can initiate legal action" and "can win a case".

And can I just say that I'd like to see some actual text of that law? Since most of the time seller and manufacturer are not the same, and the seller does the advertising, I can't imagine you could hold the manufacturer responsible for claims that the seller made. If PCWorld claims that Windows improves your success with woman and you still don't get laid, could you sue Microsoft about that?

Re:Implied warranty.

[plebeian]

I meant to draw a parallel between the states implied warranty for manufactured goods and software development. From a end user perspective I don't see why software should be treated differently than hardware. The whole line of reasoning that it cannot be enforced because a third party sold the product (and may have set expectations incorrectly is bunk). If someone sold me a car by telling me that it worked under water and I drove it off the end of the pier, I would not have a case against the manufacturer, I would have to sue the person who told me the car would run underwater (or maybe better yet be accountable for my own actions in not reading the information provided by the manufacturer).

Re:Implied warranty.

[david_thornley]

Actually, Microsoft stopped granting new XP licenses in 2010, and some of those netbooks were sold into 2011 or even more. Microsoft might still be on the hook in Maine.

Doesn't have to be free

[sjbe]

Supporting consumer grade software that is sold for ~$100 a time indefinitely, including providing full internal technical details to arbitrary additional parties, is a "pretty easy barrier"? I'm sorry, but that is absurd.

Microsoft does NOT have to support it indefinitely for free. However there is precisely zero obstacle to them supporting XP on an ongoing basis for a reasonable sum for those interested in paying for such support. Something like $50/year (times a few million users) should more than adequately cover the cost and provide Microsoft a reasonable profit. Microsoft could provide paid support AND make the upgrade path easier by doing so. However Microsoft has chosen to burn that bridge instead in an effort to force people to "upgrade" to software that they clearly are not interested in buying. Since they have elected to go down that route instead of providing paid support, it is reasonable that people are calling for alternatives including open sourcing it. I think a more pragmatic approach would be to sell the supporting XP business to a third party. But if all Microsoft is going to do is take their ball and go home then they can kiss my shiny metal ass.

Bear in mind that aside from security patches, Microsoft essentially provides ZERO support to most users of XP anyway. Not like I can call them up and get questions answered. Claims that continuing to support XP would be some enormous financial burden on the company are pretty absurd.

Moreover, the auto manufacturers still aren't required to disclose the keys to the kingdom to the degree that is suggested here.

Not really true. Almost everything worth protecting product-wise in the auto industry is patented so it is inaccurate to say they haven't disclosed the details. A company like GM could easily make a soup-to-nuts replica of a Toyota if they wanted to. There isn't much technology that is a big secret or that cannot be reverse engineered and the companies that supply it usually supply multiple firms. Software is VERY different than auto manufacturing though software is becoming a bigger piece of the industry as time goes on. (and yes I'm an engineer who has worked in the auto industry for years) The differences between auto companies are mostly in how they are structured and managed. The differences between the products themselves are fairly minor. Most auto companies (like GM and Ford) have supply chains that heavily overlap. An axle for Ford is very likely made in the same plant as an axle for GM and surprisingly often is engineered by many of the same people. My company assembles parts that go into a GM SUV and every component in that assembly we make can be purchased directly by you if you wanted to. (you'd just pay a LOT more than we do)

Re:Doesn't have to be free

[Anonymous Coward]

Not like I can call them up and get questions answered. Claims that continuing to support XP would be some enormous financial burden on the company are pretty absurd.

You can call Microsoft for tech support. Technically, they call you, but you can talk to and get support from a real actual person.

Re:Doesn't have to be free

[Zmobie]

Bear in mind that aside from security patches, Microsoft essentially provides ZERO support to most users of XP anyway. Not like I can call them up and get questions answered. Claims that continuing to support XP would be some enormous financial burden on the company are pretty absurd.

You CLEARLY do not understand how time consuming and costly it is for a company to provide even basic patches for a piece of software. On SMALL SCALE application my company has deployed it is costly to have even one developer have to do this repeatedly (I know because for one of our system I am this guy...). Having repeated interuptions for support calls, entire sets of days that have to be blocked off to patch some bullshit, and a sales department breathing down my neck because the longer this goes on the worse it looks on the company. All the while the 3 other projects I was working on (as the damn lead at that) are getting behind and it is my ass to catch them up.

It IS an enourmous financial burden, especially when they have to invest in researching the security vulnerabilities because if one is discovered and exploited before they patch it hits them in the court of public opinion (and their sales directly). Upgrading is expensive, yes everyone knows this, but guess what, this happens with every other consumer product on the market today. It is unreasonable for people to expect software companies to do it indefinitely FOR FREE. Even if they could do it with a paid service, they do still have the right to refuse service. Normally I am all for the consumer over the business (because most businesses are cut-throat douches), but what people expect with Windows XP is just insane and they don't apply basic sense to their arguments.

Re:Doesn't have to be free

[sjbe]

You CLEARLY do not understand how time consuming and costly it is for a company to provide even basic patches for a piece of software.

Really? I'm an accountant and an engineer. I've done a fair bit of programming professionally and I'm pretty sure I've got a better handle on the actual costs involved than most of the people reading this.

. Having repeated interuptions for support calls, entire sets of days that have to be blocked off to patch some bullshit, and a sales department breathing down my neck because the longer this goes on the worse it looks on the company.

None of which is relevant here. Microsoft does not provide support calls unless you are a REALLY big customer and they would be paying for the priviledge. They have people whose entire job is to "patch some bullshit". There is no sales department breathing down anyone's neck regarding XP. The only thing they have to do is fund some staff to patch bugs and keep the infrastructure going. They can even charge for the cost of it.

It IS an enourmous financial burden, especially when they have to invest in researching the security vulnerabilities because if one is discovered and exploited before they patch it hits them in the court of public opinion (and their sales directly)

As I said earlier, I'm an accountant so bear that in mind before you go claiming that it is some enormous financial burden. Fact is that you can look at ANY software company (including Microsoft) and the cost of engineering which includes all of this bug squashing accounts for somewhere between 10%-15% of their costs. You don't have to take my word for it. Go look at their financial statements. The VAST majority of cost for Microsoft is in Sales, Marketing and Administration. Their engineering and "support" costs are significant but given that their NET profit margin is somewhere around 25%, supporting XP isn't exactly killing them financially.

No, Microsoft decided to not give people a path to continue using XP in the hopes that they would be forced to "upgrade". It's a money grab. Nothing more.

Re:Doesn't have to be free

[Grishnakh]

Companies exist to make money. Yes, they could continue to provide security updates for XP for little money, relatively, but why should they? Why should MS be forced to do something that's only going to hurt their profitability (in their opinion)?

You can continue to use XP for as long as you wish. If you don't like that it doesn't have security updates anymore and is open to hackers, then switch to something else. No one owes you a free OS, or an OS that gets unpaid support indefinitely (no home users are paying MS $x/year for XP support). Either pay up for a new MS OS like 7 or 8.1, or if you don't want to spend any money, just download an excellent Linux distro like Mint for free and install it yourself. This isn't 1997; there's lots of alternatives now.

This bitching and moaning is absolutely pathetic. It's like a bunch of people have 1990-era cars that are all falling apart, and they're complaining that they can't get free repairs from the automaker. Someone comes along and points out that they can get brand-new Teslas for free, they just need to call and ask for one to be delivered, but they whine that they want their old 1990 Beretta fixed up instead and that the Tesla can't as easily drive across the country.

Re:Doesn't have to be free

[sjbe]

Yes, they could continue to provide security updates for XP for little money, relatively, but why should they?

Who said it had to be for "little money"? Certainly not me. $50 or $100/year times millions of PCs equals quite a lot of money.

Why should MS be forced to do something that's only going to hurt their profitability (in their opinion)?

Whose forcing them? They can do whatever they want. Of course my response may be to leave the Windows ecosystem altogether in which case Microsoft will lose future revenue streams from me. They could have made it easier and more compelling to upgrade but they didn't. If someone hasn't "upgraded" from XP for a decade the interesting question is why not? The answer seems to be that Microsoft hasn't been providing a sufficiently compelling product to give people a reason to switch. They don't have to cater to me specifically but I see little reason to send more money their way without getting some real value in return. I voluntarily upgrade my phone every two years or so because I get more value for my money. I'd do the same with my PC if the ROI was sufficiently large but so far it isn't.

No one owes you a free OS

Never claimed anyone did. Doesn't mean I want to pay for one just because Microsoft doesn't think I'm sending enough money their way lately.

Either pay up for a new MS OS like 7 or 8.1, or if you don't want to spend any money, just download an excellent Linux distro like Mint for free and install it yourself.

Cute how you present those as the only options. I could also go with a linux distro with paid support. I could go over to a Mac OS which has similar support issues but would eliminate any revenue from Microsoft. For some things even Android is becoming an option. Microsoft isn't the airtight monopoly they once were. I virtualized several old XP boxes which I still needed and now I don't even need Windows unless I want to use it. Thanks to virtualization Microsoft cannot force me to upgrade unless I want to do so. So instead of me paying Microsoft a small amount to support their old OS, they get nothing. Last I checked something > nothing.

Re:Doesn't have to be free

[Grishnakh]

Sorry, I thought you were arguing in favor of the idea of government-mandated support, as TFS seems to argue. My whole argument is that MS should be free to do what it wants, and if it wants to abandon XP customers and leave them high and dry, that should be their right and their choice. If the XP customers don't like it, they're free to choose from many, many options as you point out. We can argue whether this makes business sense for MS, but honestly I don't really care. I'd rather see them shoot themselves in the foot; I have as much love for them and their business as I do for Best Buy and Circuit City. I just really bristle at the idea that MS should be forced by the government to support an old product just because a bunch of people decided to buy it ages ago and never upgrade.

Re:Doesn't have to be free

[Zmobie]

Whose forcing them? They can do whatever they want.

That is exactly what TFA is talking about. Should they be obligated to provide a means to continue support.

Re:Doesn't have to be free

[Zmobie]

I work at a mid-size company doing professional software development for some pretty damn large clients. I have a handle on the financials too, because I have to give them input for cost estimates on development time, support, etc. MS does have to handle support calls (I know, I've made them to them before, and we are not some massive client paying for privileges), security analysis of reported bugs, and "patch some bullshit" etc. Do you actually realize how fucking complicated Windows is under the hood? Millions of lines of code written in low level languages. I've watched 4 senior software engineers try to debug 1000 line communication module written in C spend a week on it and still not completely solve the problem. This is not "patch some bullshit" people want and if you seriously think their sales and marketing departments are not breathing down their necks you haven't done shit for professional programming at anything other than programmer. Work as a software lead for more than a year and yea, every company has those departments breathing down their neck any time something happens.

You can think whatever you want, bottom line is MS, no matter what you think of them, should not be obligated to support a twelve year old OS or start sending out their freaking source code to people that do. There are other reasons beyond "money grab" at play, but you clearly don't care to look at that anyway, so no use wasting my time there. Boiling an action down to some singular reason does not make a good point or argument.

Re:Doesn't have to be free

[Anonymous Coward]

      That's not status quo of how support works, that's how support is mis-handled at a bad company. As often said here, if those are your work conditions, you should be looking for a new job.

Re:Doesn't have to be free

[dunawayc]

It might be a bit more complicated than some think. See this: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ericli...

Re:Doesn't have to be free

[sjbe]

Do you actually realize how fucking complicated Windows is under the hood? Millions of lines of code written in low level languages.

As a matter of fact I do realize that. I have a VERY clear understanding of what it requires. I also know that Microsoft already has the infrastructure in place to maintain it and I know that its affect on Microsoft's profitability is quite modest judging by their financial statements which I have read in some detail. If they cease support then they will never put humpty-dumpty back together again.

There are other reasons beyond "money grab" at play, but you clearly don't care to look at that anyway, so no use wasting my time there.

I disagree. Yes there are technical challenges but money is the bottom line here. Not even a question about that. Microsoft made a strategic decision which they believe will profit the company best in the long run. There is even a good chance they are right. However as a user of their products I am under no obligation to be supportive of Microsoft's decision as it adversely affects me. I run a company that uses mostly XP workstations and they work fine for our admittedly modest needs. I don't relish the prospect of spending thousands of dollars to replace machines that weren't broken in the first place.

Re:Doesn't have to be free

[Zmobie]

I disagree. Yes there are technical challenges but money is the bottom line here. Not even a question about that. Microsoft made a strategic decision which they believe will profit the company best in the long run. There is even a good chance they are right. However as a user of their products I am under no obligation to be supportive of Microsoft's decision as it adversely affects me. I run a company that uses mostly XP workstations and they work fine for our admittedly modest needs. I don't relish the prospect of spending thousands of dollars to replace machines that weren't broken in the first place.

And you are 100% allowed to do that and entitled to have your own opinion, but you assume the risks with doing this. Begrudging them because they are making a move that really isn't unethical and is a good move for their company both financially and technologically is just silly. For the work I do on the side I have to provide licenses and such myself, and sometimes that involves spending a lot of money to get the new stuff that I need to be working on. Upgrade cost is part of it and MS has made it very clear when end of life would be for the OS. People have to make decisions and plan accordingly, but anyone raising hell is being just as selfish as Microsoft (not saying you in particular are 'raising hell' to that degree, but some people definitely are going too far).

Re:Doesn't have to be free

[Anonymous Coward]

As one accountant to another - excellent post.

There's an old saying that if you owe the bank $100,000 you have a problem, but if you owe it $1 billion the bank has a problem.For the last 30 or so years Microsoft has operated as a de facto monopoly, with all the arrogance that monopoly power confers. Now it's faced with a massive legacy problem in its core product at the same time as it's failing to make an impact in the mobile device area. Ergo, Microsoft has a problem.

I don't mind paying for XP supoort - but I have a very big problem with the price Microsoft is asking.Given that the cost of distributing patches is little more than the cost of a decent-sized server (marginal cost of close to zero) and taking your points into consideration, I'd say that $5 per machine per year would be a more than reasonable amount.After all, Microsoft's recent deal with the UK's NHS has probably more than covered the costs of patching XP for the forseeable future.

Re:Doesn't have to be free

[MooseMiester]

You are spot on, and there's another factor:

In a development shop nobody and I mean nobody wants to work on old stuff. They want to work on new stuff. Try to find a developer who will work on Classic ASP, VB3, C++/MFC, or any of the old development systems that flourished during the pre .net era... Nobody wants to do it. Sure, there are a few guys who mastered one thing and refuse to learn anything new, but they are few and far between.

This adds to the cost substantially....

Re:Doesn't have to be free

[Anonymous Coward]

hell man you hit the nail on the head, you are my hero, i mean that in a nice way

Re:Doesn't have to be free

[FlyHelicopters]

If you are still using XP and don't want to upgrade, then you really aren't a customer of Microsoft anyway.

MS wants to be paid, if you don't want to pay them, then why should they care about you?

Are you suggesting that you won't spend thousands of dollars upgrading your hardware, but would spend thousands of dollars paying MS for support?

Safety standards

[sjbe]

Cars have ridiculous safety standards

The safety standards are anything but ridiculous unless you meant that in a positive way. See below.

I don't know of a car flaw that can tank an economy, cause a nuclear disaster or cause oil to spill out into the sea.

Cars do however kill more people every year than every nuclear disaster and oil spill in history combined. I assure you that the cost of these accidents combined is in the many many billions of dollars each year. This is despite cars today being significantly safer in an accident than they were even 20 years ago. So I ask you what's worse? A steady stream of small scale disasters that kill people regularly or one really big one that kills relatively few people by comparison but pollutes a lot in the process? I'm not sure there is an easy answer to that.

Michigan

[Stumbles]

needs to pull their head out of their ass.

No

[SocietyoftheFist]

It is their product, they've given plenty of notice. It is the fault of those still using the unsupported product if they have an issue related to its fitness for use.

BUY XP UPDATES

[Anonymous Coward]

MS did not EOL XP because of useability issues. They saw the app being copied endlessly and preventing some valid licenses from being purchased. This is a piracy reduction effort and nothing more. The folks complaining of a lack of updates are 90% folks who did not buy it and will never buy it. Want security and feature updates for XP? Make a system for MS to get paid for each and every copy. Magically it will happen.

JJ

Clear? I think not

[sjbe]

Microsoft has been really clear on their end of life policy for probably a decade if not more.

I disagree that they have been clear "for probably a decade". Most people frankly don't even know about their EOL policies at all. Microsoft may as well have posted the notice in bottom of a file cabinet in a basement restroom with a sign on the door saying beware of jaguar. (with apologies to Douglas Adams) The only person in my company who was even dimly aware of their EOL policy regarding XP was me and now I have to either pay many thousands of dollars to get new computers and software or I have to take the risk of going without security updates that Microsoft is perfectly capable of continuing to provide.

(for the record I would have no problem with Microsoft charging a *reasonable* subscription fee for those interested in continuing to receive "support" for XP - such as it is, which isn't saying much)

However with your definition of $100 USD, cost to upgrade OS from XP to Windows 7, as being "an arm and a leg" not to sure about the rest you wrote.

Forgetting a few things are we? Like the cost of the new computer required to run Windows 7. The cost of migrating all your software (that works just fine on XP thank-you-very-much) to the new computer. The cost of training people to use Windows 7. The cost of upgrading software that does not work in Windows 7. The opportunity cost of the money you will spend on "upgrades" which could have been put to other productive uses besides padding Microsoft's bottom line.

No...they shouldn't...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should they? Sheesh.

"Nice upgade"? For who?

[sjbe]

7 is a nice upgrade over XP, if you don't see or understand that, I'm not sure what I can say, 5 years on, that will help you understand.

If you say so. I'm typing this on a Windows 7 machine and running my older XP machine in a virtual machine. Frankly Windows 7 does not have a single feature I need that I did not have with XP. NOT ONE. I know I am not alone either. I'm sure it's better here and there under the hood but frankly not in any way that was causing me problems. Plus it requires a much faster machine to accomplish the same tasks I already could do.

Besides proper 64 bit support, the seamless way it installs and updates drivers and software for almost anything you plug into it is vastly improved over XP.

64 bit doesn't provide me any noticeable benefit as an end user that I can discern and Windows 7 does not handle drivers any more gracefully for me than XP does. I still have to download and install a googly percentage of my drivers and software manually and it doesn't update them any more effectively either. I'm sure you can find some cases where that is not true but whatever differences there are are so small as to be trivial for most of us.

The BIG difference here:

[Anonymous Coward]

OS software doesn't "wear out" like automotive parts do. Sure, they become obsolete, or new holes are discovered perhaps, but they are not deteriorating - nor is anybody preventing new 'parts' (software) from being written for the OS. I think any comparison to physical hardware is pretty foolish here.

Fallacy in the first few words

[DaveV1.0]

Windows XP is not a photocopier. It isn't a car. It isn't a physical product at all. There are plenty of alternatives to Windows XP out there.

If one wishes to argue the comparison to a physical product, shall we require Ford to continue to make and support the Model T?

They are extending support

[rossdee]

They are extending support (for the UK Gov) so they should be required to offer those (patches etc) to other customers that are willing to pay for it.

They don't (currently) sell a replacement product that would work on thst old hardware. (AFAIK the oldest windows you can buy is 7)

Anyway XP has been out for so long that all existing security problems should be fixed by now (as long as you have a current Antivirus and Firewall from a 3rd party)

They won't do a thing

[adam525]

I heard somewhere (to lazy to google it atm) that they would be extending Windows defender updates (and maybe some other updates for the OS) for ONE more year after the targeted April 2014 date.

Having said that, I'll say this:

Remeber this story from a few days ago? They won't do anything beyond what I said at the top of my post about this. It would cost too much money, and we all know Microsoft isn't out to lose money. I'm sure the same pertained to Windows 95/98 (on a much smaller scale of course) when those EOL'ed. Nothing was done about that.

Nonsense.

[sjbe]

No other publicly available product has ever had such a long support duration as Windows XP has had.

Bullshit. There are PLENTY of publicly available products that have had similar and even longer support duration. Some products have lifetime warranties. There is plenty of software that is still supported (for free and for $) and is far older than XP. And let's be clear what we mean by "support" here. Microsoft releases some security patches here and there and has a website with some documentation. There is NO ONE at Microsoft who will take my call to get a technical question answered so we're not talking about huge costs here compared with Microsofts profits. Frankly continuing to support XP would probably constitute a rounding error in their P&L.

Microsoft should be under no further obligation to its customers with respect to Windows XP.

For free? I agree they should have no open ended support obligation. That does not mean however that their customers should be forced to spend money on software that does nothing new that they need.

However, if individual customers are willing to _pay_ a subscription for further support from Microsoft, they should be allowed to do so.

Microsoft has taken that option off the table. So exactly what do you propose as an alternative that doesn't involve paying hundreds to thousands of dollars to buy new computers and software that many of us do not actually need?

Re:Nonsense.

[Antony T Curtis]

Microsoft should be under no further obligation to its customers with respect to Windows XP.

For free? I agree they should have no open ended support obligation. That does not mean however that their customers should be forced to spend money on software that does nothing new that they need.

However, if individual customers are willing to _pay_ a subscription for further support from Microsoft, they should be allowed to do so.

Microsoft has taken that option off the table. So exactly what do you propose as an alternative that doesn't involve paying hundreds to thousands of dollars to buy new computers and software that many of us do not actually need?

The UK Govt is among one of their customers who is going to pay Microsoft for further Windows XP support.

For people who are not willing to pay, Windows XP will continue to work as it currently does. Third party vendors are likely to continue to provide antivirus updates or perhaps even binary-patching the existing code to continue to operate - that is the model with OS/2 continues to exist today even though the product hasn't been supported by IBM since 1998.

Re:Complete access and indefinite support for free

[ShieldW0lf]

Your position is really out there, you know that?

Cars cost more because they are naturally scarce. Every one you make takes time and effort and resources.

Once software is made, it is trivial to make enough for everyone. Every person who could be advantaged by it but isn't is another example of waste and inefficiency.

If you can sit in a room, look at your creation, destroy its capacity to enrich the human experience just out of a spiteful desire to render it scarce when it doesn't have to be, and not be wracked with guilt at what you've done... frankly, you're a monster and have no fucking soul.

No one is suggesting that Microsoft should be compelled to do anything they don't want to do. If they don't want to support it, they don't have to. Just let them do it themselves.

I used to have a No Fear shirt when I was younger that said "Lead, Follow, or Get The Fuck Out Of The Way".

Microsoft and everyone else who uses "Intellectual Property" laws in their business is guilty of the greatest possible sin. They stand in the way of people helping themselves.

No

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't North Korea. Next question?

2.4 actually and Oct of 2013 I believe....

[Anonymous Coward]

So yes, Linux IS still recieving backports of fixes.

And keep in mind 2.2.0 is from 1999 and 2.4.0 is from 2001. 2.6.0 came out in 2003.

Some comparing off that, Linux *IS* actively supporting software as old as Windows XP.

Re:2.4 actually and Oct of 2013 I believe....

[Rich0]

So yes, Linux IS still recieving backports of fixes.

And keep in mind 2.2.0 is from 1999 and 2.4.0 is from 2001. 2.6.0 came out in 2003.

Some comparing off that, Linux *IS* actively supporting software as old as Windows XP.

What distro are you thinking of? The Linux kernel only has longterm support back to 2.6.32. RHEL offers 10 years from initial release, which is almost as good as MS (10 years from next version release).

It's garbage anyway

[jones_supa]

Windows XP is trash software anyway. I have never used it at home apart from some quick test setups.

Windows XP is a worsened version of the excellent Windows 2000.
Windows 8 is a worsened version of the excellent Windows 7.

Just sayin'.

Re:Complete access and indefinite support for free

[Wycliffe]

I agree with this in principal but what about software that is still patented by themself or a 3rd party?
Also, what about cloud services? Do you release the source of your cloud software too?
Although I think the "right" thing to do is to release the source of a product once it is deemed "dead", I see
problems with actually requiring this to be done.

Even more importantly...

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of the auto industries technology isn't produced by the manufacturers to begin with.

It's produced by Bosch, Denso, Getrag, etc.

Go look at transmissions for instance. Both a Corvette and a GTR (Nissan 'Skyline') use getrag transaxles. Yes, transaxles, not transmissions in the modern generations.

Same deal with fuel injection and dozens of other components. The amount of car manufacturer developed components on a modern car is surprisingly slim. Other than cosmetic differences and some assembly line related stuff regarding vehicle structure, not a whole lot is internally developed anymore, unless it's required to fit into non-standard packaging, and even then it's usually subcontracted out.

Re:Even more importantly...

[ebh]

"3.0L, direct-injected 305bhp V-6, Mini-ATX form factor"

Thoughts

[DaMattster]

Yes, Microsoft should be legally required to provide specifications to third party vendors wishing to keep supporting Windows XP. In retrospect, I don't know why Microsoft did not see this as a potential vertical market and additional revenue stream. They could make additional money off of an obsolete operating system that has more than covered the research and development costs associated with it by charging potential vendors for access to certain amounts of XP code and specs. Meanwhile, they can continue to push the importance of upgrades and it's not like modern software will really run on XP anyways. Shortsightedness abounds!

Re:Complete access and indefinite support for free

[VGPowerlord]

But two swing out of the realm of opinion, you compare Windows XP to "OpenSource darlings like firefox" whose long-term support is measured in "months, not years". This is a bad comparison. A better comparison would be Ubuntu LTS which includes firefox and whose support is measured in years not months. However Canonical having only a fraction of a percent of the marketshare that Windows XP does, is not making a business model in supporting releases for over 14 years.

As a direct comparison, Windows XP is OVER TWELVE YEARS OLD now and has not one, not even two, but three major versions newer available to the public. In Ubuntu terms, Windows XP is the equivalent of Ubuntu 06.04 LTS (12.04 being the current LTS as 14.04 has yet to be released) and should be treated accordingly.

Google Wave

[Anonymous Coward]

Since Google Wave is now Free Software Google's competitors could support it. Maybe that's your answer?

Re:Complete access and indefinite support for free

[Trax3001BBS]

Moreover, the auto manufacturers still aren't required to disclose the keys to the kingdom to the degree that is suggested here.

You have good points and this is really petty, but they were told to do just that.

A car now days will tell you what's wrong with it, you just need to plug into it and read the codes. The auto industry tried to keep those codes secret so you had to goto the dealer to have it read/repaired.

Legal system said no, ain't gonna happen, and Congress agreed. Those codes are accessible now with a reader, a Chilton's (but I suggest a shop manual), and an auto >= 1999 (for the reader adapter which was standardized).

Hard for me to believe there's any vital trade sec

[Anonymous Coward]

What about those pesky NSA keys (Assumed backdoors) floating down somewhere in the kernel... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSAKEY, they deny it, of course, but ... a full source code release could prove them liars, or not...

Of course not

[fiziko]

The end of XP has been a long time coming. Microsoft should not be legally obligated to provide XP support. The fact that XP is so pervasive is a side effect of the lack of appeal of its successors. The XP problem isn't a result of Microsoft failing to compete with others, it failed to compete with itself. If I worked at Microsoft, I'd maintain support in an attempt to maintain that customer base, but they are under no legal obligation to do so. The more likely result is that they'll end up driving people to Mac (and, in far lesser numbers, Linux) because the XP software customers use doesn't work in Windows 8, so they're looking at buying a lot of new software for any system.

Re:Of course not

[jbolden]

Think about that for a second. The kinds of people who have been on the same OS for well over a decade and are cheap enough not to upgrade their machines for years.... how are they going to feel about Apple's higher hardware costs, culture of upgrades every year and applications at best supporting OSes from 2 years back?

Re:Complete access and indefinite support for free

[Anonymous Coward]

s/biggest/easiest/g

Yes and no

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, Microsoft should be forced to release the source code to the product as they no longer support its use. While this idea is practically unprecedented in the software industry it does meet with the intended reason of copyright which is to promote works entering the public domain; I can think of no better benchmark for when a work would be required to enter the public domain than when the "owner" company refuses to sell and/or support the product.

No, Microsoft should not be forced to provide indefinite support. The very idea is silly at best, XP has been available for so long and supported so much that the list of true vulnerabilities keeps growing. Supporting the product in this way with no end is just inviting extra security risks. By officially ending support Microsoft is simply communicating an unavoidable reality, if I'm being honest I'd have to say they're about 3 years too late.

No.

[drolli]

Guys, you knew how long XP was going to be supported.

Its one of the longest supported Microsoft OS ever, and most applications for XP can be ported without pain to a newer OS. Windows 7/8 arent even that bad from the viewpoint of resource usage.

I myself will use XP in some VMs, which are anyway isolated from the rest of the world. Manufacturers who support a big fleet of devices will need to negotiate with MS or get their shit done correctly (i.e. plan upgrades and support).

Even that becomes theoretical at some point

[Lonewolf666]

The correct answer would probably be that there is already competition in this market. By changing to a Linux os perating system you can maintain your 15 year old computer fully supported. Unfortunately, in many cases that's not true. Device manufacturers only provide full documentation and support to Microsoft and the Linux drivers cannot be guaranteed. This means that while your computer will work and your operating system will be supported, your actual whole system may not be.

Three years ago, the developers of Mesa dropped support for some old graphics cards:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=OTg0Mg
Now those cards were badly obsolete and rare even in 2011, but this shows that even the Open Source community will at some point lose interest in supporting old stuff.
Today, you can maybe cobble together your own distribution that still contains those old drivers, or pay someone to do it. But for most people this won't be an attractive solution.

Re:Complete access and indefinite support for free

[Wootery]

Proprietary software can be done right, with minimal effort to support it for decades.

(Emphasis mine)

Citation needed. Even if the software is near-perfect, you'll still need to have people on-staff who are familiar with the decades-old software. This alone surely makes it non-easy.

Microsoft is dying, and so is politicians support.

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft is dying, and so is politicians support for them. No more law breaking. Nobody wants Microsoft any more.

Windows XP is a version of Windows

[indigozero]

Windows XP is a version of Windows which Microsoft still fully supports. There are explicit upgrade paths to supported versions of the product. The fallacy is that a lot discussion implies that Windows XP is not a version of the Windows Product line. The real question that should be being raised is how long should Microsoft support an older version of their Software? Personally, I don't think something that is over a decade old and has gone through more than three major versions should be required to be supported. It's time to upgrade already or deal with technical stagnation.

It could be argued software (XP) is a book

[Trax3001BBS]

And they go out of print. Many comparisons between the two can be made.
I don't think the legal system would buy that argument though. (I did try for a better word than 'buy')

Still Running W2K

[Anonymous Coward]

I have 3 machines still running Windows 2000 without anti-virus programs or Microsoft support. They are doing their job and running as fast as when they were installed. To me the fuss about Microsoft dropping support for WinXP is a joke.

Ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

It's like asking Apple to support all the PPC machines still out there (I have one). I don't even think I can get replacement discs anymore for my PPC G5. What Microsoft should do, though is make XP open source so that those who want to patch it and keep it going can do so. It won't impact their bottom line since most consumers don't do patches or would have any idea what open source is. They'd just buy a new computer. But for those who have XP specific software or hardware could work on improvements and patches. Or people still on XP should do what I did with my G5 when I had to replace the hard drive, and put a Linux distro on it. It'll run better and not be a security nightmare.

Re:Complete access and indefinite support for free

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

That's a fair point, but I think it's more analogous to requiring Microsoft to disclose details of things like APIs and data formats required for interoperability (as others in this discussion have suggested) than to requiring Microsoft to disclose their source code. I think promoting interoperability and compatibility is generally beneficial, and as such I don't have the same objections to requiring a reasonable level API/format disclosure, where "reasonable" takes into account both the usefulness of any given disclosure and the burden imposed by requiring it.

Re:Complete access and indefinite support for free

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Once software is made, it is trivial to make enough for everyone.

It's that first part that is the kicker, though, isn't it? It's great that digital works can be reproduced and distributed with very low marginal costs, but you still have to cover the sunk costs of the initial development. Those are huge for this kind of software project, and they are typically paid in advance and with no guaranteed level of return. The economic model has to take that into account or it won't work.

No one is suggesting that Microsoft should be compelled to do anything they don't want to do.

Of course they are. They are saying that as well as developing their code to make new products that they then sell (which they presumably want to do) Microsoft should also incur an indefinite, substantial, unfunded obligation to help people competing with those new products and using Microsoft's own code from their earlier products to do it. There is absolutely no business benefit to Microsoft for doing this, and the overheads involved are far higher than could reasonably be justified on the grounds of promoting general competition in the market.

Re:Complete access and indefinite support for free

[LordLimecat]

Ubuntu LTS has support for 5 years. XP is being supported long after Linux 2.4 was EOL'd. Theres really no comparison. XP came out back when 2.2 was still around.

Re: Last Thing? Yeah Right...

[Anonymous Coward]

"The last thing they would want is an open source community picking it up, keeping it current with security patches and making it work on new hardware."

I have a hard time believing that is the "last" thing that Microsoft would want. The groups that they really want off of XP, companies, aren't the sorts to put their trust in the Open Source Community for all their patching and new hardware needs.

What they WOULD have a problem with is the companies that would sprout up in support of Windows XP for a fee. Companies whose poor performance would affect the view people would have of Microsoft. And companies like that who are willing to sign big contracts with companies stealing from Microsoft's pocket book.

Not to mention that it would likely give people insight into how to break it, something more concerning with XP than releasing the source of Borland C++. Plus, that would also help provide insights into breaking the newer versions of Windows.

Dumb Question

[Anonymous Coward]

In a world where we tell people there are no dumb questions, this is a dumb question.

Re:Complete access and indefinite support for free

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

to support they could simply release their internal documentation, source code, diagrams etc. to the public

That isn't a simple matter at all if you're still developing new versions of your product based on the same materials. You are proposing that a business whose primary asset is its collective knowledge should be required to give away the most important knowledge it has accumulated, at great cost, up to a certain point, just to absolve it of a hypothetical liability that it was never realistic to assign to that business in the first place.

That would be a fair compromise considering that IT is one of the very few industries that get away with delivering faulty, unstable and insecure products as the accepted norm. If houses or clothes or refrigerators were produced like software...

...then a lot of houses would need expensive repairs after a few years to fix damage caused by subsidence, pests, unanticipated weather conditions, or the neighbours causing damage while doing work on their own property, while cheap clothes would be some of the most frequently returned items in stores because they fall apart after they've hardly been worn due to economising on manufacturing techniques and materials?

People talk a lot about how software is unreliable and breaks all the time, but the reality is that most consumer software is remarkably resilient given the many and varied jobs it needs to do and the cost of making it. I'm writing this on a Windows 7 PC that I've had for several years. I can count on my fingers the total number of times Windows has fallen over, and as far as I know all of them were actually caused by either a hardware failure or a dodgy update to some additional system software like a device driver or security tool, not by Windows itself. Sure, some software isn't up to scratch and the people who make it deserve to be criticised, but I don't think it's fair to claim that software in general is some sort of unusable, bug-ridden mess.

Re:Complete access and indefinite support for free

[Zmobie]

Making it scarce is one thing (e-books I am looking at you...), but they are in one shit position too. On one hand it is stupid to continue on with outdated technology that overall is hurting the industry from growing beyond an antiquated system. On the other hand it is costly for these people to upgrade. The problem is look at it from Microsoft's perspective: They either do what they are doing now and push people to update to newer versions of the software or they sink a ridiculous sum of money into continuing the patches.

What you, and TFA, suggest is out of the question simply because if they release the source to Windows they just gave away their lifeblood. How many companies do you think WON'T take that for every penny it is worth? Linus Torvalds reverse engineered UNIX in his garage with a handful of other guys and very little access to the type of information MS would have to give out, what do you think someone could do with full source, documentation, etc.? Yea, can't say I blame them for not wanting to hand that out, even if it is 12 years old.

Market apparently made a bad choice

[cmurf]

No one should support the government distorting the (imperfectly) free market in this manner.

Windows XP was sold with an explicit, well documented time frame for support and updates. The market made a choice. And now a segment of that market is having buyers' remorse, proposing that the government needs to step in and alter the outcome. We shouldn't support legislation causing an alternative outcome, the consequences of decisions need to be felt by all parties. Otherwise the rest of us end up subsidizing the bad decisions of others who obviously regret their choice and are dissatisfied with reality. Oh fucking well.

A bit late for this action

[Anonymous Coward]

Given that YEARS of court battles that will result from such actions, by the time the dust settles XP will be all but irrelevant.

Uh, no...

[erp_consultant]

There is a lot of precedent for this in other software products, and hardware too. Oracle regularly phases out support of old versions of their software. So does Apple. C'mon folks...XP has been around since the late 90's. Time to get on a modern OS.

Forcing MS to support their OS "forever" will only lead to higher prices for everyone.

Re:Complete access and indefinite support for free

[flappinbooger]

But two swing out of the realm of opinion, you compare Windows XP to "OpenSource darlings like firefox" whose long-term support is measured in "months, not years". This is a bad comparison. A better comparison would be Ubuntu LTS which includes firefox and whose support is measured in years not months. However Canonical having only a fraction of a percent of the marketshare that Windows XP does, is not making a business model in supporting releases for over 14 years.

As a direct comparison, Windows XP is OVER TWELVE YEARS OLD now and has not one, not even two, but three major versions newer available to the public. In Ubuntu terms, Windows XP is the equivalent of Ubuntu 06.04 LTS (12.04 being the current LTS as 14.04 has yet to be released) and should be treated accordingly.

This sums up the issue nicely. Microsoft should not be on the hook for XP.

Their only mistake was making it so good...

Also windows 7 will have the same problem.

Re:Complete access and indefinite support for free

[Bert64]

Well that's the whole point, you don't need to provide support indefinitely you only need to provide the code to arbitrary third parties and they can continue providing support if you choose not to.

Look at all the embedded devices out there still running linux 2.4.x (or even older), and still being actively supported by the device maker. If there's a market for something and people have the code - someone will step up to provide support.

Just upgrade now

[thetoadwarrior]

Come on skin flints, there's no reason to be on XP anymore. Accept it and move on.

why mess with a good thing?

[stenvar]

Microsoft is shooting itself in the foot by discontinuing XP because so many devices rely on it. And the market is reacting with a move to Linux. Companies who bet too heavily on Microsoft and Windows XP, i.e., companies run by stupid people, are losing big time. That's the way markets are supposed to work.

If the government intervenes, it will do three things: it will perpetuate a lousy operating system, it would prop up Microsoft's desktop OS position a little longer, and it would prevent companies that made stupid beds on Microsoft's proprietary software from suffering the consequences of their poor choices. I don't see any compelling public interest in any of that.

Re:Complete access and indefinite support for free

[Bert64]

In the case of XP, clearly the up front costs have long ago been recovered many thousands of times over.

Re:Complete access and indefinite support for free

[Bert64]

So, who is backporting security patches to linux 2.0, or KDE 3.0?

Anyone who is still using such devices..
There will be embedded devices out there still running ancient versions of linux, and still receiving manufacturer updates. In many cases the OS will have been minimalized to decrease the amount of effort required to update it, which is another advantage linux offers.

The fact that very few people still use such old linux devices is another matter, there is far less reason *not* to upgrade your linux devices - support for existing hardware is rarely dropped, memory requirements rarely go up, there are no huge costs involved etc.

FYI i still maintain several old linux boxes...
One running a 2.4.x kernel, because it's used to control an SGI machine that requires a proprietary kernel module..
Another running a 2.2.x kernel because i use a third party encryption program that was never ported to newer kernels.

Both of these systems despite having old kernels, have relatively up to date userlands and the services exposed to the network are also kept updated.

I have a 1996 Taurus

[Latent Heat]

Should Ford be waived from issuing a recall on a 19-year-old car purchased in 1995 if a safety defect is revealed?

Re:I have a 1996 Taurus

[VGPowerlord]

Should Ford be waived from issuing a recall on a 19-year-old car purchased in 1995 if a safety defect is revealed?

Comparing a physical device costing tens of thousands of dollars whose defects can cost the lives of the user versus a piece of software costing $100 or less whose defects cause inconvenience to the user totally makes sense!!!!!111

Re:I have a 1996 Taurus

[BUL2294]

Comparing a physical device costing tens of thousands of dollars whose defects can cost the lives of the user versus a piece of software costing $100 or less whose defects cause inconvenience to the user totally makes sense!!!!!111

Really? So a $100,000 medical device, robot in a factory, or SCADA platform running a $100 copy of XP (well, $200 if Pro, less if XP Embedded) can't "cost the lives of the user"??? I wouldn't want to be in front of a dental x-ray machine with a copy of XP that is now sending spam or worse, being used to cause harm to users... Ever hear of the Therac-25 accidents of the mid-80s? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...

Re:I have a 1996 Taurus

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course it can - but I would say that the company that produces life-saving medical machinery, then makes the single point of failure a $100 copy of anything that has literally been replaced 3 times by better versions, is who we should be looking at in that situation.

Re:I have a 1996 Taurus

[khellendros1984]

Apples and oranges. A safety defect in a car can mean death and injury. A security issue in an old OS can mean data theft or other shenanigans, but not generally something fatal. From a more cynical perspective, settling a single wrongful death suit may cost more than doing a best-effort recall of the remaining '96 Tauruses on the road. Microsoft would be able to state that it had fulfilled its Windows XP support contracts and provided an upgrade path to still-supported products. Anyhow, Sasser never killed anyone.

Re:I have a 1996 Taurus

[khellendros1984]

If you're going to hook up your expensive device that's running what's essentially an embedded copy of XP to the Internet, then it's not Microsoft that made the mistake. AECL actually made numerous engineering mistakes in their product. An analogous situation to the Therac-25 problems would be if the medical device/robot/SCADA company wrote bad control software/drivers for their devices. Going the other direction, if the Therac-25's software had been perfect, but the PDP-11 caught a virus when someone connected it to a network, would that be AECL's fault? The fault of the company that wrote the PDP-11's OS?

Re:I have a 1996 Taurus

[toddestan]

Actually, they are under no obligation to issue a recall to fix your 1996 model car. They are only required to do so if the car is 10 years old or less.

Re:I have a 1996 Taurus

[ciscoguy01]

Wow, that Therac-25 writeup is fascinating.
Well worth reading.

Re:I have a 1996 Taurus

[ciscoguy01]

Wow, that Therac-25 writeup is fascinating.

Re:I have a 1996 Taurus

[FlyHelicopters]

Yes, and they generally are. There are exceptions, but the general rule is 10 years for auto recalls.

help?

[Anonymous Coward]

why would a company want to help its competitors? The competitors create their own software and/or operating system. I'm confused.

Migration

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, if it was as easy to 'move your settings', installed programs etc. to a new box, it would be less of a headache for everyone.

If it "worked" the same way a mac does (macs aren't perfect, hence the quotes), then you could probably convince ~%50 of people/companies to commit.

Additionally, some software (HP, I'm looking at you) requires you to re-buy (upgrade at the cost of a full install) for Win7/8 compatible versions of their business software. At $10k/per license, that adds up, even for larger companies.

Re:Clear? I think not

[dcw3]

If you're the only person in your company who knew, you were the only one paying attention. I normally don't follow it myself, but have been aware of this for years.

Regarding the costs, you're correct. But, just like any other equipment that a company buys, things don't last forever, and are depreciated in value over time. I'd be willing to bet that your company did depreciate those computers on their taxes. If your in the U.S., that's over five years, value of your equipment is now considered to be $0. Equipment, including software, shouldn't be expected to last indefinitely.

Enough excuses already

[dave562]

If people put as much effort into getting off of XP as they spend fighting the inevitable, they would not be facing these challenges right now. Microsoft has made it quite clear that they are going to sunset the product. There have been newer, better operating systems released that provide an easy upgrade path. Unless someone is running a single core processor, Windows 7 is faster and more stable than XP.

And if the newer Microsoft OSes are sooooo terrible, "There is always Linux." (Or OSX)

These "Save XP" articles are tired and played out. Move on guys. When I read these articles, all I hear is, "Whaaaaaaa. I have procrastinated for the last five years and now I'm fucked. Save me from my own ineptitude!!!"

For a community focused on OSS and Linux. For a community that has consumed Lord only knows how many terabytes of storage bashing XP and touting the glories of ANYTHING ELSE. For a community like that, one would think that XP going EOL would be celebrated with much merriment and significant rejoicing. Oddly enough, it seems that one would be wrong.

You don't work in the USA, do you?

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine living in a world where half the population is illiterate and the majority are required to work labor from dawn till dusk, where free time is scarce and every single moment spent pursuing "flights of fancy" instead of pursuing "real work" has a significant cost to the individuals involved.

I don't have to imagine it, I live it. In the good old USA where most people get two weeks of vacation but rarely take all it. Where going on vacation means working 80 hours the week before leave and the week after you return unless you carry a cell phone. Then it's only 60 hours.

In the USA you can be accused of racism for using the word "niggardly."

I would say not much has changed.

Re:Complete access and indefinite support for free

[pr0fessor]

If houses or clothes or refrigerators were produced like software...

They are... sometimes you get a shirt that falls apart or the color fades after 1 or 2 washes... color bleeds out of a brand new garment and all over the rest of the clothes on the first wash...

houses... anything that doesn't cause injury or can be considered an outside force/act of god is common that's why you have home owner's insurance.

refrigerator... the door seal is not 100% flush and requires frequent defrosting, uses 4 times the amount of power it shows on the energy star sticker. {This was the last refrigerator I bought and had it replaced under warranty before I had it two months}

 

Re:Complete access and indefinite support for free

[ShieldW0lf]

How much more do you think we have to give them before they've gotten all they deserve for work that was largely completed 12 years ago? Setting aside your attachment to the "hate the game not the player" perspective. How much before we can with integrity say "You've been more than fairly compensated, and the whole world needs this, so we're letting them do what they need with it."

Does greed have a boundary? Do you just encourage them to continue forever?

virtual solution (at least in part)

[callmetheraven]

The fact that MS chooses not to include a fully-functional XP virtual machine in each and every copy of win8 is obnoxious and borderline criminal. Smells like a decision that fat faggot Ballmer would have made.

I realize that even this would not solve all the antique XP problems, but it would solve the majority.

(offtopic) I often imagine the goodwill that MS would generate if they offered all Win8 users a free "downgrade" to win7. Add to this the aforementioned VM and I think even slashdotters might say nice things about them.

Re:virtual solution (at least in part)

[jbolden]

They included Windows XP mode in Windows 7. Windows 7 upgrades are still for sale. Windows 8 includes a Hypervisor which will run licensed XP just fine.

I often imagine the goodwill that MS would generate if they offered all Win8 users a free "downgrade" to win7.

They have good strategic reasons to move their conservative customer base to Windows 8. I wish if anything they were more aggressive.

Andrew Tutt

[Anonymous Coward]

...has the boorish manners of a Yalie. Seriously, though, just STFU already and stop trying to be outrageous for the sake of attention.

I'm the last person to speak in defense of anything that Microsoft does, but XP is ANCIENT and the amount of support they've provided for it is truly above and beyond. Driver support for modern hardware has been a bit of a chore to find for a few years now, as everybody else moves on (vendors won't maintain for XP either.) Take XP out behind the barn and unload both barrels into it already.

If only people had been given some sort of heads up that XP would be going EOL in 2014. If only there had been a steady stream of reminders that this day was coming FOR FIVE FUCKING YEARS. I wonder if Andrew is pissed about the demise of IE6 as well?

Maybe next he can write an article about how the Ford Motor Company is fucking us over because the Edsel isn't still under factory warranty.

Re:Complete access and indefinite support for free

[almitydave]

There are people in this discussion suggesting that someone who doesn't want to comply with such rules can go **** themselves and just give up on entering the US market. Well, guess what? They probably would. The burden imposed by this kind of requirement would almost certainly be prohibitive in cost. A vendor such as Microsoft would therefore do better to sacrifice the entire US market if it meant avoiding both an eternal unfunded mandate to support everything they ever sold and giving up their trade secrets to all their competitors.

It's more likely that they'd make Windows subscription-only, charging by the month or year, with a feature that causes your product to stop working if you don't renew your subscription. Which for an OS is crazy, but that's the incentive this requirement would create. Microsoft might even prefer this business model, but would never think they could get away with it, unless there was a rule that essentially mandated it. And perpetual free support would pretty much mandate perpetually charging for a product.

How this would relate to XP EOL is that they wouldn't renew any licenses for an OS past it's expiration date, and when the terms of your license agreement explicitly state you can't use the product, they can't be forced to support it any more.

Re:Complete access and indefinite support for free

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

If you want to use technology that works on that basis, nothing is stopping you from restricting yourself to Open Source software where you know it will be a viable option.

Microsoft has advertised the length of support that will be available for its major product lines for years in advance of their retirement dates, has already supported some of those products far beyond what any similar software developer in the industry offers, and offers newer products of similar types with ongoing support for many years to come. No-one can seriously claim they thought they were entitled to more than this when they bought Microsoft, and the failure of any large organisations to plan an effective IT strategy given, again, several years of advance notice of what was going to happen, is neither Microsoft's fault nor their responsibility.

Re:Complete access and indefinite support for free

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

And Mark Zuckerberg has a lot more money than me, so I should go start a social network and then I'll surely become a billionaire in a few years.

You can't base credible economic policy and market regulation on carefully selected outliers like that. For every out-of-the-park success story like XP, there is a Vista (or usually many Vistas) where other developers put in time and money on the same scale and failed spectacularly.

Fuck Linux!

[Anonymous Coward]

Stay away from linux desktop. I had opensuse kde(kdm) crash on me when opening applications and other weird bugs 1 example not being able to close a window by clicking on the x corner bar, same experience with xfce, lxde, cinnamon, mate on different distro's. Linux desktop was buggy in 2001 and still buggy today. Yeah, it's free, but I'd rather invest for five years $99-$140(Windows 8.1 Pro x64 Amazon) then waste hours trying to figure out the bugs and dependency issues.

Deprecation has little to do with value

[sjbe]

If you're the only person in your company who knew, you were the only one paying attention.

That's correct. It's also correct in most companies out there outside of IT departments as well as for most home users. This is simply NOT the sort of thing anyone but us geeks is going to pay even the slighted bit of attention to.

But, just like any other equipment that a company buys, things don't last forever, and are depreciated in value over time.

Don't confuse deprecation with anything that has to do with actual value. I'm a certified accountant and I'm telling you that depreciation is rarely meaningful regarding the true value of an asset. You do not throw assets out merely because they are fully depreciated. I have a 25 year old press sitting not 40 feet from me that we make a ton of money off of and that I could sell for many thousands of dollars. It's fully depreciated and has been for years but works fine and if we were to sell it we would realize a capital gain on the sale plus it would cost us a lot of money in lost capability. (and its new owner would have to depreciate it all over again)

If your in the U.S., that's over five years, value of your equipment is now considered to be $0.

Taxable value of an asset has almost NOTHING to do with the productive value of that asset or it's market value if you sell the asset.

Equipment, including software, shouldn't be expected to last indefinitely.

Of course it doesn't but that doesn't mean you throw it out when it is still working. You only replace an asset if it provides a significant return on investment. I defy you to give me a positive ROI on my company replacing our Windows XP computers with Windows 7/8 computers. We would spend thousands of dollars and a lot of time to merely get the exact capabilities we have right at this very moment.

Long live the dot matrix

[DoctorFuji]

I want some more ribbon for my dot matrix printer

Re:Complete access and indefinite support for free

[Grishnakh]

Sorry, but this is absolutely wrong. The codes are still secret, you still have to go to the dealer to have it read or repaired. The only thing the government did was standardize on one particular connector and on a small subset of the codes, namely those dealing with emissions. So if some emission-related component fails and the car's ECU flags a code saying such, then you're in luck: you can get an aftermarket code reader to see this, and clear the code after you replace that component. If some other code is flagged for something entirely different, then you'll just see "P9876" and have no clue what that means.

It's worse than that; modern cars have a lot more electronic systems than before, and many things are only adjustable by the dealer. For instance, some cars have computer-controlled shocks; they stiffen the fluid (and thus the damping rate) when the car is in a turn, but not when driving straight. The problem here is that the system has to be zeroed out when the car is standing still, at its normal ride height. If the springs sag or any changes are made to the suspension, you have to go back to the dealer so they can re-zero your suspension. An aftermarket tool doesn't have access to this stuff. There's also lots of features where if you want to add some factory option, perhaps by buying the part used on Ebay, you still have to go to the dealer and spend hundreds of dollars for them to enable it in software. You can't just bolt it on and go. This also applies to keys. On the latest cars, you can't just program a key for a car; you have to program the car to accept the key. Only dealerships have the hardware to do this.

Re:Complete access and indefinite support for free

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

That's certainly a plausible alternative, I agree. Any way you cut it, the bottom line is that providing ongoing support for ageing software is very expensive, not to mention actively harming efforts to migrate a customer base to newer and better versions. No business is going to accept that kind of obligation without charging a realistic amount of money for meeting it, one way or another.

Re:Complete access and indefinite support for free

[Grishnakh]

The handy thing about Linux is that it's free and usually pretty easy to update it. You're not stuck with using KDE3.0, you can easily upgrade your distro and use KDE 4.11, and it won't cost you one red cent. This isn't true for Windows. Also, unlike Windows, Linux software generally doesn't get remarkably slower with new releases.

Re:Complete access and indefinite support for free

[Ravaldy]

I bet this supplier who provided you these procedures either 1) had the procedure ready to go 2) you're on a service contract so they are paid regardless 3) you are a valuable customer to them (meaning $$ in the pocket)

The OS has been dead for 3 years now. I think MS gave enough notice to it's users and partners. I'd love to see anybody call a software company about software released 12 years ago. They would get the shaft in 99% of cases. What I can tell you is that H/W manufacturers won't even take a call on products that used to run on Windows XP. They will tell you to look at the support site or go in the forums.

 

Re:Complete access and indefinite support for free

[Anonymous Coward]

OOXML isn't an API and in any case, is thoroughly documented. It was the thoroughness that people complained about.

Microsoft's APIs for Windows are very well documented. Start here then post when you're done.

Re:"Nice upgade"? For who?

[Anonymous Coward]

*I* don't use it, therefore *no one* uses it, therefore it is a waste!

Re:Complete access and indefinite support for free

[Anonymous Coward]

So, who is backporting security patches to linux 2.0, or KDE 3.0?

Linux 2.0 has a continuous sequence of security patches and updates through to the present day. Linux 2.4, 2.6 ... 3.6, 3.8. If you haven't kept up to date you that's not the fault of the linux developers. All the steps have been made available, for free, and continue to be. Which isn't the case with Windows XP.

Re:Clear? I think not

[Anonymous Coward]

A Google search shows that Microsoft have already established EOL for Windows 8. It is literally plotted out NINE YEARS IN ADVANCE.

It's funny guys...

[MugenEJ8]

For a buncha people adamantly against Windows, there sure are a lot of people out here explaining how Microsoft should extend support for an obsolete product.

It's obsolete and dangerous to your business/personal life, like lead paint and asbestos. Please upgrade to something modern and stop moaning.

Re:Complete access and indefinite support for free

[Zmobie]

Greed is only part of the motivation for them to do this. From the developers' perspective, it is about continuing technological advancement. Sucking away time to work on a system that is largely outdated is a pain, time consuming, and flys directly in the face of advancement and building bigger and better products. Yes, the suits at the top are doing this because of greed, but the developers want to do it for different reasons entirely.

If they commit to we will continue updating this forever without asking for more money then the world will ride THEM. When I do work on the side for people that are not close friends/family, yes I charge them, but most of it is not so I can make a quick buck. Generally I charge so that they don't say, well this guy has skills that very few people have and hes doing it for free so I am going to ride his ass as hard as possible because every tiny thing he does is worth a ton of money for me. Very few people will not take that perspective too, so you can point the finger at them and God knows Microsoft may deserve that, but the people on the other side are just as guilty as Microsoft of the greed mentality.

They don't want to upgrade because they are cheap, every other thing they have wears out and has to be replaced. They are getting a valuable piece of software at a decent cost that has lasted TWELVE YEARS. When most consumer products that are 3 to 10 times more expensive last not even half that time and get no support or updates at all. Yet they want to bleed them dry and feel justified in doing so because...? I don't know, haven't heard a good reason yet other than people are cheap and resist change naturally.

No.

[Red_Chaos1]

We all had ample time to get the fuck off of XP by now. All the crying and whinging is stupid. Update your damn OS already. It's not Uncle Microsoft's fault you didn't get your ass in gear and set up an upgrade path sooner.

Gee I dunno

[SourceFrog]

Should slavery be allowed? I'm really not sure, what a vexing question.

Let's repose this question another way: Should the average (say) slashdot programmer be forced to keep working for an employer they don't want to work for, for years after they tried to leave? If not, then why would it be OK to force MS to do just that?

The only obligation MS has is to honor its contracts. When you bought XP so many years ago the conditions included some known support EOL, which has actually already been extended.

Windows 8.1

[tepples]

Windows 8.1 runs on pretty much any PC that supports Windows Vista and has PAE, NX, and SSE2 instructions. I'd bet a lot of companies special-ordered Windows XP on Vista-ready hardware.

Re:"Nice upgade"? For who?

[FlyHelicopters]

Frankly Windows 7 does not have a single feature I need that I did not have with XP. NOT ONE.

You're mistaken, security is that feature. It isn't one that you can touch and taste so much, but it is there. The core of 64-bit Win7 is far more secure than the core of XP.

We all need better security.

System requirements too

[tepples]

Linux 2.4 can be upgraded to Linux 3 without charge. Windows XP cannot be upgraded to Windows 8 without charge. That's one key difference. Another is the extent to which hardware requirements have changed. Modern GNU/Linux has lightweight desktop environments such as Xfce and LXDE as nearly drop-in replacements for the more mainstream and heavier GNOME, KDE Plasma, and Unity.

Copyright protection

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting observation. I'd be inclined to contend that no company should be required to support any technology beyond whatever explicit agreements or contracts they have made to begin with, and leave it at that.

However, taking into account that Copyright itself is a a legal invention that requires pro-active support by society at large, and the Public Domain is the natural state of information, it strikes me that this would make a very nice little copyright reform: You can have copyright for as long as you are publishing a given work. Once you stop, it's automatically part of the PD, so it can naturally be used by anyone who cares to actually put in the effort to do something useful.

I like something along these lines because it can be generally applied and creates good incentives for Copyright holders as a whole without singling out a specific industry or industry player for a custom legal that would look almost like forced labor if you applied it to a specific person.

Re:Complete access and indefinite support for free

[tepples]

It was the thoroughness that people complained about.

Thoroughness? [chuckles] Look at any element or attribute with "Like" in the name: the behavior used to be defined as "whatever this other proprietary program does, and we're refusing to describe this behavior in detail in the present specification." I'll grant that the behavior of things like w:autoSpaceLikeWord95 and w:truncateFontHeightsLikeWP6 and w:lineWrapLikeWord6 is better documented nowadays, but I'm pretty sure it took a lot of FUD against OOXML on the part of ODF advocates to get Microsoft to document what those back-compatibility tags actually mean.

Define please?

[Anonymous Coward]

Most modern Linux distributions run circles around circles around whatever Winows XP can provide, by any measure from security, to features to driver support and software features.

Other than "I don't like Linux," by what possible definition does "can't compete" apply to a modern Linux distribution compared to XP?

Re:Complete access and indefinite support for free

[Rich0]

Sure, you can do it, but is it really fair to EXPECT a vendor to support an OS for so long? MS provides free security support for Windows for longer than any other consumer OS vendor out there. RHEL is probably the next closest option I'm aware of.

I'm a huge proponent of Linux for many reasons, including the ability to self-support. However, I think it is a bit much to demand that a vendor continue to support an OS that came out in 2001.

Re:Complete access and indefinite support for free

[Rich0]

Well, half the reason I ditched KDE for a few years was that KDE 4 was a huge performance hog in its early days. It has gotten better, but I doubt it is comparable to 3.5. But, once I upgraded my hardware I returned to it.

I also wouldn't say that Win7 is remarkably slow compared to XP. Then again, I haven't run it on any systems with very limited RAM.

MS supports their OSes for 10 years from obsolesce. They have had the same lifecycle for ages - anybody buying a PC with XP on it less than 10 years ago knew this date was coming. If they bought it more than 10 years ago then they knew that it would be good for at least 10 years, which was a promise that was kept.

Sure, I avoid Windows anytime I can. Still, I can't really say that MS doesn't support their products. I mean, should they also be supporting Win98, Win95, and Win 3.1? How about Win/386 and MS DOS 2.1 (now supporting sub-directories!)?

Re:Complete access and indefinite support for free

[Rich0]

So, who is backporting security patches to linux 2.0, or KDE 3.0?

Linux 2.0 has a continuous sequence of security patches and updates through to the present day. Linux 2.4, 2.6 ... 3.6, 3.8. If you haven't kept up to date you that's not the fault of the linux developers. All the steps have been made available, for free, and continue to be. Which isn't the case with Windows XP.

Link? I'm not aware of anybody backporting patches to Linux 2.0. Certainly there are 2.6 longterm kernels still around.

All of the stuff you're saying is a great reason to buy Linux and not Windows. I just don't get how MS should have to support XP forever when they've always only guaranteed 10 years from date of obsolescence, which is what they've done.

If you bought a PC with XP then you've either gotten at least 10 years of support, or you intentionally chose not to use a newer version like Vista. And if you stuck with MS after seeing Vista, well, I'd say that MS is hardly the source of all of your problems...

Re:Complete access and indefinite support for free

[Grishnakh]

I never said MS didn't support their products for fairly long terms; obviously they do. But they don't support them for infinitely-long periods of time.

With Linux, you don't need support for such long periods; you just upgrade to a newer version periodically, because it's free. You just have to pencil some time into your calendar to do it (and many distros can upgrade on-the-fly, though some people have reported problems doing this, so it's a good idea to back up your data first, though this is a good idea for everyone running any OS to do on a regular basis of course). Yes, there have been some cases of things getting slower or needing more RAM; KDE4 is definitely more of a RAM hog than older versions. The newest versions (4.10+) are a lot better than the early 4.x versions however as far as speed. Generally speaking, things have plateaued with computers across the board; software isn't really getting much (or any) slower any more, unless of course you're running McAfee shitware like some stupid corporations' IT departments do, so at this point it doesn't really look like you need to upgrade your hardware at all as long as you're running something made in the last 5 years or so. People just don't complain much about computer speed any more when all they do is web browsing, office documents, etc. Get something that's not too old and has 4GB (or better yet 8) and you'll be fine for the foreseeable future. (Of course, if you intend to play high-end video games this advice does not apply.)

Of course no

[Hamsterdan]

That OS is 13-14 years old...

It won't stop working (well maybe the activation thingy), you just won't get any kind of security updates, and in some time, it will be unsupported by security software (kinda like 98)

I still have a 98SE machine running (for old games that don't work on modern windows versions), but with some caveats

1- It's not hooked up to the network, and will never be
2- Older hardware will not have driver updates
3- Transferring files is done via DVD-R or CD-R (because no, it won't be hooked up, and no, I don't want to install USB mass storage drivers on it)

The same can be done with XP (activating it might be fun without an internet connection, but I'm pretty sure MS could release a little program that activates XP (but probably won't))

I'm glad not to be working for an ISP, it's gonna be a nightmare for both customers and CSRs when the machines get infected

Re:Of course no

[allston]

I have my Win 98 machine online, I use opera as my browser, it runs not to bad. I dont know what all the fuss is about running older software online.

Re:Of course no

[Hamsterdan]

Well, it doesn't need to for one.
The only reason it's 98 and not DOS is simply because I need Logitech's gaming software to program the buttons on my flight stick for Tie Fighter and X Wing. (and it beats having to do a multi-config to meet the memory requirements of each game)

The second (and biggest) reason why it's not even on the network is security.
I don't want to take the chance my AV software on my Win7 machine misses something because it's deemed too old and it propagates on the 98 box. Besides, as I said, it doesn't need to.

VistA is good enough for our veterans

[tepples]

I admit I'm not very familiar with the nitty gritty of electronic health record packages, but I did volunteer at a veterans' hospital from mid-2005 through mid-2007, and I saw the VA's EHR system (VistA CPRS) in use. Like other works of the United States government, VistA is permissively licensed free software. Could you go into some detail about what Medisoft EHR does that VistA doesn't?

Re:VistA is good enough for our veterans

[FlyHelicopters]

It isn't just electronic health records, it is insurance billing, office management, etc...

The VA can afford to train people to use whatever software they care to use.

I can post a job on Monster.com for someone with Medisoft experience and get multiple resumes of people who already know the program.

Re:VistA is good enough for our veterans

[tepples]

it is insurance billing

Are you claiming that the VA has no way to interface with private insurers for patients with less than a 100% service connected disability?

office management, etc...

I'm not sure what you mean by "etc.", but see also VistA's financial and administrative bullet points.

I can post a job on Monster.com for someone with Medisoft experience and get multiple resumes of people who already know the program.

Likewise with keyword VistA.

Re:VistA is good enough for our veterans

[FlyHelicopters]

The last release of VistA came out 2/16/2012, who do I call if I'm unhappy with a feature or something isn't working or I need an update?

Who is going to sell me next year's edition that is compliant with the new set of laws that comes out.

The VA can afford to keep up with that at their own expense, but they also don't have to, being a government agency. (if nothing else, no one is going to make them comply)

You're suggesting I put the future of our business in the hands of some free software that I might or might not get an update on...

Yea, no thanks...

Please don't kill my sister

[tepples]

The Gov't should be sending Death Squads to kill all members of any household still running XP, or running any version of IE less than 10.

IE 10 requires Windows 7. You'd have to send death squads to Windows Vista households as well.

Lock yourself in or don't do business

[tepples]

At the time, it was either lock yourself into software that depends on Windows XP or don't go into business in the first place. Would the latter have been preferable?

The tests were run, and they failed.

[tepples]

You should have been testing your "mission critical" applications on Windows 7 when it came out and been ready to deploy the update at the end-of-life of Windows XP.

Firms reportedly did perform such tests. The tests showed that Windows 7 failed to run the applications or device drivers in question. What should have been the next step?

Drivers for multi-thousand-dollar hardware

[tepples]

There are alternative OSes you can install on the exact same hardware.

Not if the hardware is a multi-thousand-dollar peripheral with drivers for no operating system other than Windows XP. CNC mills come to mind.

Re:Drivers for multi-thousand-dollar hardware

[FaxeTheCat]

There was a choice made by the manufacturer of the equipment in a free market. They had a choice. No monopoly.

Yeah, except:

[Anonymous Coward]

1). Really? Comparing cars and photocopiers to software? You are comparing hardware to software. And no, just because some CNC manufacturer (to use one of many bundling examples) chose to use WinXP in their system, doesn't make that situation Microsoft's support problem;

2). The standard technology generation is 5 years. If anything it's gotten shorter in recent years, not longer! So the idea of 8-10 year support lifetimes is woolly thinking at best;

3). Actually, you CAN get support. Microsoft will support you but at premium cost. This is entirely fair as it places an economic incentive for the customers to move off their legacy systems. And in the meantime they can remain supported which is the responsible business thing to do;

4). No one lied to the customers. It was never on the table (except rarely by fraud or misrepresentation among *cough* marketing *cough*) that there would be these unusual, extremely extended support arrangements;

5). A lawyer thought this up. Yeah, no self-interest there is there?

6). It's stunning that so many people think they are entitled to Microsoft doing something for them for free. "There has to be a benefit to ME, as defined entirely by my idiosyncratic criteria!" "I need a lower/free cost upgrade!" "I can't handle moving my data and cannot find any of the (millions) of tech people entirely capable of doing this job quickly, cheaply and reliably!"

Puh-leeze. The whining going on surrounding XP threatens to drown out the next cicada outbreak. Microsoft has delivered multiple, entirely capable upgrades. Or leave Microsoft if that suits you. What this is about really is people looking for an excuse not to act, to maintain the status quo. And you know what? They can do that too, but it makes them feel good to whine and complain about someone else. Grow up.

Security

[sjbe]

You're mistaken, security is that feature.

Security is a process not a feature. And the security in XP is entirely adequate for my rather modest needs. Win 7 is unquestionably better but not enough that I care because the threat profile I face isn't going to be meaningfully improved by Windows 7. Security is like insurance. Nice to have but you can easily pay for more of it than you actually need.

Re:Complete access and indefinite support for free

[Trax3001BBS]

Sorry, but this is absolutely wrong. The codes are still secret, you still have to go to the dealer to have it read or repaired. The only thing the government did was standardize on one particular connector and on a small subset of the codes, namely those dealing with emissions. So if some emission-related component fails and the car's ECU flags a code saying such, then you're in luck: you can get an aftermarket code reader to see this, and clear the code after you replace that component. If some other code is flagged for something entirely different, then you'll just see "P9876" and have no clue what that means.

I have a soccer Mom's van, never thought I'd own one, but it's paid for itself many times over by being invisible. It's also has self leveling shocks and any other luxury you might require including a rear air conditioner.

If you really want to take care of, and repair your auto yourself you can; by reading the ECM codes and using a shop manual. A shop manual is also what the dealers mechanics will use to fix your auto.

People will purchase a Chiltons and try to take care of their autos; with it your able to change the oil filter and tighten belts. I try to impress upon people that they really need a shop manual which is only twice the price, but I get "if everybody else is using Chilton's they can't all be wrong and they're sold at the local auto parts store" argument so I quit (not exactly the persuasive type).

I have a shop manual for all my vehicles. My truck for example
$120 got me
One book of electrical diagrams, 304 pages, each page is 16X11
One book "fuel and Emissions" - this has your codes and how to approach a bad reading.
One book "Unit Repair" - repair of items, including rebuilding the engine and transmission.
1500-2000 pages (I had to supply the binder) - exploded views of each area of the truck. How to take it apart to access areas to repair or replace.

A lot, but it covers every truck produced in that year. The truck is the only auto I couldn't buy the shop manuals from the dealer, but had to go on-line.

The Codes tell you what's going on "Fuel and Emissions", the "Unit Repair" shows the expected values expected for every relay, switch, wire, unit, what have you; and how to adjust for that value. This is what you would use to zero your leveling. It also show any special tools required and their part number - if you have to have it, you can get it, and yes they can be spendy.

I don't have a new car, I take care of what I've got. So haven't run into the "Black box" or the keys so don't know how that's handled. Also can't really give a complete argument to your reply because I haven't had a need to repair one.

Google will find you auto repair sites where codes and access questions are asked, just like any other help site. You can keep up on the software requirements as well, be it the code reader or add on's. The problem here is an older auto takes a lot of digging, where as what's new or hot has a lot of help (just like anything else).

"social lives of us Web Developers" - - The joke

[Anonymous Coward]

"social lives of us Web Developers" - - The jokes just flow too easily

How bad does it make Windows look?

[Anonymous Coward]

A better question is "how bad does it make Vista, Windows 7, and Windows 8 look if there is even any discussion (of which there is plenty) about Windows XP?

The person above who cited each of the Windows era updates is correct. Up to Windows XP, the new OS was so much better than what it was meant to replace. Since then, they've been worse!! People aren't lazy or stupid about their computer investments. It, XP, gets the job done, "it just works". No one bemoaned or even noticed the end of Vista support (yes, it ended already) because it sucked so bad people stayed with what worked. Windows 7? Really? Windows 7 proved that things were so bad that we were willing to accept something that "sucked less than Vista".

What we wanted, and quite frankly deserved, was something light years better than XP!! Something so awesome, cool, fantastic, brilliant, that we couldn't wait to get it. That was the anticipation of the OS that would follow XP. What a huge disappointment.

Fuck XP

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck XP.

I want to see those fuckers gone, I'm tired of dealing with them.

Your business depends on some fucking app that only runs on XP?

Fix your fucking business.

Sure, its a huge pain in the ass but that shit must die.

Hardware?

[Anonymous Coward]

I find the hardware requirements to be fundamentally flawed. A few years ago I upgraded an old PC from 2004 (Athlon 2600+, 2GB DDR Ram, GeForce 6800) and it ran Windows 7 just fine. While it took a bit longer to boot, I found it to be more stable and responsive.

why should she be forced to upgrade?

[Chirs]

Your mom likely has no excuse not to upgrade.

The question is not "does she have an excuse not to upgrade". The question is, "why should she be forced to upgrade"? If the computer that she has is meeting her needs, why should she need to pay to replace it or have it upgraded?

A fifth of the light trucks made by both Toyota and Chevy are still on the road after 21 years. The manufacturers don't necessarily support them, but other companies do. Why can't we think about software in those terms?

Nobody listens to you mentalboy

[Anonymous Coward]

Schizo multiple personality disorder http://slashdot.org/comments.p... + Manic Depression http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Re:Complete access and indefinite support for free

[Rich0]

I don't disagree with most of what you wrote, but most of the people still running XP would be having just as many problems if they were running Linux (maybe not if they were running something completely seamless like ChromeOS, but that doesn't have a 10 year track record yet so who knows).

Upgrade cost is probably not a big factor for most people running XP, at least not in the US (maybe in China/etc it is). The real issues are old hardware, not wanting to wipe/reinstall/reconfigure everything, and not wanting to deal with a lot of change. Any of those issues are potentially a problem with Linux as well.

Sure, the upgrade is free, and there are lots of options. You may still have problems with insufficient RAM if your system is old enough, though at least driver issues probably won't be a problem (on an old PC you probably don't care about 3D acceleration using proprietary drivers). Many distros still struggle with in-place upgrades to varying degrees, and unless you are running something like RHEL you're going to have to do more frequent update cycles than on Windows (potentially free, but still more hassle). Dealing with change is certainly a challenge on Linux, or so my Ubuntu-loving friends tell me (and I went through it back in the KDE 4.0 days as well).

I'm not knocking anybody here, either. This stuff is hard, or at least boring and unprofitable. The boring part keeps FOSS developers from backporting fixes to 10-year-old distro releases, and the unprofitable part keeps everybody else from doing it as well.

Re:Complete access and indefinite support for free

[Grishnakh]

It isn't the same for all makes and models. I recently got a used Volvo (2005 model year), and shop manuals don't appear to be available for it except by piracy, by buying the "VIDA" DVD-ROMs on Ebay (definitely not factory-authorized; these all come from China). To do many things on the car, you also need the "DICE" unit, which plugs into the car's OBD-II port and into a laptop computer running the VIDA software. This unit costs several thousand dollars; luckily again, the Chinese sellers (and American resellers) are selling knock-offs on Ebay for ~$120. This appears to allow you to do many things that only the dealership is supposed to be able to do, but not everything; there's many operations (probably upgrades, rather than repairs) where you would need to download software directly from Volvo, which can't be done with the knock-off DICE units. Luckily there are a bunch of active forums for this vehicle so there's a good amount of advice available for common repairs, common problems, etc.

Re:Complete access and indefinite support for free

[Grishnakh]

Upgrade cost is probably not a big factor for most people running XP, at least not in the US (maybe in China/etc it is). The real issues are old hardware, not wanting to wipe/reinstall/reconfigure everything, and not wanting to deal with a lot of change. Any of those issues are potentially a problem with Linux as well.

Not so much. Linux generally works well with old hardware (though if you're low on RAM, you'll want to stick with a leaner DE like XCFE, not KDE4, but RAM is fairly cheap so it's a good idea to upgrade to at least 2GB). Not wanting to wipe everything isn't an excuse with Windows, because when using Windows you're going to have to do that periodically like it or not (the phrase "reboot, reinstall, reformat" came about for a good reason). Not wanting to deal with change is no excuse either; since XP is going away, they're going to have to deal with change, like it or not (or limp along with a botnet-infested OS); once you're using something in Linux, it's not that hard to just keep using it indefinitely, or something very close. Just look at how long Gnome2 has been around (though now you'd need to switch to MATE, but that's the same thing).

The boring part keeps FOSS developers from backporting fixes to 10-year-old distro releases,

With Linux, there's no reason to support 10-year-old releases unless some stodgy corporation is paying you big bucks to do so. When your release is getting old, just upgrade; it's free. Yes, it takes time, but it's better to be up-to-date on software so you can avoid security problems, plus it's nice having the latest stuff (remember also, many things in Linux get faster with new releases; the kernel is constantly getting better, and KDE4 has gotten consistently faster and bug-free with each release). If I could have a brand-new car every year for free, and this magically didn't increase my carbon footprint or waste resources, and it only took a hour of my time to magically convert my car to the next model year, why wouldn't I take advantage of that?

Re:"Nice upgade"? For who?

[Anonymous Coward]

7 has better out of the box security. Hold on dont run off...

UAC is better (though annoying). Out of the box world read/write permissions on many key systems is gone and fixed. Services off by default that should never have been on unless you need them. They segmented the video out of the kernel (like it should be). Sandboxing is built into the OS.

7 has better DLL hell support. But is awful in the management of it.

7 has better 'find my stuff' indexing. Massively broken in vista. Could be back ported to XP.

7 is in many ways better and in many ways worse (600 meg to start wtf).

7 is 13 years of progress in the OS. Tons of new apis for threading and support for newer processors and graphics.

The only reason I have not moved to 8 is because of that god awful shell they slapped on it. 10-20 second bootup on the same hardware yes please.

If you want to support XP go ahead. All the API's are well known and documented. Write your own DLL and replace whatever you think is broken. It is fairly trivial to do a dll/exe swapout.

Dont worry MS will manage to kill windows yet. They will move to a subscription model. Then people will figure out hey instead of yearly fee I pay 0 for linux. Or more likely buy a mac and have the 'old' model and it works with my iphone.

Why do you NEED Support?

[Anonymous Coward]

If XP is so wonderful, why do we need Microsoft (or really anybody) to support it? I have old computers running DOS 6.22, networked to Win 3.11 and XP all sharing files and playing nicely together. Just grab the last service packs and take care of it yourself. Seriously. This is not a bad thing. IF the situation creeps up where XP won't be able to do the job that you want it to do, THEN buy a new computer with WIN 7/8/? or Linux (insert favorite distro here) or MAC OS kitty cat and frickin use that for the new task that your XP computer won't do, but you don't need to get rid of an existing computer that is currently doing a solid job in it's current role.

People, please, work Harder, not Smarter! - Wait, strike that.

continue support for XP yes or no?

[Anonymous Coward]

YES! that's like making a car and then stopping making the parts for it. .Turns useable items into landfill.
You know they are only doing it to make you buy more of their crap!
Will you jump thru their hoop like a good little consumer? I'd sooner quit buying their products.
When I buy a piece of equipment costing as much as these things do I expect it to last.

Cartel

[tepples]

If all reputable manufacturers of a particular kind of industrial equipment have opted in to Microsoft lock-in, any customer buying that kind of equipment is facing a cartel, which acts somewhat like a monopoly. Given the Hobson's choice to buy from a cartel or to go out of business, which would you choose?

Re:Cartel

[FaxeTheCat]

You are correc that the customer of the end product may not have much of a choice.
However, the manufacturer of the equiment had a choice. A real choice.
So Microsoft did not (and have never had) a monopoly on the operating system in any market. This means the story we are discussing is a waste of time as a court case. Probably an interesting case for law students, though.

ESET is Supporting XP Until April 2017

[Anonymous Coward]

ESET Smart Security, Firefox, Thunderbird. No need for security updates as ESET will lock down PC (don't use IE or Outlook). Run in non-privileged mode.

Users' Responsability

[Anonymous Coward]

The abstract of the paper States that it's a combination of end of support and users' reluctance to upgrade or ignorance of the consequences of not upgrading that can prove catastrophic. Microsoft has been good at announcing that support for XP would end. They postponed the EOL for XP once already and the more they do it the worse it'll be for making people migrate as they will not see the need to do so.

Re:Complete access and indefinite support for free

[Rich0]

With Linux, there's no reason to support 10-year-old releases unless some stodgy corporation is paying you big bucks to do so. When your release is getting old, just upgrade; it's free.

The problem with this is that it necessitates change. I don't mind it at all, but not all feel the same. You can't upgrade and keep your KDE 3.5. Gnome 3 is more recent so you can still avoid that, but I'm sure one day you won't.

If you're a big company running proprietary binaries it becomes more of a challenge to upgrade, which is why Red Hat gets paid big bucks to backport, but they'll only do it for 10 years from initial release (which is almost as good as Windows).

Windows 8.1

[Meski]

Is Microsoft's aftermarket support for XP. You might not like it, but it is. I'm less than sympathetic with customers that want patches for an ever increasing number of major and '.1' level releases. (No, I don't work for MS)

Re:Complete access and indefinite support for free

[Anonymous Coward]

That isn't a simple matter at all if you're still developing new versions of your product based on the same materials. You are proposing that a business whose primary asset is its collective knowledge should be required to give away the most important knowledge it has accumulated, at great cost, up to a certain point, just to absolve it of a hypothetical liability that it was never realistic to assign to that business in the first place.

It is a simple matter. The public has a right to oversight over business, over the long term, just as the public has a right to oversight over the government, over the long term.

A business can be given a reasonable period of time in which to profit from trade secrets associated with a particular product, after which the public right to oversight kicks in (10 years would certainly be reasonable).

This right allows the public to determine whether businesses are acting contrary to the public interest. There are many ways in which software companies can be doing this, not all of which involve illegal collusion with government spy agencies.

Lots of businesses have been caught doing improper things over the course of US history. There is no reason to suppose that software companies will be any more responsible than others.

Indeed, one look at a typical "shrink-wrap" license will clearly show that software companies hold the Bill of Rights in contempt (a point that has been made numerous times in the past in Slashdot), suggesting that we should be taking an especially close look at these companies.

Windows XP is now at point when the source code should be released to the public. That source should be build-able to a binary exact copy of any released version.

Re:Complete access and indefinite support for free

[Grishnakh]

You can't upgrade and keep your KDE 3.5

Yes you can. Look up the Trinity project. As long as there's developers who want to fork the project and support it, you can use that DE. It's the same thing that happened with Gnome2/MATE.

If you're a big company running proprietary binaries it becomes more of a challenge to upgrade

Which is a good reason to not run proprietary binaries that are locked to an old kernel/userspace. Regular users don't have this problem since they only run open-source stuff, and companies running their own internal software wouldn't have this problem either. We're mainly talking about individual users here anyway, so the 10-year-old proprietary binary thing shouldn't be an issue there.

Future Changes

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing remains the same, including change. Expect longer times for all operating systems functionality.Reinventing the wheel every 5 years is unrealistic.As quality demands increase and choices in operating systems expand, expect new consumer desires to drift towards long term systems.That means long term support that really addresses consumer woes.The golden age of systems profits are on notice, more for less, for a long time.

What about my oscilloscope?

[romons]

Allowing microsoft to abandon XP means my $800 oscilloscope no longer runs. Other people have mentioned games. There is lots of legacy hardware out there that just doesn't run on vista/7/8.

That seems unfair, since the problem is that their crappy software is prone to virus attacks. They should at least spin off a little company that sells support, or sell support themselves. They could up the price on a yearly basis, and thus force most people off the old system, but allow people who can't drop it now to be supported somehow. They would make money on it, and eventually move everybody off once the price for support became more than the price of buying (for example) a new oscilloscope.

Microsoft is already teetering on the brink of disaster with its horrible "even numbered" release disease. They don't need to drive more of their shrinking customer base to apple or linux by being dicks.

Re:What about my oscilloscope?

[neminem]

Why is your oscilloscope on the internet? Killing support for WinXP certainly doesn't mean every computer running XP is now a brick (side-note: that's why I would never trust cloud-only services, because I'm sure Microsoft would *love* if they *could* remote-brick every computer running XP). Just means they won't be updating it anymore. If people can't log in remotely to your oscilloscope, how exactly is it going to get hacked or have viruses installed on it?

Re:What about my oscilloscope?

[romons]

Well, XP is now spamming me with pleas to update to WIndows 8.1. At least it could shut the fuck up about it. It just keeps whining.

The oscilloscope software does not run on vista, or 7. I have not tried 8, but it has not been updated for 6 years, so I would doubt it. The reason the system is on the internet is because the system does other stuff too, like look for data sheets,

I can easily just give up on the system, and let the viruses take over, but I'll need to disable the windows nags somehow. I'm sure somebody out there knows how to do this.

Or, I could just stop being a cheapskate and buy a new oscilloscope...

Obituary

[vandamme]

Windows XP Professional x86
August 24, 2001 - April 8, 2014

Windows XP Professional x86 died April 8th 2014. Proceeded in death by Parents DOS, windows 3.11 and younger brother XP Home and lesser known sister XP X64. and cousins windows CE, ME, NT and 98.

XP Pro, as he was called by his friends, leaves behind younger nephews and nieces, sextuplets Windows 7-Starter, Home-Basic, Home-Premium , Professional, Enterprise and Ultimate; also grandnephews and nieces Windows 8 , 8-Pro , 8-Enterprise, and RT. Windows 8 had some personality issues so will not attend any of the memorials.

A memorial will be held on or about April 20 on the internet with smoke rising high. Also on the first day after the first Zero day attack money will flow from the 2,470,000 ATMs which have XP on life support.

In lieu of flowers, send donations to Linux.org.

Why not open source

[Anonymous Coward]

Some software developers need to produce an open source windows OS that is a striped down without registrisation, without internet software but allows google chrome and third party software to run. The security up dates were only a form of registration checks with MS. They did nothing but use internet data. The firewall and antivirus support is what keeps you safe.

Windows 98

[w-wright]

I remember that in 2004, there was a similar issue with Windows 98 where the market share was at about 27% and Microsoft were about to end support. However, Microsoft extended support to 2006!

Hey bigmouth bullshitter... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

See you here http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... you bigmouthed little nobody...

APK

P.S.=> Have the balls to show up there in the link above to reply to it (& NOT days later like you did, LONG after I left that thread!)

NOW, in the link above, I simply tore you apart in it vs. your "so-called 'points'" that you "amended" bogusly, changing your parameters/constraints there!

(& I am going to rip you a new asshole there YET AGAIN, publicly, for your BIG mouth you little shit - prepare to be utterly humiliated, publicly...)

... apk

Zontar = sockpuppeteer & lying libeling troll

[Anonymous Coward]

"You barge into discussions with your off-topic hosts file nonsense" - by Zontar The Mindless (9002) on Friday April 11, 2014 @09:51PM (#46731153) FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

You said my "APK Hosts File Engine" is a virus/malware http://slashdot.org/comments.p... but it's EASILY PROVABLE it's not, right there in that link too.

Now PROVE YOUR FALSE ACCUSATION above: Show me a quote OR POST of me posting off topic on hosts where they did NOT apply... go for it!

---

You avoided backing up your accusation where YOU said I say you are Barbara, not Barbie = TomHudson (same person http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... , & sockpuppeteer like you) -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Funny you can't back up your "bluster" there either, lol...

---

Why, Lastly?

You're crackers! See here multiple personality disorder http://slashdot.org/comments.p... + manic depression http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

APK

P.S.=> So, THIS quote below is my policy on sockpuppeteers like you Zontar = TrollingForHostsFiles (your sockpuppetry):

"The only way to a achieve peace, is thru the ELIMINATION of those who would perpetuate war (sockpuppet masters like YOU, troll -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... ). THIS IS MY PROGRAMMING -> http://start64.com/index.php?o... & soon, I will be UNSTOPPABLE..." - Ultron 6 FROM -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

Which quite obviously, I am, since none of you DOLTISH TROLLS are able to validly technically disprove my points on hosts enumerated in the link to my program above of how hosts give users of them more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity... period!

(Trolls like YOU that use sockpuppets http://slashdot.org/comments.p... (your sockpuppet "alterego" TrollingForHostsFiles) & TomHudson - Barbara, not Barbie too http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... before you)

... apk

Re:Complete access and indefinite support for free

[FlyHelicopters]

That sounds nice, if Windows was dead outright. But it isn't, or have you forgotten about Vista, 7, and 8?

Those share a lot of code with XP, releasing that code is not that simple.

In addition, it isn't all Microsoft's code.

Re:Complete access and indefinite support for free

[FlyHelicopters]

Your arguments are all fair and reasonable, for slightly older cars.

There are cars built in the last five years for which you can't do all that.

Sure, the hardware such as wires and oil are easy enough to mess with, but try reprogramming the new enhanced security system on a 2015 Suburban. It has a lift and level detector to sense if it is being picked up or if one wheel is off the ground. Calibrating that system requires special hardware and software, you have to take it to the dealer.

It also has features like adaptive cruise control, crash braking, 360 degree parking sensors, magnetic shocks, etc. that are also run by computer and need to be calibrated.

Cars are becoming rolling black boxes, self driving cars are coming in the next few years, you think you can fix that with a shop manual?

Re:Complete access and indefinite support for free

[FlyHelicopters]

Just to toss out...

The whole, "you have to reinstall windows often" thing is now out of date.

Windows 7 does not have this problem, I have several machines running 4 year old installs of Windows 7 without a problem, I expect they'll last to end of support without a reinstall.

That was true once, but the world moved on.