Why Microsoft Shouldn't Patch the XP Internet Explorer Flaw

Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes: "Sebastian Anthony argues that Microsoft is setting an awful precedent by caving and issuing a fix for Windows XP. 'Yes, tardy governments and IT administrators can breathe a little easier for a little bit longer,' writes Anthony, 'and yes, your mom and dad are yet again safe to use their old Windows XP beige box. But to what end? It's just delaying the inevitable.' Lance Ulanoff argues that Microsoft can't turn a blind eye the security of XP users, even though the company ended support for the 12-year-old operating system on April 8, a fact that Microsoft has been warning about for, literally, years. But this won't be the only vulnerability found in XP, says Dwight Silverman. 'If Microsoft makes an exception now, what about the flaw found after this one? And the next? And the one after that, ad infinitum?' Even though Microsoft has released a patch for the IE flaw, and Windows XP is included, it's time to move on – really. 'I don't want to hear that tired "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" line. Hey, XP IS broke, and it will just get more so over time. Upgrade to a newer version of Windows, or switch to another modern operating system, such as OS X or Linux.'"

Comments

Idiot

[Tough Love]

Thinks Microsoft's marketing agenda trumps internet security. Well, Microsoft needs more idiots on its side to help it rot faster.

Re:Idiot

[lgw]

There are a few people out there using XP because they think it's a cool, lightweight OS (mostly for gaming). That's a very geeky crowd who can likely manage on their own, until the "open source XP project" matures the was DOSbox did.

Pretty much everyone else left on XP is a company install needed because some important, expensive, hard to replace thing happens to need XP. If you've got some $50k equipment that's halfway through its 20 year useful life that needs XP, you have a PC somewhere running the XP you need. Microsoft's patching policies won't likely change that, one way or another.

Re:Idiot

[khellendros1984]

Or, you're a grandmother, the computer-box is working like it always has, and you're afraid of changes that an upgrade would bring, don't have money for new hardware, etc.

Re:Idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

Or, someone like me, an individual user with software (Orcad Capture 9) that won't install on newer operating systems, and whose replacement costs on the order of $2000. Not something that I want to buy for occasional use, nor do I want to give up the schematics and component libraries that I've created over the years. I'm keeping an old netbook going, with the wifi turned off and the ethernet port unconnected. Most of my other computers use either Linux, FreeBSD, OSX, or a much more modern version of Windows.

Re:Idiot

[Tough Love]

There are a few people out there using XP because they think it's a cool, lightweight OS (mostly for gaming).

Doesn't that just make you shudder? I remember when things actually had to be cool and lightweight to be considered cool and lightweight.

Re:Idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

I sure do miss the idiotic postings Twitter used to make, but thanks for trying to fill the void.

Re:Idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

There are a few people out there using XP because they think it's a cool, lightweight OS (mostly for gaming). That's a very geeky crowd who can likely manage on their own, until the "open source XP project" matures the was DOSbox did.

That's me in a nutshell.

Re:Idiot

[mrchaotica]

I was reading a finance forum earlier today, and came across a post from a guy talking about his frugal habits, which included still using Windows 98. That's not frugal, that's insane!

(On the bright side, he also still uses dial-up, so at least the rate at which his zombied PC can spew shit is somewhat limited...)

Re:Idiot

[mrchaotica]

I'm keeping an old netbook going, with the wifi turned off and the ethernet port unconnected.

There's a better way.

Re:Idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you kidding me. He is probably protected because the malware doesn't have enough time to download.

Re:Idiot

[Fish (David Trout)]

IMO only a very foolish company or gov't entity would ever allow a computer running an antiquated insecure operating system controlling a very expensive and critical piece of company equipment to be connected to the internet or rely on a vendor that doesn't support an operating system any newer than one that's already 12 years old which they knew for years ahead of time was no longer going to be supported.

But then maybe that's just me.

Re:Idiot

[donaldm]

Or, you're a grandmother, the computer-box is working like it always has, and you're afraid of changes that an upgrade would bring, don't have money for new hardware, etc.

You are really denigrating grandmothers or grandfathers in general when you say stupid throw away lines like that. How old do you think a person has to be when they become a grandmother/grandfather? Answer is may only be their late 20's or even early 30's.

Re:Idiot

[Billly Gates]

Not to mention XP is a dog on a modern i5 with a mechanical disk or ssd, with more than 4 gigs of ram.

It swaps like a mofo for no reason even with ram available. No trim support will slow your ssd to a crawl. It is not efficient for more than 2 cpus. It doesn't cache ram. DirectX11 is faster and more ram efficient than DirectX 9. The SATA driver does not support command que like EIDE does.

It is stupid and slower to run a 13 year old OS optimized for 256 meg 1 core Pentium III/IV's with eide drives.

Re:Idiot

[epyT-R]

That only works for software that doesn't make use of accelerated graphics as the vm wrappers for that are less than stellar.

Re: Idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed. And delaying the inevitable is not a bad thing - otherwise we would all just jump off the bridge.

Re:Idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

Who would write malware for Windows 98? I think he is safe.

Re:Idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't it strange for a company that makes devices with an economic life of 20 years (I means the stricted definition where the TAX man is not allowing you to write of the equipment in less than 20 years) uses something like Windows XP which is guaranteed to be end-of-life before this.

It sounds like a not-fit-for-purpose device.

Re:Idiot

[nateman1352]

From a pure security standpoint, he is probably doing fine actually. The market share for Win98 Internet connected systems is now lower than Linux. Its such a small target and there are enough API differences between it and WinXP that the only viruses that will infect it are 10+ years old.

Now from a functionality standpoint... Win98 will be so limited on software choices at this point that its really not worth it. No modern browsers support it so you can't even browse the web really. Not to mention the horrible instability that we all have forgetten about.

Re:Idiot

[iampiti]

I know it's not the main topic of your comment but don' count on ReactOS ever being "finished" or even running most Windows programs.
Making a Windows clone is a HUGE task and it requires pretty competent programmers too. ReactOS doesn't seem to have hundreds of people working on it.

Re: Idiot

[O('_')O_Bush]

Depends on what you are comparing it to. Compared to just about any *nix flavor, XP is a dog. But compared to Vista and later OS's, XP is a Ferrari. I had to upgrade my graphics card by 2x generations to get the same DX9 performance between XP and 7 for the same games.

Re:Idiot

[datavirtue]

XP is a dog. Limited to 32 bit in a useable form, and certainly not ideal for gaming. Windows 7 provides a great platform for modern gaming but I can see how you would need XP for legacy games. I have run multiple XP instances under Windows 7 in VirtualBox and had no problems...in fact less problems than running it on bare metal.

Re:Idiot

[Euler]

I think people feel attached to XP because it was comfortable and stable (for the first time) for most people. People were accustomed to the Win95 look and feel, so it wasn't a culture shock. And it worked well in corporate domains and at home with a 'grown-up' security model unlike 95/98.

Everything since then has been a forced upgrade that can break existing applications and infrastructure. Most IT departments and individuals avoided Vista as much as possible. Windows 7 is useable. Windows 8 is confusing and radical for many people.

I feel like I've lost something going from XP to Win7, like the search dialog. The folder structure is re-arranged, but still arbitrary. The Registry is still as arbitrary, and the control panel is more confusing. The document library is good in theory, but most people I've helped with Windows 7 just get lost and try to avoid it, but it still gets in your face. So maybe Windows 7 offered as improvements the UAC security model and IPV6 built-in.

Redmond and Silicon Valley needs to wake up that this isn't 1999 anymore. The fact that Windows 7 and 8 came along 3 years apart is too soon. People don't want to upgrade until something actually breaks. And even then, they don't want to (or can't) spend another capital investment on software for the new OS, especially if it is tied to some type of equipment or machinery . Most businesses expect a 5-10 year amortization on basic equipment. There are even tax and accounting consequences to this if the recovery period doesn't meet expectations. Microsoft could probably make money selling XP (and sell support for critical flaws) for quite some time. I'm not sure why they need to set an arbitrary date to close it out. Does it really cost that much to maintain?

Re:Idiot

[lgw]

I read a conservative forum where 30 year old grandmothers aren't uncommon, which makes for an entertaining spectacle when someone goes off on a rant about teen mothers.

Baby Boomer is a much better denigrating term IMO.

Re:Idiot

[lgw]

VMware workstation is coming along well in that regard. I hope VMware keeps funding that product, as proper 3D acceleration for virtualized 10-year-old platforms is a great thing.

Re:Idiot

[lgw]

Compared to the early-mid 90s? Sure. But there are only a handful of good games from those days. XP stripped down for gaming is actually quite lightweight, and is by far the best option for older, but post-DOS, Windows games.

AFAIK, none of the currently-common Linux distros is as small or fast as these custom XP builds (the 90% of shit you'd turn off for fast gaming they've actually ripped out of the image, so the install is quite small).

Re:Idiot

[lgw]

10 years ago when you bought that equipment, it required a current, fully supported OS. Industrial equipment can last a long time in internet years.

Re:Idiot

[lgw]

Oh, I agree, and it's aggravating. I was really hoping that VMware would put resources into ReactOS, as it fits their portfolio nicely (they have a market of "we're stuck with needing XP, help us ObiWan!" customers). But VMware hasn't had that sort of vision for a long, long time now, and they just seem to buy companies and watch them die these days, like a Symantec wannabe.

Re:Idiot

[lgw]

Think of it like DOSbox. For each there's a decade of games for which it's the right answer, and the more stripped down and tuned to gaming you make the OS the better. But you're supposed to have a license for that virtualized XP, after all, and you can't buy that any more, so GOG can't sell it.

I'd love to see a GOG-tuned virtual XP for classic gaming, but unless ReactOS ever somehow gets finished, it's a non-starter.

Re:Idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

90% of the ATMs in the world use windows xp... that's a LOT of computers that are custom made and probably won't work with other system that easilly

Re:Idiot

[khellendros1984]

Or I'm using a commonly-understood metaphor and assuming that no one's going to take me literally. Political correctness is bullshit. Heaven forbid I should ever say something that offends someone.

Re: Idiot

[jader3rd]

Having a 20 year piece of equipment that depends on a part that had an end of life of 2011 seems like really bad planning.

Fuck Beta

[Anonymous Coward]

It's awful.

Is This Friday's Troll Topic?

[Bing Tsher E]

Guy on the Internet says "Shut Down XP."

Where are the crickets when we need them the most?

Re:Is This Friday's Troll Topic?

[Yahooti]

Just gave up three mod points and have five more which I will abandon. This pop up crap has driven me away from this site. AMF

Re:Is This Friday's Troll Topic?

[CheshireDragon]

I have over 200 I can loan for the moment...after that my Bearded Dragon and Chameleons will have a massive feast.

Re:Is This Friday's Troll Topic?

[MightyMartian]

I'm a guy on the Internet saying "Shut down XP", you insensitive clod!

Re:Is This Friday's Troll Topic?

[fustakrakich]

Hey, no problem. You can have my XP when you ship me a free replacement, and it has to run Autocad.

Re:Is This Friday's Troll Topic?

[amicusNYCL]

You paid for XP, why wouldn't you pay for the replacement?

Re:Is This Friday's Troll Topic?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can keep your outdated OS, just don't complain about how evil Microsoft is when you stop getting updates, especially when you had more than ample time to plan an upgrade. If you can't afford a new computer capable of running anything better, then go get a job at McDonald's for a month.

I would agree that releasing this to those who don't have a support contract this is a bad move on MS's part. They need to learn that MS is not always going to be there to breast feed them.

Re:Is This Friday's Troll Topic?

[fustakrakich]

Yes, I paid for XP, and it still works well enough for me. Anybody who demands that I replace it should pay for it.

Re:Is This Friday's Troll Topic?

[fustakrakich]

You can keep your outdated OS, just don't complain about how evil Microsoft is when you stop getting updates...

I will hold them responsible as long as they hold on to their copyright privileges. What I can or can't afford is nobody's business. If you insist that I update, then YOU pay for it.

Re:Is This Friday's Troll Topic?

[DocHoncho]

Nonsense. They didn't take it away from you, they didn't flip a switch and remove the possibility of using XP. I can't believe I'm defending Microsoft here, but they've really got nor responsibility to subsidize your, or anyone else's, decision to continue using the software. Where does the line end? Are they to keep updating your precious XP for another ten years? Twenty? Dealing with the aftermath of XP being EOL'd seems to me to fall squarely in the "consequence of your own personal decisions" camp, rather than "they owe me updates forever because I paid them once for something."

Windows 7 is fine, once you get past your heebie-jeebies about the updated interface. The 32-bit version should be able to run nearly everything, save for such software that is so breathtakingly awful, or tied to a specific version of Windows in some kind of unholy union, that it simply can't handle anything else. You can even still run the old 16-bit shit you've got laying around, probably even without significant issues. If you went and got yourself stuck using software that is incapable of running on a newer, and largely compatible, OS, well frankly it's your own god damned fault, and Microsoft shouldn't be expected to ensure your particular requirements are taken care of for free, forever.

Re:Is This Friday's Troll Topic?

[fustakrakich]

Where does the line end?

When they let go of the copyright.

Re:Is This Friday's Troll Topic?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll gladly switch to win7, or maybe win9, but I don't want 8.
How's win7 going to run on my 2.2ghz single-core cpu 32-bit xeon box with 1gb of RAM?
Poorly? Is the OP willing to pony up money to buy me a new machine, 'cause I'm unemployed right now and a new machine isn't really in the cards at the moment...

Re:Is This Friday's Troll Topic?

[Pseudonym Authority]

That's absurd, impractical, and just plain stupid.

Re:Is This Friday's Troll Topic?

[fustakrakich]

But it's right. *Use it or lose it* needs to be the rule. Copyright is a privilege and needs to have a direct price.

Re:Is This Friday's Troll Topic?

[fustakrakich]

That's my point exactly. Let them put their money where their mouth is.

Re:Is This Friday's Troll Topic?

[Pentium100]

Where does the line end?

Either when Microsoft allows others to patch it or finally manages to make a product without so may faults that it needs constant repair.

It's been more than 10 years and Microsoft still has not managed to provide a working product.

Re:Is This Friday's Troll Topic?

[donaldm]

Hey, no problem. You can have my XP when you ship me a free replacement, and it has to run Autocad.

Well you have locked yourself into AutoCad which does not come cheap in the first place or are you a member of the "Green Parrot Brigade"? :). Personally I don't see you having a problem upgrading to MS Windows 7 or later and running AutoCad, assuming your hardware is capable of supporting the OS upgrade. Of course there is a cost involved with upgrading a Microsoft OS but it really helps to be a GPB member if you do this.

Re: Is This Friday's Troll Topic?

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyright is not like the patent system, which is designed (in theory, in part) to encourage innovation.

Copyright is designed so that the author can maintain control over what they wrote. If I write a book of poems and am disgusted by it, that doesn't give my ex-boyfriend the right to publish it just because I choose not to. I *do* have the right to let it sit unpublished.

Re:Is This Friday's Troll Topic?

[Type44Q]

I can't believe I'm defending Microsoft here, but they've really got nor responsibility to subsidize your, or anyone else's, decision to continue using the software. Where does the line end?

The end isn't the problem; XP was a streaming pile of shit from the beginning (although IANAL, I'm pretty sure Defects in Materials and Workmanship have no statute of limitations). :p

Re:Is This Friday's Troll Topic?

[zwarte piet]

or run autocad on an xp in a virtual machine on linux and use it only for that, with network emulation turned off.

Re: Is This Friday's Troll Topic?

[Anonymous Coward]

You were granted the privilege, temporarily. No one said you have to publish. You have a right to keep your ideas to yourself, but once the smoke comes out, that's too bad if somebody else sees it or does what they want with it. Like they say, you can't unshine the light. I will always encourage that eminent domain be used on those who refuse to market, support, or license copyright/patent protected works. If you want to keep something from the public, don't let anybody see it.

I posting anonymously from here on out because copyright/patent trolls are mod bombing the account over this

- F

Re:Is This Friday's Troll Topic?

[mrbcs]

Exactly. Microsoft doesn't want to update it fine, release the source and let someone else do it. I have machines still on Service Pack 2 that have never had any issues.
(yes I have anti-virus and scan with anti-malware)

XP works fine, has some features I like better than 7 and works on tons of machines that don't need to go to the landfill. I have at least 10 boxes that will never be upgraded and I don't have any issues. I will never put linux on these machines. Linux is completely over rated and useless to me.

Most of this crap is FUD. Look after your network and don't be stupid on the web. Simple.

Re:Is This Friday's Troll Topic?

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of this crap is FUD

Yes, and it has us shooting at each other. We are doing Microsoft's dirty work for them, demanding that everyone jump on the upgrade treadmill. And notice the shills and trolls mod bombing the only proper solution being posted into the abyss.

- F

Re:Is This Friday's Troll Topic?

[vandamme]

I was forced to buy XP when I bought the machine. Why should I be forced to pay for a replacement? The real foolishness is when people buy new Win8 machines and pay for retail copies of Win7. Bill Gates is laughing all the way to the bank!

Update: I have been Microsoft-free for 2 years. As soon as better chromebooks show up, I'm getting one. ..

Re:Is This Friday's Troll Topic?

[amicusNYCL]

Why should I be forced to pay for a replacement?

Because you don't want to use an outdated OS and you require that your OS can run Autocad. Your own requirements dictate your options.

When the warranty runs out on your car, do you still expect free parts?

Re:Is This Friday's Troll Topic?

[amicusNYCL]

No one is "demanding" that you do anything, plenty of people just think it is sort of silly to insist on using a 13 year old operating system that is 4 versions behind. You are more than welcome to continue using it as long as you want to though, no one is going to physically stop you.

If they didn't they could be accused of sitting

[Anonymous Coward]

If they didn't they could be accused of sitting on it until past the cutoff date...

Besides, they had to develop the patch for 2008 (which is still supported) so there was no PR lost by not releasing it for XP which uses the same base system.

Re:If they didn't they could be accused of sitting

[nctritech]

2008 before R2 is based on Vista. 2003 is based on XP.

Microsoft Has These Patches

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft is already contractually obligated to program these patches for its thousands of paid XP support customers. It has the right to decide whether the bug is critical enough that the situation warrants releasing the patch to the general XP userbase for free.

Rest assured that Microsoft is not doing an iota of extra work on this front. It already has the patch. It will also have patches for every XP bug discovered for the next few years. It's just a question of how widely it wants to distribute each one.

Re:Microsoft Has These Patches

[mark-t]

Of course... the problem is that by having this patch available for XP users after the date that they supposedly weren't going to support XP anymore, they've set a precedent that people are going to *expect* microsoft to continue to issue patches for XP whenever security is involved.... forever.

Re:Microsoft Has These Patches

[LVSlushdat]

yup.. and I *strongly* suspect there will be a "leakage" of these patches, probably into a downloadable disk image that those who stay with XP will be able to obtain fairly easily.. of course, mom+pop XP user, likely not so much.. but for those in the know, who, for whatever reason, hasn't dumped MS for something better (hint: Linux)... They'll be able to find these patches fairly easily. Of course, MS will slap any site down that carries these "unauthorized" patches, but then the game of
"Whack-A-Mole" comes to mind...

Re:Microsoft Has These Patches

[Noah Haders]

I think the issue is a little more different than you suggest. ms made a patch for win 2008 anyway. can you imagine if ms decided not to release it and there was xp havocs from a viruss? there would be horrible press.

Re:Microsoft Has These Patches

[ComputersKai]

No one is going to take their warnings anymore.
Simply removing the support for XP without any exception, may force companies to actually begin paying attention to their security issues. However, Microsoft seems to fear for its own profit too much to force customers to go "cold turkey"

Who even uses IE on Windows XP anyways?

Re:Microsoft Has These Patches

[Noah Haders]

and maybe they should? this is an unprecedented case in the history of world computers or technology. who is to say what the right thing is?

Re:Microsoft Has These Patches

[Anonymous Coward]

People are not entitled to their noncontracted expectations.

Anyone can expect anything. I can expect a night of passionate lovemaking with Natalie Portman and Scarlett Johansson.

Doesn't mean I'll get it.

Re:Microsoft Has These Patches

[Xeno man]

My god, it's barely been a frigging month since support ended and now they have set a president? I don't think so. It's no different than any other company that makes exceptions for just out of warranty.

It's like having a car with 100,000km warranty and at 100,500km the gas tank falls out. They have every right to tell you its not covered but most decent dealers will cover you because it's either a know issue or because they want to treat you right as a customer.

This is no different, the patch was being made regardless and the seriousness of the problem warranted a release. It just happen to fall just on the other side of an arbitrary date. Nothing special has occurred here.

Re:Microsoft Has These Patches

[amicusNYCL]

You think there is going to be an active community of people fixing flaws in Windows XP? Why would anyone do that? Moreover, how would anyone do that? It's not like they have the original problematic source code for core files, how can they patch things without knowing that they aren't breaking something else?

Re:Microsoft Has These Patches

[nctritech]

Ford's Dealer Connect software requires Internet Explorer, as does Chrysler StarParts, so Ford and Chrysler dealers, for one. DIS software requires IE too. None of these applications are cheap or easily replaceable. If the computer in use is still running XP, it'll be running IE on XP. (This of course raises the question: why haven't you replaced those boxes if you're running a multi-million-dollar business?) I recently replaced ten XP boxes in a business that uses DIS. IE on XP will be with us for a while yet.

Re:Microsoft Has These Patches

[Stormy Dragon]

If I invite you over to my house for dinner, that doesn't create an obligation to feed you every night.

Re:Microsoft Has These Patches

[Golden_Rider]

yup.. and I *strongly* suspect there will be a "leakage" of these patches, probably into a downloadable disk image that those who stay with XP will be able to obtain fairly easily.. of course, mom+pop XP user, likely not so much.. but for those in the know, who, for whatever reason, hasn't dumped MS for something better (hint: Linux)... They'll be able to find these patches fairly easily. Of course, MS will slap any site down that carries these "unauthorized" patches, but then the game of
"Whack-A-Mole" comes to mind...

I'd be surprised if those patches won't be watermarked in some way so that it will be possible to figure out the source of the leak.

Re:Microsoft Has These Patches

[Anonymous Coward]

Trust me, 5 years from now I can almost guarantee there will still be a small core of die-hard users patching and maintaining XP for daily use. I mean, just take a look at the scene Win98SE has developed. www.msfn.org/board/

Re:Microsoft Has These Patches

[pla]

You think there is going to be an active community of people fixing flaws in Windows XP?

Yes, they go by the name "Microsoft".

MS already has extended support contracts in place that require it to continue keeping XP alive for those customers with deep enough pockets to pay for it. The GP simply meant that those patches will inevitably get leaked to the public, albeit not in a reliable, consistent manner.

Re:Microsoft Has These Patches

[CastrTroy]

But does a system like that require security patches? If its just for ordering parts then just stick the box behind a firewall and only allow access to the one site it needs to access. They shouldn't need to be browning reddit at work, and if they do, they should do it on a separate computer or on their phone so they don't go messing with the actual work system.

Re:Microsoft Has These Patches

[Bing Tsher E]

Right. The leak came from General Motors Corporation. Now Microsoft can either punish General Motors Corporation or shut up.

Re:Microsoft Has These Patches

[cardpuncher]

Additionally, a chunk of those end users who still have XP machines and obey the call to replace them are going to go out and buy iPads or Android tablets because they'll do the job well enough and be a lot less trouble. You'd think Microsoft would have an interest in keeping people on planet Windows until they're ready for their next fix.

Re:Microsoft Has These Patches

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft....have set a president

So it has finally come to this...Oligopolies now openly control the government.

Re:Microsoft Has These Patches

[mpe]

People are not entitled to their noncontracted expectations.

Contracts always operate within the "law of the land". Laws can effectivly rewrite contracts, even long after the contract was originally drafted. Contracts CANNOT alter laws.
If there is applicable statute or case law saying that someone is entitled to X then it dosn't matter if a contract (including an EULA) says something else.
To complicate the issue proprietary software is often sold as a "widget" whilst at the same time claiming it is neither a "good" or a "service". Which tends to make the likes of "car analogies" difficult to apply to such software since vehicles are clearly "goods".

Re:Microsoft Has These Patches

[drolli]

If enough people expect microsoft to do it, then disappointing these people is going to do some economic harm. Microsoft should decide how it handles that.

My problems are my problems and there is no moral ground that MS can not be "nice".

Re:Microsoft Has These Patches

[mpe]

The leak came from General Motors Corporation. Now Microsoft can either punish General Motors Corporation or shut up.

A worst case senario would be in the "leak" came from The IRS. The last thing any large transnational corporation wants is their taxes being looked at too closely...

Re:Microsoft Has These Patches

[Anonymous Coward]

And I thought that the internet explorer was still being used.. err.. :> Microsoft, what a turn-off. I mean, it is certainly awesome to have all these ports that run on the xp os at one's disposal.. but to simply abandon the "entire" xp user base "in the blink of an eye" does speak volumes about Microsoft's customer policies. I feel somehow reluctantly disgusted to pay another dime for another OS from the house of MS. How about MS could replace all xp licenses (OSs) with a win7 os? That would certainly be a sign of good will from their side. And might rid most of their customers from this extremely bitter aftertaste.

Re:Microsoft Has These Patches

[bondsbw]

It's like having a car with 100,000km warranty and at 100,500km the gas tank falls out.

It's not even like that. The car was purchased with no warranty, but the manufacturer later publishes that (in good business) it will offer safety recalls for equipment in cars that are less than 10 years old. After 10 years and 1 month, it is discovered that a flaw in the torque converter means that solar flares can cause the engine to explode if green transmission fluid is used, and the manufacturer offers a recall anyway.

IE or XP

[magarity]

I thought it was an Internet Explorer patch made available to XP users through XP's auto-update. This is a big difference from an XP system patch.

Re:IE or XP

[jonwil]

Except that (as Microsoft argued at the various anti-trust proceedings) Internet Explorer is part of the OS and cant be separated from it. So this IS a "system patch". Also, this is not really a patch to "Internet Explorer" but (from a quick look at the patch exe) a patch to mshtml.dll (the HTML rendering engine used by Internet Explorer and other things) which is very much part of the OS.

Re:IE or XP

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. This is not a Windows XP patch, it's an application patch. The two are not connected.

Re:IE or XP

[Billly Gates]

XP

MS should fix IE for Windows Vista and higher. There are repurcussions for not following manufacture guidelines. MS was more than fair with XP

Re:IE or XP

[Bing Tsher E]

There was a point in time (Active Desktop on Windows 98) when IE was an inseperable part (for the most part; the old explorer.exe from Win 95 could be grafted in) of the OS. This was now long in the past. IE is still bundled with Windows but can be easily replaced. Update your Microsoft-hate.

just can't win...

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft ends support for Windows XP, Microsoft gets criticized for abandoning an aging OS that is still used by many people.
Microsoft decides to help XP users one final time, they get criticized for still supporting an aging OS. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Re: just can't win...

[cyber-vandal]

Given that their monopoly abuse is what led to this clusterfuck they should provide patches until the end of time.

Re:just can't win...

[UltraZelda64]

Microsoft decides to help XP users one final time, they get criticized for still supporting an aging OS.

And that is the point. Is this really the final time? Based on the fact that they acted as wimps who, after all these years *still* can't keep their word on XP's EOL and, in fact, shat all over what "end-of-life" is even supposed to mean, I refuse to believe that this will be the "last" update. Yet, it needs to be (or better yet, it should never have happened). They originally pulled off something similar, bringing XP back from the virtual grave *three* Windows versions ago for OEMs, during the time of the dud that was Vista and the Linux-based netbook's rise in popularity.

And I would say that XP is beyond aging--it was "aging" years ago. At this point it is an old, rotten, foul-smelling binary corpse decomposing, and has been for quite a while now.

Re: just can't win...

[UltraZelda64]

No amount of patches will fix XP... it is broken to the core.

Re: just can't win...

[Anonymous Coward]

I suspect you're unlikely to get to fuck anyone...

It's not about XP

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, XP IS broke, and it will just get more so over time.

Software engineering isn't like civil engineering. Code doesn't break from sitting there, getting older.
This security hole was present in all versions of IE from 6 on.
The same will continue to be true in the future. Bugs they find in XP will be in the newer versions, too--since they haven't been fixed yet.
If they're fixing the bug anyway, why not roll out the fix to everyone affected?

Re:It's not about XP

[Anonymous Coward]

On a short timescale that's true... but in the 12 years since XP came out Windows has improved. Things like IE10/11, a built in thread pool implementation, replacing shitty direct show with slightly less shitty media foundation. IIRC a big chunk of the C++11 stuff is broken on XP. Grandma may not care about that stuff, but as someone stuck writing software for here I will be happy when XP support is something I don't need to worry about anymore.

Re:It's not about XP

[Anonymous Coward]

Users who are still on XP don't give a damn about the new software you're trying to sell them.

Really?

[Alomex]

Does this idiot also let play kids with loaded guns because "that will teach them"?

I mean, sure don't fix minor flaws, we discontinued support, tough bananas if you keep on using it. But a major security flaw for which you already have the solution for? Anyone but a douchebag would release the patch.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this idiot also let play kids with loaded guns because "that will teach them"?

I mean, sure don't fix minor flaws, we discontinued support, tough bananas if you keep on using it. But a major security flaw for which you already have the solution for? Anyone but a douchebag would release the patch.

The kids are already playing with guns, in this case. The safety of said guns is now *off.*

Microsoft put tape over the safety. I that a good idea? I'm not so sure.

Re:Really?

[228e2]

Parenting fail.

If your kids are playing with guns, then as a parent you have failed. No simpler way to put it. You were warned not to let kids play with guns for literally years, and now April 8th came, you're still letting them play with guns. I think in this analogy its time for Child Services to come alleviate you of your kids, since you cant take care of them and have failed to follow simple. Don't give me that "its impossible, im too integrated into my ways". No, its possible, you failed to work that cost into your business logic.

No one wants to see children get hurt, but when their legal guardian has sit idly by for years after being lectured, its time to up the ante before that 0day shoots you in the face. This one might shoot you in the foot, but its a lot better than the next one which might be a face full of buckshot.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

I totally agree. But then I'm a radical. If people want to use the software they paid good money for it is their right, but they paid with the intention that it would be safe and useable as long as they want to use it and so the company that profits form these payments should honor that until they close. The solution to that is to release the software into the open domain so that it can be taken up by (or sold to) some fringe company that will continue to research and release updates.

A few years ago I came across a group that was working on windows 98 and when I installed 98 to a virtual machine, ran all the updates and a few hacks I was really surprised at how useful it was. There are a few people around that still rely on win98 (old legacy hardware or proprietor software and hardware combinations add to that the list that just can't afford to upgrade) but run it isolated from the net and fairly crippled in most cases. I could see tweakers and techies having fun and possible forking these old windows environment if they were open. Not Windows XP though, MS would loose too much money they will have to keep the keys to that kingdom for at least another 3 years or until windows 9.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or everyone who has wasted time responding to this drivel. Myself included.

Re:Really?

[Flammon]

Running IE is like kids playing with a loaded gun? You're the idiot.

Re:Really?

[Capt.DrumkenBum]

Running IE is like kids playing with a loaded gun?

You are right. IE is far more dangerous, than mere children with a loaded gun. :)
I don't have any kids... That is probably for the best.

Re:Really?

[Billly Gates]

They were warned for years and years and years to upgrade.

It is their fault. Home users yes I can see a message telling them to upgrade. But corporate IT departments these getting hacked deserve some firings. Accountants included if they were the ones who did not give IT the resources to upgrade. Idiots.

No it is time to move on as running a full security center 24 x7, with hackers, security engineers, software developers, and kernel developers for 13 years costs billions for a silly $130 paid 13 years ago.

If you want security you need to pay for it. 13 years is plenty of time. It is 2014 now and time to move on if you knew about this.

Re:Really?

[amicusNYCL]

Or, I suppose, myself for expecting any better from /. nowadays...

I would say yourself, since you obviously lack anything resembling perspective. Yes, surely the worst example of a person being stupid is some attention whore who thinks that Microsoft should really stop having anything to do with Windows XP.

Re:Really?

[Livius]

Anyone but a douchebag would release the patch.

Then why is Microsoft releasing it?

Re:Really?

[pla]

You were warned not to let kids play with guns for literally years, and now April 8th came, you're still letting them play with guns.

Except, a dozen years ago, I bought a Nerf dart "gun". Feed it red paper tape, and it makes satisfying but harmless "bangs". Nerf never pointed out, back in 2002, that as of April 8th, 2014, my harmless foam darts would suddenly and randomly turn into armor-piercing explosive rounds.

Sure, if you worked in enterprise IT and looked at the fine print, you'd know that Microsoft's greatest-most-secure-OS-ever-now-with-automatic-no-hassle-updating-of-bugs had a planned 10 year support window.

Grandma neither works in IT nor can she make out the fine print through her trifocals, these days. And since she still thinks she lives in the Great Depression, she won't spend the extra $0.10 to get name-brand bread, never mind blowing a Benjamin upgrading to this newfangled "Winnate" thing all her younger friends say they got with their new computers and hate soooo much.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Some people use computers for more important things that downloading porn kiddo.

For example, controlling nuclear power stations or large financial institutions. If IE provides a vector into those systems the consequences are much worse than a loaded gun.

Re: Really?

[sonamchauhan]

I'm with you, but with a narrower interpretation- document the internal integration interfaces, to enable Independent repair of buggy parts. It's like automobile manufacturers being forced to cooperate with aftermarket car part manufacturers (see http://www.righttorepair.org/a... ), especially when the automobile manufacturer stops making the part in question.

Another industry that sharply brings out the need for this is printers -- especially those with microchips that stop third-part ink and toner cartridges working in the printer. What happens when the printer manufactures stops making cartridges for some printer? (reasons could include going out of business).

Re:Really?

[Lisias]

Anyone but a douchebag would release the patch.

By your statement, Microsoft should not release the patch! :-)

Remember, we're talking about the guys that used to sabotage every competitor on the market (Wordperfect, DR-DOS among many others) and double cross (almost?) every partner.

It's business, you can say. But's still sabotage and double crossing.

Yep, patching 1 huge security != supported

[raymorris]

Agreed. Patching a major security hole isn't the same thing as continuing to provide regular support.

My company does something similar. We offer an option at purchase where you can choose to forego any direct support and save a few dollars. We've still contacted those customers in the rare case of a significant security update.

Re:Yep, patching 1 huge security != supported

[Billly Gates]

Oh please it is.

It is hard and costs money to run a center, find bugs, and then fix them. Billions a year MS spends doing just that. IT makes no economic sense for $130 someone paid 13 years ago.

How often have you ever called microsoft at work? It is for the security updates right?

MS should not provide them unless you are willing to pay them. Use Windows 7 otherwise

Re:Yep, patching 1 huge security != supported

[kimvette]

Hint: XP was available for purchase until Windows 7 was released, so most licenses in use were purchased much more recently than 13 years ago. Microsot attempted to kill it but couldn't because Vista was such a spectacular flop in the marketplace.

Re:Yep, patching 1 huge security != supported

[Goetterdaemmerung]

So why did you buy an OS which MS published was going EOL in 2008?

My company just purchased a quarter million dollar piece of equipment a few months ago. Guess what, the new computer came with XP. There was no choice offered us.

We are trying to get an upgraded OS under warranty.

XP was going out on new systems just last year, not 5 years ago.

Re:Yep, patching 1 huge security != supported

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm unemployed and my machines are old, you gonna pony up some money for me to buy a new machine to run win7/8? Is MS going to?
No? Well, then you can go blow it up your... and I'll keep using what I have.
I'm sure a lot of people currently un/under-employed in this economy aren't gung-ho to buy a new machine to replace the one they have that still works just fine for what they need it to do, just to run MS's latest OS (that conveniently eats more RAM and more CPU, wonder why? Gee, maybe because they have deals with the computer manufacturers....)

Re:Yep, patching 1 huge security != supported

[kimvette]

Yep.

And for the record, for Windows I run XP in VMs, but dual boot Windows 7 and Vista (ugh!) and Linux for the hosts.

Re:Yep, patching 1 huge security != supported

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course you had a choice. The EULA of XP specifically states you can get a refund for the OS if you don't want it. After the seller refused to offer a later Windows version, you could have bought the computers and then used that clause. If they refused to refund, there's already lawsuits demonstrating that it's illegal to refuse and you'd win your lawsuit quickly.

For your specific situation, it sounds more like an embedded system. The software has probably been vetted for only XP and upgrading may cause issues. That's considerably different from purchasing general computers.

Re:Yep, patching 1 huge security != supported

[Bungie]

Uh...Windows 7 can easily run on a machine that's over 5 years old. I'm typing this post on Windows 7 32-bit and this machine has a motherboard that was manufactured in 2003 (Intel D865PERL). The AGP 4x ATI card even runs Aero without any problems. I can understand if you're short on RAM (this board used DDR1 which is quite expensive per gigabyte) but this board is 10 years old and run Windows 7 amazingly well.

Re:Yep, patching 1 huge security != supported

[Billly Gates]

Sounds like someone should be fired.

Who in their right mind in IT would allow this approval. To require an ancient 13 year old OS for 250,000 is beyond a rip off! I would have gone to a competitor if that is all you can produce.

Re:Yep, patching 1 huge security != supported

[Bing Tsher E]

Sometimes IT people just need to fuck off. A piece of lab equipment that has a computer embedded in it is not their domain. Not any more than a server that has an electronic power supply in it thus becomes the Electrical Engineering Department's domain. IT has a say in how said computer is connected to their network. Beyond that, they need to kindly get the fuck off the production floor and.out of the lab. Go change toner cartridges somewhere, BOFH.

Re:Yep, patching 1 huge security != supported

[mpe]

Uh...Windows 7 can easily run on a machine that's over 5 years old.

By itself Windows 7 won't do much though.
The issue is more likely to be "Will the applications needed run under Win 7 EXACTLY as they do under Win XP?"
To add to the complications there is no direct upgrade path from Win XP to Win 7. (Though there is from Win 2003 to Win 2008. The "server versions" of these...) Microsoft has also messed around with the "user profile" mechanism.

Re:Yep, patching 1 huge security != supported

[drinkypoo]

I have gotten printers, scanners, and other hardware for use with linux because it's no longer supported by Windows after XP. In most cases the replacement, supported devices speak the same [proprietary] protocol and the deprecated, now-unsupported devices, but the driver has been deliberately told not to pick those devices up. HP and Canon both spring immediately to mind. Many users cannot upgrade to Windows 7 without replacing all of their peripherals. I even have one system that cannot be upgraded from Vista to Windows 7 for lack of drivers, but that's a whole other hell.

For many people, XP to 7 isn't a software upgrade, it's an entire system upgrade.

Re:Yep, patching 1 huge security != supported

[Billly Gates]

And don't have to support it if it's against corporate policy for an XP machine to join. It will be disconnected.

It's not like you bought it in 2001. It's 2014 so too bad

Re:Yep, patching 1 huge security != supported

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember when WInNT came out, and the 'specs' said it'd run on 16MB RAM (20+ recommended)... so I loaded it on my 16MB 486/100... yeah, it "ran", but you couldn't have done much useful with it other than play Solitaire (and even that sent the hard drive into a swapping frenzy).

Clueless

[NoKaOi]

The author seems to have no grasp on why there's still so many XP installations out there. Sure, there are a bunch that are just because home users don't know better or offices don't want to spend a few hundred bucks to upgrade, and for those use cases where all that really matters are being able to edit Word documents and browse the web, then his ideas apply. Problem is, there are a ton of users that are using niche software, whose creators have either gone out of business or simply stopped developing upgrades, that won't work on anything other than XP. Upgrading would cost millions to a business and/or affect the work flow of the whole organization. For example, there's super-duper expensive hospital equipment that can only be run by software running on Windows XP. You can't air-gap it, because it has to be networked in order to move data around to actually be useful. Upgrading from XP means scrapping the equipment and spending 6-7 figures for just that one piece of equipment, which is otherwise still working fine. There's other systems that don't necessarily run hardware, but would cost 6-7 figures in implementation to switch systems, and not all businesses that use that software have that kind of spare cash so it's not necessarily that they are just being greedy.

Yes, this is a problem, no, I'm not saying it's okay, what I am saying is that not issuing security fixes isn't going to force those types of users to upgrade, it just means they'll be forced to use a system that isn't secure. You have to fix the culture of the vendors who make this shitware (where there are usually no alternatives) before you can force their users to upgrade.

Re:Clueless

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why you should never use consumer grade hardware/software for mission critical tasks. Have a mission critical task that relies on a certain bit of software? Better make sure you have a long term agreement on how that software will be maintained (access to source, perpetual support contract, defined software upgrade roadmap, etc.)

The "just toss it on because it's cheaper that way" plan is showing it's ultimate idiocy.

Re:Clueless

[Anonymous Coward]

The author seem to have no grasp of a great many things. How the hell does this garbage end up on the front page?

Re:Clueless

[jonwil]

You cant air-gap it but you CAN make sure that it isn't connected to the Internet, just to a local hospital LAN so data can be moved off it. And you CAN make sure its not used for anything other than what it has to be used for.

Re:Clueless

[NoKaOi]

This is why you should never use consumer grade hardware/software for mission critical tasks. Have a mission critical task that relies on a certain bit of software? Better make sure you have a long term agreement on how that software will be maintained (access to source, perpetual support contract, defined software upgrade roadmap, etc.)

For many niche markets there simply isn't a choice. Often times there is only choice, and in other markets there might be 2 or 3 that suck equally. These types of vendors make incredibly shitty software that sucks too bad to upgrade, and the way they see it is that there's no incentive to spend money make it better if there's no competition forcing them to. In these cases the problem is those vendors, not the users. In other cases, a vendor may have been chosen because they met the most checkboxes on the requirements sheet that management had, even if there was a higher quality alternative at the time. It's easy to point at that problem in retrospect, but doesn't help the issue of not being upgradeable now. I'm not saying this is the case with everyone still using XP by any means, I'm trying to point out that the problem is not limited to Grandma who doesn't know how to upgrade.

Re:clueless

[Billly Gates]

Yep keep staying on XP.

Times change man. It costs billions to have a 24x7 team of security engineers, developers, hackers, and os writters around the clock for that 13 year old OS. MS has a right to not support unless you have big bucks

Re:Clueless

[Billly Gates]

STOP ENABLING them.

They are out htere because they get support. They get support because they are out there.

If you are into technology you are adversely impacted by XP. Software is not written with the latest standards. Websites can't go html 5 and css 3. Your phone is more fluid and advanced with pretty gradients than your freaking computer because of IE 6 - 8 compatibility. Can't have nice .net 4.5 programs. Hackers, spammers are attacking your machine etc.

Yes it cost money to upgrade. I get that and if it works businesses are resistent to change. But shoot when is it pure negligence to lower your IE settings in the low zone and use unsigned activex controls and versions of Java with +200 security holes so your freaking accountant can save $2,000?

Move on! Use a VM if you really can't live without that app locked tight in a DMZ lan with no internet connection with a virgin tight gpo on it if you must use IE 6

Re:Clueless

[Tough Love]

The author seems to have no grasp on why there's still so many XP installations out there. ...there are a ton of users that are using niche software, whose creators have either gone out of business or simply stopped developing upgrades, that won't work on anything other than XP...

True, but that is only part of the story. A large part of the rest of the story is that Microsoft's follow on products suck too much and do not rule in any discernable way.

Re:Clueless

[Anonymous Coward]

Websites can't go html 5 and css 3 [...] witih pretty gradients

Yet another advantage of keeping XP alive. Thanks, hipster, for reminding me how important it is not to consume for consuming's sake!

Re:Clueless

[Bing Tsher E]

Beavis? Butthead.said you should give him a call.

Re:Clueless

[ray-auch]

[Mod or post, mod or post, ah feck it - post. Someone else mod parent up.]

And to add to that, the vast majority of the world's ATMs actually run.... Windows XP. Yes, they do, google it (plenty of articles) if you don't believe.
Replacement cost for most of the ATM network would be enormous.

Then there's point-of-sale stuff...

So sure yes, let's pull all the plugs on Win XP systems like the article says - just give me a chance to get to the supermarket and the gun store first.

Re:Clueless

[mpe]

This is why you should never use consumer grade hardware/software for mission critical tasks.

Typically it's the supplier making this kind of decision. With the customer not having much input, or choice, in the matter.

Re:Clueless

[Anonymous Coward]

Having been driven slightly nuts in a hospital setting trying to admin said equipment, the real issue lies more with FDA approval and changing the fundamental OS than the patch. Because the software was FDA approved on a specific OS with a specific patch level, means that any changes violates the FDA approval.

Now, as a Health care provider, you are left with a stark choice. Patch and violate the FDA approval and risk human life, or don't patch risk data exposure and possibly human life.

The intermediate solution is to shove all these systems onto their own LAN which has extremely strict access controls to the rest of the Corporate LAN and try to force OEMs to clean up their mess. But I can't remember the last time Siemens or Fujitsu got forced to clean anything up they did not want to.

Re:clueless

[SydShamino]

It can run a later version of Linux or BSD, or it could be thrown away. ("Why throw away perfectly working hardware?" Well, install a safe OS on it then.)

It's not that different from, for example, the electrical system in our house. Originally it was knob and tube, with a breaker box from the 1940s that the inspector called "unsafe". All of that was replaced before we agreed to buy, because what was there - even though it was A-OK when it was originally sold - simply did not meet modern standards for safety. It had to go, and the person who owned it was stuck paying for that replacement.

The only difference with your old laptop is that it went obsolete much faster. That's a good thing though; if it took 50 years for a laptop to go obsolete we wouldn't have lived to see smart phones and the internet.

Re:Clueless

[Anonymous Coward]

You have to fix the culture of the vendors who make this shitware (where there are usually no alternatives) before you can force their users to upgrade.

The huge installed user base of Windows users, and the huge number of software packages written for (and completely dependent on) Windows, is what drives the development of custom hardware that runs on Windows.

You're seeing the negative effects of the monopoly the government has been bribed to allow Microsoft to have, and the negative effects of poorly conceived so-called "intellectual property" laws.

Even many engineers often prefer to use Windows -- when they should be preferring Linux -- which is why you find engineering test equipment costing hundreds of thousands of dollars running Windows. A lot of that stuff is in daily use in labs all over the world, and still runs Windows XP.

In a rational legal system, the source code of a commercial OS would become public domain within ten years after release, giving the company a fair chance to make a profit off their work, but preventing long term monopoly and cartel-like behaviours harmful to society. This would also facilitate long term public oversight over business, making sure that businesses aren't doing anything inappropriate in their software, and would be quite valuable from a historical perspective.

The current situation is much like having the government rent the land it uses for the interstate system, instead of taking it by eminent domain while paying a reasonable price for it (allowing the property owner to make a reasonable profit from their investment, but not allowing the property owner to cause long term problems for society).

With Windows, the government, and hence the taxpayer, has to keep paying for something they should be able to own for a reasonable price, and on a reasonable timescale.

Why is it that the legal profession insists we treat intellectual materials as property, but refuses to allow us to treat intellectual materials as property? Gotta love the double standard: as long as the lawyers get paid, they don't care about the ethical implications of these kinds of inconsistencies in the legal system. Don't look for ethics in the practice of law, you'll be sadly disappointed.

XP needs just one last patch.

[Anonymous Coward]

A patch to remove the entire networking stack. Done.

Re:XP needs just one last patch.

[Anonymous Coward]

A patch to remove the entire networking stack. Done.

...and bundled with one to remove USB support (thanks, Stuxnet).

Re:My mother just called a couple hours ago

[Ralph Wiggam]

Please keep us updated on all conversations you have with your mother. Thanks.

XP still used in a lot of places

[Anonymous Coward]

Embedded market: small terminals, industrial automation controls, etc. Parts of this industry can move along to the next generation every 20 years, so it's not at all unreasonable that they are still using the same software. Most people have no idea the cost of moving an entire industry to a new product: and it *is* a new product - not just an upgrade - because the hardware needs to be faster to support > XP, the UX can change, and all certification work [hardware and software] must be re-done. Thus, there is enormous financial/industrial pressure to resist change.

source: I am an embedded systems developer.

Re:My mother just called a couple hours ago

[Anonymous Coward]

Why did you lie to your mother?

"or switch to another modern OS such as..."

[Blaskowicz]

That isn't helpful, XP is a modern operating system. It has user accounts, processes and all that stuff. It misses a desktop compositor but do we have to care about windows flying around?

In fact I would like linux to catch up. Using LXDE makes it relatively close to XP in speed and stability, MATE is a slower but decent, but it could use some more driver quality and importantly I hope there'll finally be a way to fix backwards compatibility and game availability, which go hand in hand.

Get me right, I know that XP has to be abandoned and advocate for it , I tell people to use Mint and do all updates (almost security only) that show up. The updates are pleasant instead of being a hassle. Though as usual I need to wait again. Wait for Mint 17 to be out, since Mint 16 will be deprecated despite coming out in last November.

Re:"or switch to another modern OS such as..."

[Anonymous Coward]

That isn't helpful, XP is a modern operating system. It has user accounts, processes and all that stuff. It misses a desktop compositor but do we have to care about windows flying around?

In fact I would like linux to catch up. Using LXDE makes it relatively close to XP in speed and stability, MATE is a slower but decent, but it could use some more driver quality and importantly I hope there'll finally be a way to fix backwards compatibility and game availability, which go hand in hand.

Get me right, I know that XP has to be abandoned and advocate for it , I tell people to use Mint and do all updates (almost security only) that show up. The updates are pleasant instead of being a hassle. Though as usual I need to wait again. Wait for Mint 17 to be out, since Mint 16 will be deprecated despite coming out in last November.

So, use the latest Ubuntu LTS with LXDE or Mate. Problem solved.

Re:"or switch to another modern OS such as..."

[Anonymous Coward]

Use LMDE to save the hassle. problem solved.

Re:"or switch to another modern OS such as..."

[Anonymous Coward]

By your standards, MacOS Classic was a modern operating system. And indeed, if you're just going to use the standards of the 70's, then of course XP will look modern.

But what makes an OS modern is whether it is up-to-date: does it run on the latest hardware? Run the latest software? Does it receive regular updates? Clearly XP is falling behind now in those regards.

As for Linux catching up, well, even Windows 8 and 7 have a lot of catching up to do to Linux, too. You can't just make a blanket statement like that and expect to be taken seriously. I know elderly folk who use Linux just fine after they stopped using XP. They don't think it's "behind" Windows at all. And they're hardly technically-minded.

Re:"or switch to another modern OS such as..."

[Blaskowicz]

I did try Ubuntu 14.04's mini.iso in a virtualbox, it booted to the menu then failed to load the installer. I was not impressed :D. So I'll have to wait till it works (or maybe try PXE boot). I don't want to install xubuntu or lubuntu and clean up after them

Re:"or switch to another modern OS such as..."

[Blaskowicz]

It is great, can have some uses but I won't install a rolling distro for general home users ; Ubuntu versions can also benefit from .debs or ppa for certain things and there's the GUI for installing proprietary drivers.

Re:"or switch to another modern OS such as..."

[Billly Gates]

That isn't helpful, XP is a modern operating system. ...

Stop right there. No

XP is a modern OS on a trusted network or if online means AOL and MSN on a dialup modem with just port 80, 23, and 133 open for simple apps. Good security means a password that is hard to crack. Nothing else. That is the era for XP.

Not to run on an untrusted network like the internet complete with UPNP open to god knows what.

A modern OS in 2014 needs ALSR, DEP, dual sandboxes, seperation of privileges, protected boot loader, exception handling protection where a crash can';t be used as a vehicle to control what loads in ram next, low rights mode with processes having no rights to the filesystem period!

ASLR scrambles ram so if you do a buffer overflow or a code insertion in you have no clue where the .dll files are to insert you evil malware/rootkit. DEP is only partially enabled, sandbox support is even freaking there for javascript and browsers that use this including Chrome, anyone can put something in MBR /sector 80 which loads the OS, if you know the addresses for the ,dlls in XP you can insert code to execute whatever you like whether an admin or not. Chrome in Windows 7 runs in lowrights mode which means any escape from the sandbox can't read the filesystem. IF you can't write to it you can't install malware etc.

That my friend is a modern 2014 OS. XP is not it. Stop defending and modding comments like the parent up folks. It is time to move on and stop being afraid of change because you are used to something. Jeesh

Re:"or switch to another modern OS such as..."

[Blaskowicz]

Priviledge separation, isn't that what users, groups and file permissions or ACLs are for?

By some measure, Windows 7 is still like Windows 95 because I can walk to a random Windows box and do whatever by clicking "Yes" on a UAC prompt. But that's the default setting.
And we now have malware escaping sandboxes and defeating ASLR. Yes the OS is much better secured I guess. Still, I get some thrills sometimes, I walked to a Windows 7 box that just refused to run Windows Update no matter what (MSSE wouldn't install) so I concluded there was some unknown malware.

Re: "or switch to another modern OS such as..."

[Anonymous Coward]

Not getting Ubuntu to.work in VirtualBox is quite an impressive feat. How did you do it?

Re: "or switch to another modern OS such as..."

[Blaskowicz]

oh it works now, go figure.

Re:"or switch to another modern OS such as..."

[Billly Gates]

No I am talking about services impersonatingADMIN (yes that is a real freaking service/api/redirect) believe it or not.

ACL and user accounts mean nothing for assembly code injected into something. Lets say you write a win32 app that is a text editor? To open a file it hooks into an api which then talks to the NT kernel and does the ACL then talks to the hardware to get the string of 101010's and returns it back to your program. A standard account won't allow this depending on what the NT kernel says yes/no based on your token from ACL.

A hacker with a buffer overflow written in flash find a way to crash it and when it does an exception handle the code is injected and run into your account. There is no acl checking. No NT kernel checking. It is simply bypassed and executed. Infected done.

You do not need to click on anything. YOu do not even get a UAC prompt. You go to a site and I own your computer in XP. DONE. That is a 2000's era hack. Not a password crack which is 1990's era stuff that XP is good at.

Windows 7 has ASLR and sandboxing. It prevents the injection from getting through. Lowrights mode make it hard for it to accidentely get executed by a service. Even if you do get through ASLR makes inserting it hard. Where do you put the code in the ram where some service or app can run it bypassing the ACL and user access controls?

It is not perfect but it adds many more steps. Linux with SELinux, MacOSX, and Windows 7 and higher all have these. XP does not. It is much less secure as a result. Patches to prevent work arounds no longer will be coming.

Re:"or switch to another modern OS such as..."

[Blaskowicz]

Thanks, that was interesting.

Re:"or switch to another modern OS such as..."

[drinkypoo]

I am using it right now. The file manager is shit. I'm gonna change to something else soon.

Easy to fix

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps they fixed it because it's too simple to fix by end users themselves - just use another (better) browser, which might result in visible drop in IE shares.

Viva la XP!

[Anonymous Coward]

Long live XP!

Microsoft didn't do it for charity

[wooppp]

I guess the last line is what Microsoft fears about - "or switch to another modern operating system, such as OS X or Linux."

Microsoft Opened Themselves Up for Lawsuits

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Now, every 0day that hits, and Microsoft DOESN'T patch XP, after product end-of-life? Deep pockets. Lawsuit. Precedent has been established. :-)

Re:Microsoft Opened Themselves Up for Lawsuits

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really. I don't think you have a law degree.

Re:Microsoft Opened Themselves Up for Lawsuits

[amicusNYCL]

This is not a legal precedent. Read the Windows XP EULA if you want to see how liable Microsoft is for people using Windows XP after the end of life (or at all).

Re:Microsoft Opened Themselves Up for Lawsuits

[Tough Love]

Maybe he doesn't, but I think he's right. What is the chance that nobody will sue Microsoft for, among other things, fraud? Does it say on the package that the product becomes unfit for use at time X? No? Fraud. Lawyers start panting.

Re:Microsoft Opened Themselves Up for Lawsuits

[Anrego]

Does it say on the package that the product becomes unfit for use at time X?

Like just about everything else sold these days, it comes with the classic "we don't guarantee shit" clause:

DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES. The Limited Warranty that appears above is the only express warranty made
to you and is provided in lieu of any other express warranties (if any) created by any documentation, packaging,
or other communications. Except for the Limited Warranty and to the maximum extent permitted by applicable
law, Microsoft and its suppliers provide the Product and support services (if any) AS IS AND WITH ALL
FAULTS, and hereby disclaim all other warranties and conditions, either express, implied or statutory,
including, but not limited to, any (if any) implied warranties, duties or conditions of merchantability, of
fitness for a particular purpose, of reliability or availability, of accuracy or completeness of responses, of
results, of workmanlike effort, of lack of viruses, and of lack of negligence, all with regard to the Product, and
the provision of or failure to provide support or other services, information, software, and related content
through the Product or otherwise arising out of the use of the Product. ALSO, THERE IS NO WARRANTY
OR CONDITION OF TITLE, QUIET ENJOYMENT, QUIET POSSESSION, CORRESPONDENCE TO
DESCRIPTION OR NON-INFRINGEMENT WITH REGARD TO THE PRODUCT.

Re:Microsoft Opened Themselves Up for Lawsuits

[turbidostato]

"Now, every 0day that hits, and Microsoft DOESN'T patch XP, after product end-of-life?"

In my opinion, end-of-life should mean no new features added to the system. But flaws? They've been there since the begining. How long should a company repair their faulty products? For as long as they remain faulty.

Re:Microsoft Opened Themselves Up for Lawsuits

[arbiter1]

MS did everyone a service supporting XP as long as they did, Unlike a fruity company I won't name but after 2 years old OS stop getting updates even if a massive security flaw.

Re:Microsoft Opened Themselves Up for Lawsuits

[Sable Drakon]

True. but most people with older Macs don't have to spend 100+ dollars just to upgrade their system to the most recent build of Mac OS. You can run Mavericks on 7 year old iMacs and MacBooks with few issues, while trying to run Win7/8 on a 7 year or older machine is nothing but issues.

Re:Microsoft Opened Themselves Up for Lawsuits

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a Core2Duo MacMine purchased December 2007 on which Maverick refuses to install for no reason I can understand except that Apple says it shouldn't. It remains a capable little computer and OSX 10.9 does not seem so resource intensive that the older Mac could not handle it.

On the other hand, I recently upgraded my AMD Athlon X2 Dual Core to Windows 7 after XP went end-of-life. It actually runs faster now than it did using Windows XP.

Apple's support sucks. They purposely go out of their way to prevent you from updating older machines just so you have to buy new hardware, You are then left with perfectly serviceable computers that you either have to use an unsupported OS on it with BootCamp, or run an old version of OSX and accept that you will be vulnerable to all the newer bugs.

I can accept that Apple won't support really old Macs (e.g., PowerPCs and older) because those platforms are an entirely different architecture and they would have to essentially program two different versions of the operating system. But since 2005, Macs have all used the x86 architecture and locking out users - nominally in the name of performance issues - is grossly inappropriate.

Re:Microsoft Opened Themselves Up for Lawsuits

[turbidostato]

"MS did everyone a service supporting XP as long as they did"

So MS did a service to anyone exactly how? By delivering such a faulty OS that after 15 years providing monthly patches still has critical security flaws that need to be patched?

Re:Microsoft Opened Themselves Up for Lawsuits

[stoploss]

This is not a legal precedent. Read the Windows XP EULA if you want to see how liable Microsoft is for people using Windows XP after the end of life (or at all).

Granted.

Tangentially, their EULA also disclaims implied warranty of merchantability. Aside from the fact that MS can buy as much justice as they want, is it even technically legally binding to disclaim such implied warranties?

Re:Microsoft Opened Themselves Up for Lawsuits

[Tough Love]

Looks like Apple's disclaimers did not get them out of this one. Looking forward to similar slimeball lawyers sinking their pointy teeth into Microsoft. It's inevitable, and they deserve each other.

Re:Microsoft Opened Themselves Up for Lawsuits

[_Shad0w_]

I know people love car analogies, so that is a little like people suing Ford for no-longer making parts for their Model T. You have to stop supporting legacy products at some point; madness lies down the alternative route.

Re:Microsoft Opened Themselves Up for Lawsuits

[Joce640k]

Right now Windows XP is used on 1 in 4 computers (approx).

I bet you'd be the first in line to complain if Ford stopped supporting a model when it dropped below 1 in 4 of all cars on the road.

Re:Microsoft Opened Themselves Up for Lawsuits

[dinfinity]

so that is a little like people suing Ford for no-longer making parts for their Model T

No, it is not.

A better car analogy would be if the Ford Model T could be made to brake by a third party tampering with it and Ford refusing to supply all current Model T owners with a part that prevents that possibility.

In either case, it is ridiculous to put the blame on Ford.

Re:Microsoft Opened Themselves Up for Lawsuits

[Lisias]

The EULA can state anything. If one decides to sue besides it, and the judge agrees with the guy, so that's it.

EULAs are not the ultimante agreement between the parts. This role is played by a bunch os guys that call themselves "congressistes", "judges" and "lawyers".

Re:Microsoft Opened Themselves Up for Lawsuits

[hairyfeet]

Right. What would you consider a "non faulty OS, Linux? Then I guess Torvalds should be shot because when it comes to bugs here they come! . Oh and don't forget which OS it was that gave us heartbleed. Was it Windows? No no no no, was it OSX? No no nooo no, was it Linux? yeah yeah yeah yeah! BTW you should try to play the "how many year old Linux bug" game, its fun and easy! Simply type into any search engine " (X) year old Linux bug" with (X) replaced by a random number, see how far back you can go! I doubt you will be able to top 20 years old but single digits are easy peasy!

Anybody still on XP deserves what they get, they got 12 years of support, which just FYI is 10 years longer than the average Linux distro LOL, unless you consider the bi annual death march to be "support", and they have had more than enough time to switch over to a newer version of Windows. They can't even use the hardware excuse as the average XP box is a power piggie P4 and for less than $100 you can toss that P4 board for a Bobcat or jaguar board that will run rings around the P4 while using less power under load than the piggie P4 does at idle. they can even keep their old IDE drive using a $7 IDE to PCI converter so there really is no longer any excuses, anybody who hangs onto a thirteen year old OS (XP was released in 2001 and has more in common with NT4 than it does with a modern OS like 7/8) that is three and soon to be four versions behind? Deserves what they get.

Out of the hundreds of boxes I moved to 7, how many problems did I have? A grand total of THREE, and one of those doesn't count since the software in question (Quickbooks 07 IIRC, may have been 06) was "broken by design" and tied to a VERY insercure version of Flash (V7) and would refuse to install if ANY version of Flash other than 7 was on the system, but it took less than 30 minutes to turn the XP install into a VM and run it on Win 7 via Virtualbox. The other 2? A scanner from 2000 that was so low res a $35 all in one printer gave the guy a 300%+ increase in quality and an old ATI IGP that ran but was flaky, it cost a grand total of $8 to replace the IGP with an HD2400. That system was a first gen C2D with 2GB of RAM and was recently traded back in on a new quad, I turned around and sold it to my landlord who runs it 6 days a week and it purrs like a kitten. If a 8 year old system can run Win 7 so well the customer who buys it in 2014 says "I just love this machine,it runs my stock software and surfs like a dream" there really is no excuse, let XP die already.

Oh and just for shits and giggles I tried the "hairyfeet challenge" using that box before I reloaded Windows, since it would probably be considered high end of the XP era hardware and thus would give Linux a performance advantage over some dusty P4, result? Ubuntu crapped the video first update, PCLOS crapped out on the second, no point in continuing after that since it had already failed the test.

Re:Microsoft Opened Themselves Up for Lawsuits

[Euler]

Somebody is making model T parts.

Re:Microsoft Opened Themselves Up for Lawsuits

[Kremmy]

You're wrong.
Windows 7 will SCREAM on anything that was Vista Capable - 2006 or later.
You can even run it on Intel Macs that don't support Mavericks.
If the machine has a Core CPU, it's more than fine.
Kinda sick of people STILL pretending like the operating system needs fantastical hardware. Those kind of people are idiots.

Re:Microsoft Opened Themselves Up for Lawsuits

[Anonymous Coward]

Whether you would WANT to run Mavericks (an OS that in its 3rd version still causes major issues during upgrades) on a Mac that old instead of sticking with the perfectly functional older Mac OS X version is another question. I am one of those people who still uses a nearly-decade old Mac each day, and bought a new Mac just last year. The machine has been a pain in the behind in ways I had never imagined of a Mac: HDD corruption out of the blue, sleep issues (waking out night, crashing, etc.), can't find network connections properly, etc. Since no hardware cause can be found, everything is blamed on software issues, and Apple takes no responsibility for that even though bugs that have been in Mac OS X since 2012 are to blame. Yet they sell OS X with a Mac as part of the user experience. Support is non-existent and the techs are morons. I will be using my old Apple laptop until it dies. I fully expect the MacBook Pro to die before the old machine. Present-day Apple is wormy.

Re:Microsoft Opened Themselves Up for Lawsuits

[silent-listener]

Very bad sample. For T-Ford you can still buy parts. Part makers have specification and can make new parts. For XP it is a kind of sealed blackbox.

Re:Microsoft Opened Themselves Up for Lawsuits

[Wootery]

Does it say on the package that the product becomes unfit for use at time X? No? Fraud. Lawyers start panting.

I doubt it. Implicit indefinite guarantee? I don't think so. XP was maintained and kept (roughly) fit-for-purpose for years.

Re: Microsoft Opened Themselves Up for Lawsuits

[Anonymous Coward]

Bad roads. Over time, things get broken. A 3rd party could be general wear and tear, or could be someone hitting your car and driving off. It will happen.

A 0day is a hit and run. And the analogy is actually pretty good. Manufacturers of cars and software know that their respective product will generally go obsolete in a dozen years or so, depending on the application. Tractors last forever as might a printer driver, but general use and operating systems will be obsolete as the hardware either advances or wears out.

Car manufacturers do have to provide support for an limited number of years (10 iirc). After that, you have to go to a 3rd party, and the manufacturer is off the hook.

Software systems advance as fast or faster than car tech. Why should software manufacturers be required to continue servicing fast past the obvious end of life, when virtually no other manufacturer does?

Re: Microsoft Opened Themselves Up for Lawsuits

[Anonymous Coward]

... I run 7 on an old computer, getting close to 10yo. Thanks for stomping on my geek card.

Re:Microsoft Opened Themselves Up for Lawsuits

[toddestan]

Well, Ford is only legally required to support a model for 10 years. Considering that's less than the average vehicle age, that would mean there are lot of "unsupported" Fords out there. Of course, I haven't had much problem getting support for cars older than that (so long as they aren't too old), because there's good money in parts and service. Yet, since the expectation is that Microsoft continue to support XP completely free of charge? No wonder Microsoft wants to drop support. Perhaps the solution would be for Microsoft to continue to offer support for XP for anyone who is willing to pay, not just the few large contracts that have negotiated support. That way everyone wins - anyone who wants to run XP bad enough still can, and Microsoft gets a new revenue stream.

Re:Microsoft Opened Themselves Up for Lawsuits

[bondsbw]

But does the box explicitly state that the software will receive updates for a particular period of time or until a certain date?

The fact that users received software updates at all can be seen as unwarranted kindness on the behalf of Microsoft.

Re:Microsoft Opened Themselves Up for Lawsuits

[McDutchie]

Oh and don't forget which OS it was that gave us heartbleed. Was it Windows? No no no no, was it OSX? No no nooo no, was it Linux? yeah yeah yeah yeah!

How does this utter shit get modded up to +4? Heartbleed is an OpenSSL bug. It's got jack to do with Linux (or any other OS). That is just the worst in the parent message. Everything else is misleading as well.

Re: Microsoft Opened Themselves Up for Lawsuits

[Anonymous Coward]

Because they forbid 3rd party support.

Re:Microsoft Opened Themselves Up for Lawsuits

[Waccoon]

I sure hope you're talking about issues due to horrible drivers, not issues with Windows.

Get hardware that comes with good drivers, and Windows runs on everything.

Re:Microsoft Opened Themselves Up for Lawsuits

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft designed Windows 7 to blue screen for NO REASON AT ALL if the video card doesn't support DirectX 9.

After reboots, the system event viewer says, basically "Whoa. maybe you need to buy newer hardware!"

There is no reason to have to use DX9 hardware if you have aero turned off, yet the system will not run without it. That's also not mentioning the Windows 8.1 dropping support for some systems because a single CPU instruction added later to the x64 systems is missing on some PCs.

On a related note, Windows 7 came out in 2009, at the same time as OSX 10.6. I bet your old core2duo machine is able to run 10.6, which is the same age.

Re:Microsoft Opened Themselves Up for Lawsuits

[amicusNYCL]

I'm not sure, I don't know if that EULA has ever been tested in court.

Re:Microsoft Opened Themselves Up for Lawsuits

[turbidostato]

"What would you consider a "non faulty OS, Linux?"

Straw man alert, Will Robbins, straw man alert!

Re:Microsoft Opened Themselves Up for Lawsuits

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats not how it works. If you ship it, its your responsibility. Sad day for you.
------
Linux nerd #1:

"WHat about this font bug?" Nah.. it has nothing to do with Linux, its the opentype parser

"mm a bug in libc?" DUDE LIBC IS NOT LINUX ..

"A bug in a kernel module?". WTF, YOU FUCKING IDIOT.. its a problem with REALTEK DRIVERS ... nothing to do with Linux !!!
------
Linux nerd #2:

Lolz.. Linux comes with everything out of the box. A REAL Browser, Open Office, Mediaplayers, drivers.. everything. You windoze peoples are so lame.. Windows comes with nothing. LINUX RULES !!
--

It does seem like every weekend when I boot my linux laptop there is some shit or the other that needs constant updating patching fixing and what not. I had to disable all the "helpful" auto update shit to stop annoying me. I don't know why linux repos continue to offer shit quality packages which have to be constantly patched and updated every week. I guess they learned from Microsoft.

Newer than XP won't work with some hardware

[Anonymous Coward]

We have a $40,000 piece of equipment that runs on XP. I don't think we are going to quit using it because M$ wants us too.

Re:Newer than XP won't work with some hardware

[mark-t]

But you might have to quit using it when mIcrosoft doesn't release patches for it that address critical vulnerabilities. While it's certainly true that those vulnerabilities were always there and aren't anything new... once the vulnerability becomes publicly known, it's liable to be the case that people try to exploit it more frequetntly. MS patched this one... this time. They really aren't under any obligation to always do so in the future.

Re:Newer than XP won't work with some hardware

[Ducho_CWB]

So you have an expensive piece of equipment that runs on XP. Do you need this XP instance to connect to internet? If you need, maybe the manufacturer of this expensive equipment have a solution for you. If it is isolated, why oh why bother to install a single update in a production isolated expensive equipment?

Re:Newer than XP won't work with some hardware

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think we will quit using this $40,000 piece of equipment for a decade or more. Its networked for printing status reports but doesn't browse the internet. There is no chance of getting updates from the manufacturer because they would like us to buy a new $100,000+ machine. We have other equipment too that will only work under XP and we won't get rid of them because no one makes anything that does what it does anymore.

I will note that one reason XP became popular with embedded equipment is that it was the last version of windows that application software could talk directly to the hardware without having to write some secure/registered driver (M$ eliminated that to please hollywood).

Re:Newer than XP won't work with some hardware

[Anonymous Coward]

The word you are looking for is "signed" and you can turn off the requirement for signed drivers if you need to.

That atorney would breath fire and brimstone

[angel'o'sphere]

if it would be his house or his car or his yacht that suddenly does no longer 'work'.

Re:That atorney would breath fire and brimstone

[Anonymous Coward]

Except it works exactly the same as it always has. They just found out there's a hole that causes a problem with his house, car, yacht, etc.

Re:That atorney would breath fire and brimstone

[Anonymous Coward]

Except it works exactly the same as it always has. They just found out there's a hole that causes a problem with his house, car, yacht, etc.

Fairly certain that some holes could definitely prevent his yacht from working exactly as it always has...

Re:That atorney would breath fire and brimstone

[amicusNYCL]

It works exactly the same as it always has. It's just no longer under warranty. Expect any security updates to be few and far between, and only for the biggest issues. Otherwise, you're on your own. Use it as long as you like, but don't come crying when you get infected or it doesn't run the newest programs.

That's the other side effect we'll see: within a few years, software vendors will no longer be testing their products on XP.

Re:My mother just called a couple hours ago

[zephvark]

I told her the Automatic Updates will keep her safe.

Yeah, ummm... I tend to leave on Auto Updates for my Dad, too, and he's even got a god-awful antivirus product, but that's only because I think they might be slightly better than the alternatives, for him. I've seen more machines bricked by Automatic Updates and by McAfee/Norton products than by viruses.

Already done, so...

[Anonymous Coward]

what's the point other than WinBashing?

Fucking YAWN.

and those systems are generally safe, when secure

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but those systems usually get taken off the internet and are solely used for that program. Have you ever stopped to think how those marketing research surveys are made? There are different means, but one of the most reliable and important measures is by having code in a web page's ad that request information from the browser. Considering most of those estimates peg XP at around 28%, that means over a quarter of all internet facing computers are XP systems that are still being used as general web browsing boxes.

What's IE?

[WillAffleckUW]

Is this some kind of primitive version of Netscape or Lynx?

Who are these people

[phantomfive]

In case anyone cares who these people actually are:

Sebastian Anthony: A semi-hobo living in the middle of England, who thinks he's an engineer because he took apart a VCR. Literally.
Lance Ulanoff: An editor and story teller. Used to be an editor for PCMag. Gets invited to speak at SXSW because he is a good story teller.
Dwight Silverman: He seems to have been blogging since April

None of these guys seem to understand corporate software. They seem to look at it as child-training or something, which it isn't. In all likelihood some companies were complaining to Microsoft about this bug, some product managers inside Microsoft thought it would be worth fixing to make them happy, so they allocated time to work on it. The idea that the CEO was personally involved is possible, but certainly not given. He has more important things to worry about than legacy software.

Re:Who are these people

[brit74]

You forgot to mention that Sebastian Anthony also submits his own articles to Slashdot in an attempt to get more page-views - i.e. Ad revenue. He's had other articles appear on Slashdot using this strategy. I wouldn't be surprised if this post is another example of that.

Re:Who are these people

[w_dragon]

Microsoft would have fixed it anyway, since there are still a few large organizations paying for extended XP support. All they decided to do was make the patch generally available.

Re:Who are these people

[Anonymous Coward]

Sebastian Anthony: A semi-hobo living in the middle of England, who thinks he's an engineer because he took apart a VCR. Literally.

Are you sure it was not an Xbox? It's a common mistake.

Really?

[YuppieScum]

switch to another modern operating system, such as OS X...

Oh yes, because that would be such a simple and painless transition, with no legal or software-compatibility issues whatsoever...

To be honest, I'm having trouble determining who should win the "Stupid Cunt of the Year" prize - the "author" of TFA for not being able to perceive the difference between an OS and an application, or the "editor" for letting such drivel onto /.

Or, I suppose, myself for expecting any better from /. nowadays...

now wait...

[roc97007]

There's something about this that I'm having trouble wrapping my brain around. We (the collective "we" of businesses and individuals still using XP) are stupid for not giving wads of cash to Microsoft when Microsoft says to do so? And Microsoft is stupid for choosing to patch a vulnerability in a half billion PCs?

Re:now wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, "we" are stupid for continuing to use an old outdated piece of software that has been found to have security issues.

Your take on Microsoft's decision depends on what you think their strategy should be.

Re:now wait...

[roc97007]

The thing it, XP is still useful, it's still in a lot of embedded systems, it runs on machines that later versions of Windows won't run well on, and in many situations it does the job. As far as security issues, being Windows, it has security issues by definition, just like every other version of Windows, past and future.

Re:now wait...

[nctritech]

If XP had not-crappy 64-bit support and SSD TRIM support, I'd take it over everything Microsoft made after it. On a traditional hard drive it still greatly outperforms Windows 7 on top of the same hardware.

Re:now wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

XP came out before consumer 64-bit hardware and SSDs. Are you going to complain about how Linux and Windows 8 don't support crystal hard drives? DOS outperforms XP too, but I find the extra features of a more modern OS significantly better then the reduced speed.

Re:now wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

I know, right? The same fucks on here condemning MS for patching XP today are the same bitches who were saying that MS wasn't going to do shit to patch this problem on XP not even a week ago. Either way these fucks are walking around and acting smug like they "knew it" all along.
 
There's simply no winning with a Slashbitch.

Re:now wait...

[mattr]

What if the last windows OS you purchased was XP, then you bought a mac and never looked back.
You (I) have an XP machine that could be used for something, but don't want to pay MS anymore money. Patches for security vulnerabilities in XP exist and could be distributed at no cost (they could even be put in an open repository with MS just providing a signature key).
Instead, Microsoft has decided to try to make a business around handing out critical patches.

Another way to look at it though, is that for a monopoly to refuse to provide security patches for free is a combination of criminal negligence (abetting a nuisance or point of contagion) and cynical pressure on past customers to make new purchases. And newer OS versions also have security holes, I'm sure after XP they will do the same for Windows 7 users one day. Personally I use mac and linux now if at all possible. Though one large company I consult for has XP all over their network. And I do still have some XP VMs, and some old computers with XP on them that are in a closet. They might be useful to someone if they weren't insecure.

Here's what I think is stupid. A gigantic company makes a very widely used product that is riddled with dangerous flaws. They say they stop supporting it, but also refuse to provide for free any security patches that they do develop. Actually, in another era it would be called criminal as in obstructing users from conducting safe operations. Providing security patches to fix manufacturing flaws should not be a business model, especially when failing to patch a system makes a creative nuisance to others.

At the risk of saying something sane in this thread, I would like to suggest that the department of homeland security provide a budget to a small number of expert software engineers to solve and distribute signed unbloated security patches, if Microsoft finds itself in the poor house and cannot afford to assign some people to this task. Instead of using security vulnerabilities to drive profits, MS should be incentivized to develop secure systems to drive profits.

Re:now wait...

[roc97007]

True, XP 64 bit support was iffy at best, and that was the reason I finally upgraded to 7. But we have three other machines that still work fine but would run slower on 7. Yes, 7 runs better on modern hardware. But there's all that non-modern hardware out there that still does the job it was purchased for, and I'm not quite ready to contribute those to landfill yet.

Re:now wait...

[petermgreen]

I have to say other than a couple of peices of hardware one of which refused to install at all (NI mydaq) and one of which worked with the low level APIs but not with the higher level APIs (data translation dt9816) I had a pretty good experiance with XP proffesional x64 edition.

People had trouble with it in it's early days but afaict that was more a case of crappy drivers than any problem with windows itself.

Re:now wait...

[roc97007]

This raises a question -- every time a new version comes out, Microsoft claims that it's faster than the previous version, but in actual practice it runs slower on the same hardware and generally needs much faster hardware to perform adequately. What's up with that? Is Microsoft using an uncommon definition of "fast"?

Perfectly safe to stay on XP

[iamacat]

Just keep Windows firewall on, install an alternative browser and only run software from trusted sources. It may be full of bugs, but its easy to close all realistic exploit vectors. Think of it as a chromebook with support for legacy software. Speaking of software, windows lost a lot of exclusivity after XP and most apps/games that require Vista/7/8 have good alternatives on other platforms.

For me, Windows has meant a VirtualBox XP VM for the past decade and will stay this way forever.

Re:Perfectly safe to stay on XP

[Billly Gates]

Yep perfectly safe.

Especially since all these customers had big IT departments, firewalls, and corporate security software installed.

Re:Perfectly safe to stay on XP

[Anonymous Coward]

This is bad advice and you should feel bad. Chrome has said it will build for XP for 1 more year. Firefox hasn't said anything, they could end support at any time.

Re:Perfectly safe to stay on XP

[arbiter1]

A security expert said on a podcast that XP if you run as a regular user NOT AN ADMIN, 100% of flaws in IE were rendered dead, and like 94-96% of ones attacking XP directly were stopped. Its pretty damn safe to use it if you get off the admin account.

Re:Perfectly safe to stay on XP

[Billly Gates]

Yep perfectly safe indeed.

I am sure all those users were running admin with no security software in government and corporations right? This is the just the begining. MS wont patch these forever. That security expert should be fired.

You are negligent if you still use it for a regular non embedded use and call yourself an IT professional.

Re:Perfectly safe to stay on XP

[zwarte piet]

and for god's sake delete outlook/outlook express and shite like that and use sumth like thunderbird mail. VirtualBox rulez. I'm going the vm xp route also asaic, but have to finish this programming gig first. Took a long time to install and tweak al those programs to the state they are now. (and can't seem to find xp cd)

Re:Perfectly safe to stay on XP

[zwarte piet]

But the XP edition is virtually identical to the Windows 2003 version wich is still supported

Re:Perfectly safe to stay on XP

[iamacat]

Conveniently these buggers are open source and so truly catastrophic issues will be fixed while there is even a modest interest in running XP. And after that, nobody will be interested in attacking either.

clueless

[BradMajors]

Stop with this upgrade nonsense. Most of the machines currently running Windows XP can not be upgraded because the later versions of Windows have additional hardware requirements.

I made this post from a Windows XP laptop that can not be upgraded.

It makes little difference.

[Dega704]

Sticking with XP would be a bad idea even if Microsoft were to release updates ad infinitum. Even since Windows 7 surpassed XP in market share, I still encounter several times more infected XP machines than Windows 7 ones. Updates are band-aid fixes that don't change the fact that XP was released just before the advent of ubiquitous broadband, and is fundamentally unsound when it comes to security.

But

[Ol Olsoc]

Despite this Sebastian Anthony's well reasoned and thoughtful piece. ....

If the XPocalypse happens, and the legions of XP machines are zombified, as we are warned they will be, and civilization is brought to a halt as efficiently as the Chicxulub meteorite hit - People are going to blame it on Microsoft.

And they will have a point, whether he likes it or not, whether Microsoft likes it or not, and whether the shills like it or not.

Grow up Linux fanboys

[Anonymous Coward]

You guys are a bunch of morons. That linux stuff is far from a modern operating system. I know because all that DOS text pops up on the screen when my friend boots up his "Linux" box.

Re:Grow up Linux fanboys

[Anonymous Coward]

You guys are a bunch of morons. That linux stuff is far from a modern operating system. I know because all that DOS text pops up on the screen when my friend boots up his "Linux" box.

Not sure if troll or just not so bright.

They owe us.

[Moof123]

After Vista, they owe use a decent amount of time to get onto the next decent OS. Windows 7 counted as decent, and has been out 3 years. It is quite fair for folks to have been getting new boxes with XP until a good alternative came out and proved itself to be stable, and to not have to upgrade those machines for several years at least. The current cutoff feels tone-deaf compared to the POS that Vista was.

My $0.02.

Re:They owe us.

[amicusNYCL]

After Vista, they owe use a decent amount of time to get onto the next decent OS. Windows 7 counted as decent, and has been out 3 years.

3 years is not a decent amount of time to upgrade? Windows XP entered extended support from mainstream support in 2009. It's not like this is a surprise.

Re:They owe us.

[Billly Gates]

7 has been out for 5 years.

Get over it. Apple will cut you lose in 2.5.

Stupid article is stupid

[acoustix]

'I don't want to hear that tired "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" line. Hey, XP IS broke, and it will just get more so over time."

WTF? It wasn't just XP that was broke. This affects ALL Microsoft browsers and OSes. So upgrading to Vista, Windows 7, Windows 8 would not have solved this issue.

Re:Stupid article is stupid

[VortexCortex]

That is because "XP IS broke", but it will not "just get more so over time." Its bugs exist whether they get patched or not, there will not be new bugs introduced, it's just that more will be discovered. All MS's other OSs are also "broke". The problem is that new OSs (or new code in general) means new bugs. So, not only does planned obsolescence (and code re-use) mean the full version set will forever be susceptible (often to a common bug), but artificial scarcity of patches means you can force the customers to buy things they don't want or need and perpetuate the cycle.

MS did the right thing by pushing out a patch to XP. They're doing the right thing by allowing you to pay for access to more patches too. However, they're doing the wrong thing by leveraging artificial scarcity and planned obsolescence to make sales on new OSs. The open source model is better because the components that need no more innovation settle down, don't require changes, and can have patches backported to them from newer source distributions; FLOSS also allows you to opt-out of change for the sake of change. Keeping as much older cross platform bug-free code.

There's rarely ever a reason to literally break everything by "rewriting" a significant portion of a codebase -- such rewrites tend towards entropic minimum as they converge on optimal functionality. "New" OSs aren't sufficiently different from their predecessors in functionality to require an expensive purchase. In fact, the OS is irrelevant as drivers are to properly written software. People use hardware for the software applications, not the OS or drivers.

That's the problem with the intellectual property future's market: If you do your work for free and hope to recoup costs by selling infinitely reproducible copies of it, the Eskimos will refuse to buy your Ice. However, if you monetize that which is actually scarce -- the ability to do more work -- then users get features they are willing to pay for, you get paid once for the work done once, and no amount of "piracy" can hurt your bottom line. It's just free advertising for your ability.

In other words: Microsoft should have only ever been charging for their patches, and instead of artificial scarcity of infinitely reproducible bits they shouldn't do the patches until everyone put up the money to pay for the work to create them (we can do this now, "contributions" via crowd-funding existed long before PBS). Then once the work is done and paid for, everyone gets a copy for free since they've already been paid for doing work. Bonus: You don't do work that there is no demand for, you don't have to force users to upgrade, nor do you have to hold features (like start menus) for ransom and charge an exorbitant price for update-roll-ups to recoup the work you're doing. If you do it right, all the "new OS features" are things everyone wanted in the 1st place. Then the "Windows 7 was made by me" ads wouldn't just be marketing lies.

You can use the FLOSS software model to make proprietary software. The only difference is you don't open the source, and you're the only one who can compile the cluster fsck.

They could always patch it all the way to Vista

[giorgist]

They could always patch it all the way to Vista or maybe even Windows 7 and even 8.x then they will have a modern monoculture. Or how about Linux release an XP patch that ...

Damned if they do..

[Anonymous Coward]

..damned if they don't.

MS can never win in the public eye, so they might as well do the right thing by releasing a fix if they have it ready. So they did. Good for them.

Re:My mother just called a couple hours ago

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows 7 deleted -using GNU/Linux distro instead. (Automatic Updates will not prevent takeover)

It never ceases to amaze me...

[AudioEfex]

It never ceases to amaze me how out-of-touch with the "real world" so many /. commenters are. Or, more precisely, how out-of-touch they come across as, because I don't think half of the folks who post some of this stuff actually believe what they say, they know better - the other half I do believe actually think what they are saying is accurate, because they don't associate with anyone who doesn't know the difference between SRAM and DRAM.

"Switch to another modern operating system, such as OS X and Linux" - yeah, that's gonna happen. To run OS X one needs to buy a new, overpriced machine that isn't going to be compatible with a lot of existing stuff and is way overkill for the needs of most average folks. And Linux? Seriously? Linux is so out of reach of most folks it's not even funny. I'm sure someone will come along and say "well X distro is easy to install!" and they miss the entire freaking point. Linux is not for "average" users, or even for well-versed computer users, it's for tinkerers and folks who want to spend as much time working on their OS as they do using the computer. It's a ridiculous notion.

The truth is, XP is not going away. Folks are saying "but they've been announcing this forever!" - not to middle America, they haven't. Those folks don't keep up on tech sites, and it's not like MS is sending them pop-ups to let them know. They just want to get on their computer and use Facebook and check their email, maybe play a few games. They also don't often have computers that even could run Windows 7 or better. Gone are the days when everyone had to replace their PC every 2-3 years, max - I know tons of folks who have PC's that are nearing a decade old and still in use and work just fine for them. Asking folks who have computers that to them seem working perfectly fine, and that meet their needs, to go out and buy a new one just to continue to do what they are already doing is never going to fly.

MS is going to relent and continue to release security patches - I have no doubt. They already are making them for the large companies/governments that are paying for them, and there are going to be some major battles which will probably end up in the legal system over what really is MS hanging a large portion of users out to dry. As someone else said, these security flaws are already there, they are just fixing what they didn't do correctly in the first place - we all know the limited understanding of the court system of computer technology, that's what it's going to look like to lawyers and judges. We might finally see some real legal tests of EULA's in general, as well - if I put a bumper sticker on my car that says "I am not liable for any accidents I may cause" that doesn't absolve me of liability, and I have a feeling that just may be how some judges will interpret this (correctly or not).

I know all of this is going to seem like bullshit to a lot of /.ers, but it's reality - XP was good enough that it will remain "good enough" for a lot of folks, and not issuing security patches isn't going to stop them from using it, because they never are going to know. It's in MS best interests to continue issuing these patches until these PC's finally die off and folks need to buy a new one, which is still going to be a few more years.

Rant all you wish about how stupid they are, or how they just should stop using MS to begin with and use Linux (the most absurd notion - because even if they did, if Linux actually had more than the less than 2% install base it has, they'd just start trying to exploit that - and with all the different distros, etc. - what a clusterfuck that would be - Linux users just fly under the radar, for now). It's not going to change the reality that these folks aren't going to upgrade their OS until they buy a new PC - and if MS doesn't issue these patches, then once the news finally filters down to these folks (via local newsbroadcasts, etc.) the suggestion will just be to use a different browser, since most security issues are IE related - which is the LAST thing MS wants to happen.

Re:It never ceases to amaze me...

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft sent an update via Windows Update that displayed an end-of-support notification. They are literally sending people popups to let them know. Stop calling people stupid and do some damn research before babbling.

Re:It never ceases to amaze me...

[phantomfive]

And Linux? Seriously? Linux is so out of reach of most folks it's not even funny. I'm sure someone will come along and say "well X distro is easy to install!" and they miss the entire freaking point. Linux is not for "average" users, or even for well-versed computer users, it's for tinkerers and folks who want to spend as much time working on their OS as they do using the computer.

As much as you insult other slashdotters, you sure fall into a parody of a different slashdotter: the one who insults other slashdotters. Really though, are you unaware that some distros try to position themselves as being for average users?

Re:It never ceases to amaze me...

[Billly Gates]

Please where I work we have 25 GPOs attached to each OU just to make our supposedly compatible Windows 7 apps run without breaking. Mostly IE garbage.

You think I can port them to wine?!!

I can powershell and use SCCM for them? The auto repair guy down the street can just run Quickbooks 2009 and his proprietary MS access database add-on which orders parts from some vendor who went out of business in 2008 can run Ubuntu and get it work flawless in wine?

Can Firefox connect to 100% of automobile parts supplier portals? Think they are written for modern standards?

Re:It never ceases to amaze me...

[phantomfive]

Please where I work we have 25 GPOs attached to each OU just to make our supposedly compatible Windows 7 apps run

You're clearly not the target audience of a distro aimed at 'average users.' And frankly I don't care if you use windows or not, that's beside the point.

Re:It never ceases to amaze me...

[Anonymous Coward]

Furthermore, it's not just corps running expensive hardware tied to a particular windows version that are feeling the hurt. Even serfs can have perfectly valid reasons to stick with XP, for example because they have software on it that still works fine but would cost hundreds of dollars to upgrade, if an upgrade is even available. I have a WinXP nettop that I bought the Office 2007 suite for; "upgrading" to Linux means I can't use that anymore. And I paid money for it. My wife has some drafting software on her XP computer from 2009 that just won't run in Windows 8 at all. There's a real cost to upgrading your OS when "upgrading" means possibly throwing out your computer and buying a whole new one, but at the very least spending a hundre dollars on a new version of the Windows operating system that you don't even want, and then buying new licenses for all or most of your commercial software. And that's all before we even get into the UI changes that you have to get used to.

Re:It never ceases to amaze me...

[Anonymous Coward]

I never need to help my father with his PC since installing Ubuntu on it...much less hassle and more stable than Windows XP.

Re:It never ceases to amaze me...

[ka9dgx]

Amen!

I just "upgraded" some Windows 7 machines to IE8 (from IE10) because that is the standard the automobile industry has settled on.

Linux is not any more secure than Windows in the long run... its not a multi-level secure system, nor is any other choice you've ever heard of. Until we adopt something like the Bell-LaPadula security model, we're going to be chasing our collective tails, and this is going to be happening for years!

Re:It never ceases to amaze me...

[StormReaver]

...the other half I do believe actually think what they are saying is accurate, because they don't associate with anyone who doesn't know the difference between SRAM and DRAM.

...

[Linux is] for tinkerers and folks who want to spend as much time working on their OS as they do using the computer.

Hi, Pot. Kettle wants to meet at noon. Thanks.

Re:It never ceases to amaze me...

[Anonymous Coward]

And they all fail. My Dad needs complete Outlook support and my Mom and siblings need their documents to look exactly as they do on the school computers. They'll also need perfect read/write support for a couple NTFS drives. Fix those issues, and you may see a massive increase in users for XP-looking distros. Hardware support is good enough, software support isn't.

A few years ago Ubuntu seemed too be on that path, sadly they've abandoned it. Functional progress has slowed considerably in the OSS community due to all the rewrites and redesigns going on. No one seems to care about quality software. Instead of working to fix existing issues, they want to rewrite it all which creates even more issues. None of the popular software has stability releases. Instead releases are about changing UIs and new features (ignoring if people were asking for those features or not). Sure those release has bug fixes, but they're handled more as a side effect.

Re:It never ceases to amaze me...

[Anonymous Coward]

>MS is going to relent and continue to release security patches - I have no doubt.

I agree. Here are their options:

- Do nothing and there would be a real chance that 1/3 of the computers connected to the internet would be zombies. That'd *really* mess some shit up.

- Give away Win Vista/7/8 upgrades. Precedent and profit aside, they wouldn't get a total conversion, not even close. They'd maybe get 50% if they were lucky.

- Continue to support the nasty vulnerabilities to prevent the zombie invasion.

Re:It never ceases to amaze me...

[phantomfive]

They'll also need perfect read/write support for a couple NTFS drives.

Because copying data to a non-NTFS drive is too difficult.

Re:It never ceases to amaze me...

[Billly Gates]

It is the point. Average Joe may run Corel CD creater or some ancient greeting card maker that came bundled with their 2005 era printer from office depot.

If the software is so poorly written it can't run even on Windows 7 without major hacks it probably can't run on wine either.

I am on topic as the issue is enterprise environments. My example above was large and small business. These are the guys heavily dependent on win32 software and the MS ecosystem to stay in business.

Re:It never ceases to amaze me...

[phantomfive]

Sad but true.

Re:It never ceases to amaze me...

[Anonymous Coward]

It never ceases to amaze me

This is one of those phrases indicating someone is poor at predicting things.

Re:It never ceases to amaze me...

[Jeeeb]

It never ceases to amaze me how out-of-touch with the "real world" so many /. commenters are. Or, more precisely, how out-of-touch they come across as, because I don't think half of the folks who post some of this stuff actually believe what they say, they know better - the other half I do believe actually think what they are saying is accurate, because they don't associate with anyone who doesn't know the difference between SRAM and DRAM.

Searching the comments page for Linux turned up one post advocating a switch to OS X / Linux. It is possible I missed some other but not to the level that your characterization of slashdot commentators would match the reality of what is actually being posted.

Linux is not for "average" users, or even for well-versed computer users, it's for tinkerers and folks who want to spend as much time working on their OS as they do using the computer. It's a ridiculous notion.

Android and Chromebooks beg to differ.

The truth is, XP is not going away. Folks are saying "but they've been announcing this forever!" - not to middle America, they haven't. Those folks don't keep up on tech sites, and it's not like MS is sending them pop-ups to let them know.

I can't see where middle America comes into this. I'm sure there are plenty of computer savy people living in middle America. As for your average user, I wouldn't argue that there are people on XP machines but in my experience plenty have moved on, especially to Android and iOS devices.

Re:It never ceases to amaze me...

[Anonymous Coward]

There is wisdom here.

Re:It never ceases to amaze me...

[mpe]

Please where I work we have 25 GPOs attached to each OU just to make our supposedly compatible Windows 7 apps run without breaking. Mostly IE garbage.
You think I can port them to wine?!!

Unless someone actually tried the question is unanswerable.
It is certainly not impossible for old Windows applications to be more compatible with WINE than with Win 7 (or 8).
IME application compatiblity between different versions of Windows can be very hit and miss. A program from 2008 can be virtually impossible to get working under Windows 7 whereas one from 1998 can run perfectly. I've even encountered cases where the Windows 95/98/ME version of program is a better option to try in Windows 7 than a Windows XP (or Vista)

The auto repair guy down the street can just run Quickbooks 2009 and his proprietary MS access database add-on which orders parts from some vendor who went out of business in 2008 can run Ubuntu and get it work flawless in wine?

So far an application is concerned WINE is simply another version of Windows. How well it suits the application depends very much on exactly what that application is trying to do.
How well (or otherwise) that program works with Windows 7 (along with the level of "tweaking" required) tells you nothing about running it under WINE.

Re:It never ceases to amaze me...

[mpe]

It is the point. Average Joe may run Corel CD creater or some ancient greeting card maker that came bundled with their 2005 era printer from office depot.
If the software is so poorly written it can't run even on Windows 7 without major hacks it probably can't run on wine either.

The situation WRT Windows 7 actually tells you virtually nothing about the situation WRT WINE.
Especially considering that "backwards compatibility" is important to the WINE developers and it is possible to have multiple WINE configurations each optimised to specific applications.

The claim is as much a logical fallacy as claims that everyone would find using "Linux" much harder than "Windows" or that a migration from WIndows XP to Windows 7/8 will always be easier than one from Windows XP to non Windows.

Re:It never ceases to amaze me...

[mpe]

My Dad needs complete Outlook support and my Mom and siblings need their documents to look exactly as they do on the school computers.

Which version of Outlook might that be? As far as the documents are concerned then PDF is the only option here. In which case it's irrelevent what OS or program is used anyway.

They'll also need perfect read/write support for a couple NTFS drives.

Do you mean "perfect" or do you mean "bug for bug" matching some arbitratry version of Windows?

A few years ago Ubuntu seemed too be on that path, sadly they've abandoned it. Functional progress has slowed considerably in the OSS community due to all the rewrites and redesigns going on. No one seems to care about quality software. Instead of working to fix existing issues, they want to rewrite it all which creates even more issues. None of the popular software has stability releases. Instead releases are about changing UIs and new features (ignoring if people were asking for those features or not). Sure those release has bug fixes, but they're handled more as a side effect.

How is this different from proprietary software? Especially Microsoft, when you consider Windows and Office. Which have radical changes in UIs and "features" few people would want. (Even some such as "cloud integration" which would be activly unwanted in many environments.)

Re:It never ceases to amaze me...

[drinkypoo]

How many WINE versions do you maintain? I gave up on WINE because they kept causing regressions, even after promising to be careful about regressions. Stuff that had worked stopped working after updating WINE. Not worth the time.

Re:It never ceases to amaze me...

[stereoroid]

I deal with this kind of user regularly, some of them being in (shall we say) advanced years. They aren't interested in the computer for its own sake at all, it's basically an appliance to them. It may as well be a washing machine or a toaster, and they simply aren't willing or able to handle any more complexity than that. Some modern TVs are too much e.g. the idea of multiple source inputs is beyond comprehension to these users. I'm not exaggerating.

Now think of what it means to install Linux. First you have to get the PC ready for it. If I was new to Linux, I would want to do it on a 2nd PC, say a cheap laptop - rather than just blow away a working system. OK, so you have to create a boot disk ... and it's game over. The pinball machine just went in to Tilt.

Now picture these users behind the wheel of a car, on a road near you ... oil? Whassat? The "check engine" light came on, so I checked the engine, and it was still there ...

Re:It never ceases to amaze me...

[Anonymous Coward]

Using Linux is a "ridiculous notion"? This is what Slashdot has come to? How incredibly sad.

Re: It never ceases to amaze me...

[KevReedUK]

True, but when did those pop-ups start to appear? Only a few weeks before EOL, IIRC, so not really giving much notice to home/SMB users. That being said, it has been in the press for a while now, but again, how many home/SMB users look at the technology articles. It could be argued that Microsoft missed a trick in their as campaigns for 7/8 by not reinforcing XPs EOL, but would doing so have caused them to be criticised for trying to "scare" money out of folks? For myself, this hasn't presented me with any issues, as I tend to try to keep up-to-date with all things technology related. The same is likely true of most others in corporate IT roles. I may be wrong in assuming that most outside of my field of expertise weren't aware of the impending EOL with enough notice to take the necessary action, but the post-EOL press seems, thus far at least, to support my assumption.

1st world problems...

[musixman]

'I don't want to hear that tired "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" ... "Upgrade to a newer version of Windows, or switch to another modern operating system, such as OS X or Linux."

You are obviously very out of touch with the WHO & WHY of why people continue to use XP.

1) Not everyone can AFFORD to update their computer, buy a new computer or buy a new copy of windows. Let alone get a Mac...
2) Most of the world is not tech savvy. The idea that you would get them to install Linux is really not practical. People are creatures of habit & that will never change. Look at how many people freaked out when W8 removed the start button.
3) A large % of users are in 2nd & 3rd world countries. The fact they even HAVE a computer & electricity to power it is a BIG deal. You're being very dismissive of how the majority of the world lives. You should travel more.

XP is like an old car... sure it eats 5x the amount of gas, but it gets you from point a to b.

Re:1st world problems...

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed. Besides, all operating systems are eventually outdated so the argument "But to what end? just plain silly.

Re:1st world problems...

[rhalstead]

Sorry, but people and even large multinational corporations are staying with XP as it does all the want and does it well. When you take the cost of the new OS, the cost of peripheral soft ware, down time for training,cost of thousands of PCs, cost of installing PCs, reconfiguring networks, the cost runs into many millions of dollars The individual will need to purchase a newer, faster computer with more RAM and more disk space. New computers are cheap but they will likely not only need new software, but new printers as software support for those old printers is no longer available. New printers are cheap, but ink costs a fortune.Those people will stick with XP and spew crap as long as they run. I was a project manager and consultant. I do know how these people think. If it saves me a buck, I'll stick with it and screw the rest of the world. They could care less as to what happens because MS tried to force them to change. They will just blame MS for any problems. If they have to upgrade, it will not be to MS!

Re:My mother just called a couple hours ago

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep me updated on your PENIS. BIG PENIS.

Misses the big picture

[Enter the Shoggoth]

A well formed argument that entirely misses the point; OS updates (not just microsoft) are essentially the broken window fallacy writ large.

It's all about sales and marketing types being able to say "oooh look shiny!" whilst fleecing everyone.... good engineering is about form following function not planned obsolescence.

It isn't an XP issue, it is an IE issue

[unsupported]

I believe they are releasing a patch for XP is because it is not specific to XP, but to IE. If there was a fundamental vulnerability within the XP core OS then they wouldn't bother.

really whats the advantage?

[Osgeld]

ok if you are going to act like an ass and start off with "tardy governments and IT administrators" and "your mom and dad are yet again safe to use their old Windows XP beige box" whats your selling point other than wake up grandma and shell out monies

I understand XP needs to go, I ditched it years ago, but you have to do better than "cause microsoft said so" or acting like a snotty ass eleitest

Cars

[duke_cheetah2003]

Just a simple thought.

If a 12-year old vehicle turns up with a major safety defect, car makers would be fixing it.

I think Microsoft should just bite the bullet and resume security patching of flaws in XP if/when they turn up.

Why not? It's a small price to pay to keep a good PR image of caring about your customers. And it's the right thing to do, something woefully missing from American businesses.

Re:Cars

[InvisiBill]

Software evolves more quickly than cars and costs much less. Sticking with your analogy, let's use generations of cars rather than model years (which sometimes have no changes whatsoever). There have been three major releases since XP - Vista, 7, and 8. '15 is the beginning of the sixth generation for the Mustang, and '14 was the seventh generation for the Corvette. How much Ford/GM support is there for the '79-'93 Mustang or the '84-'96 Corvette at this point?

If you want to pay MS enough, they'll keep supporting your XP. But they've made the decision that they've supported it long enough and provided enough replacement options that it's not good business to keep spending money on XP support for the general public.

Re:Cars

[w_dragon]

If the defect may kill you car makers may fix something 12 years old. Maybe. If the defect will allow someone to easily unlock your doors and steal everything in the car they won't care.

Re:Cars

[duke_cheetah2003]

And you totally missed the point. No wonder american businesses don't give a flying f about anything but their bottom line. Apparently, customers don't either.

Re:Cars

[InvisiBill]

And you totally missed the point.

Which is what? That everyone should be nice and support everything they've ever produced until the end of time? At some point, supporting legacy systems begins to take away from advancement. Would you rather dedicate resources to solving new problems and inventing new things, or regression testing patches on systems from 15 years ago?

Maybe you know more than I do about what goes on inside Microsoft, but I think you're making some assumptions that aren't necessarily true. You say it's a small price to pay, but it does add another whole OS to support (granted, this is somewhat reduced while Server 2003 is still being supported). It may be a much larger price than you believe. You also imply that simply perpetuating the XP status quo is a good thing. Keep in mind that XP was released when 9% of US households had broadband (compared to 72%+ now). It was before the 130nm 1.6GHz Northwood P4 was released. Consumer dual-core CPUs were years away. Newer versions of Windows are designed to work with modern hardware. If your XP system is truly incapable of running Windows 7, a new PC would probably benefit you in other ways too.

For what it's worth, it seems they've provided much more support than Apple, who already dropped 2009's Snow Leopard from getting updates. Windows 7 is only a few months newer than SL but will be supported until 2020.

No wonder american businesses don't give a flying f about anything but their bottom line. Apparently, customers don't either.

A capitalist business exists to make money. I expect any company to attempt to maximize the amount of money they make. That doesn't necessarily mean charging the highest possible prices for the minimum amount of product/service, as life is more complex than that. There are things that are mathematically good for profit now, but may affect the company long-term or in unrelated ways, and things that don't look as good on the books but help business overall. But yes, I expect Microsoft to draw a line when they decide that it's costing them much more money to keep supporting a product than they will ever make from any resulting goodwill of doing so.

Wow, Your mom still use windows?

[Anonymous Coward]

I get my mom to use a debian laptop shortly after she bought it, was a couple years back.

upgrade? nah

[Anonymous Coward]

Reformat the hard drive and install Windows 8? Yes.

1. Before you begin

To upgrade to Windows 8.1 from Windows Vista or Windows XP, you'll need to install it from a Windows 8.1 DVD and perform a clean installation. This means you won't be able to keep any files, settings, or programs when you upgrade.

Windows 8.1 isn't designed for installation on PCs running Windows Vista or Windows XP...

Source:
http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-8/upgrade-from-windows-vista-xp-tutorial

Sebastian Anthony can go fuck himself.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not all of us can afford to upgrade. The rest of reality doesn't live in the same bubble Mr. Anthony does.

Stop misleading people

[viperidaenz]

Windowx XP is not a "12 year old operating system"
It's 4 years old, 6 years at best. It was still being sold by Microsoft up until June 30 2008. It was still being sold preinstalled on machines up until October 2010.
What of those people who have 3 1/2 year old PC's? You can't tell them its a 12 year old operating system. It was still brand new in 2010.

Re:Stop misleading people

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh puh-leeze! Really? "It's 4 years old, 6 years at best..." Where did you learn math? The XP brand was created in 2001 which makes it 13 years old.

If anyone bought a PC 3 1/2 years ago then they bought it with Vista or 7. If they got XP with it then they did so as a downgrade option. As in, they specifically had to request the downgrade, because Microsoft has never stopped pushing, and fairly aggressively, their current OS. Whatever it happens to be at the time.

Also you expect us to believe that consumers are idiots. No one knows that computers have an expected life of 5 years or so. Just like consumers don't know that their cars are old after 10 years, that a house needs renovations after 20 years, and clothes are out of fashion after just a couple of years. No one looks at other people's computers and no one knows what the latest shiny stuff is.

Oh I understand. There are some people who, for whatever reason, the machine just isn't that important. Maybe they've not had the chance, or the inclination, or whatever. OK, but that's not going to change. And very likely those people aren't heavy computer users anyway. They will upgrade due to other factors, not out of any urge to "stay current". And you know what? XP is safer, relatively speaking, than the Win9x era machines, which were safer than the Win3x era machines. It's not the worst fate in the world to have a residual population of archaic WinXP systems slowly fading away.

I just don't like it when people who ought to know better, keep trumpeting "Windows XP is A-OK! Microsoft is a thieving evil empire out to steal from your children!" Microsoft has always been a commercial corporation. They've never shied away from that. To say otherwise is simply dishonest.

Re:Stop misleading people

[scsirob]

By your reasoning you'd claim anyone who buys a Volkswagen Golf today is buying a 40 year old car. The Golf was introduced 40 years ago and you can still get one today. Never mind it has zero components in common with the Golf from 40 years back..

XP was and is doing everything the majority of users expect from an operating system. Many of the changes since XP are not exactly improvements for many of the users. Some are, some are not.

Microsoft can stop XP support in only one way. That's when they stop taking money from government or corporations for extended support. They will need to say 'no' to the hand that feeds then. Until they do so, they are obliged to patch XP. Not just for those who pay hefty support fees, but also to tose who bought their XP new, just 4 years ago.

Re:Stop misleading people

[Anonymous Coward]

just wow ...

your reasoning is completely wrong ... the VW Golf IS the MS Windows .... VW updates the golf every x amount of years, so does MS with windows

using your car analogy is perfect though... Cars are getting better and people are keeping them longer, and you know what ? VW might even do recalls on 10 year old golfs It the danger/problem is significant !

Re:Stop misleading people

[mpe]

Windowx XP is not a "12 year old operating system"
It's 4 years old, 6 years at best. It was still being sold by Microsoft up until June 30 2008. It was still being sold preinstalled on machines up until October 2010.
What of those people who have 3 1/2 year old PC's? You can't tell them its a 12 year old operating system. It was still brand new in 2010.

Even the 4-6 years estimate may not be accurate. Since it was still being officially maintained until 8th April 2014 its age might be better stated in days. With the IE patch recenly released it could even be described as "less than 100 hours old"!

Not unprecedented at MS

[davidwr]

I think they did a patch for Windows 2000 the month after the last patch was supposed to come out.

It's too late and ....

[Anonymous Coward]

...I'm grateful that Microsoft did. Think of it as a before next month patch so just an addendum if you will. lol :)

That security expert is wrong

[InvisiBill]

This week's IE vulnerability (https://technet.microsoft.com/security/bulletin/MS14-021) is not "rendered dead" by running as a non-admin. It (like many other vulns) is limited to the rights of the user account running IE, but it can still do anything you can, such as deleting all your photos or uploading your tax details somewhere. This fact actually benefits the rest of the internet more than it does the affected user. We appreciate that grandma's limited account keeps the box from becoming a complete zombie, but she's probably more upset by losing pictures of little Timmy than by Windows' system files getting corrupted.

And it didn't require any extra work

[InvisiBill]

Well, "any extra work" is probably exaggerating a bit. However, this is a flaw in IE rather than the OS itself, and they were already releasing it for Server 2003 x86 (which is supported for another year) anyway, so it's basically just setting the flag in the installer to allow it to install on XP. I agree that they're setting a bad precedent by supporting a recently-unsupported OS, but at the same time it was probably considered fairly high ROI in terms of both general internet safety and keeping a few people in the Windows camp.

Re:My mother just called a couple hours ago

[Anonymous Coward]

Massive Dennace?

Microsoft for security?

[raymorris]

> How often have you ever called microsoft at work?

Why would I do that? Microsoft isn't allowed at work. We are an security company.

> It is for the security updates right?

Is that like calling Cheney for gun safety tips, and calling Obama for help with economics homework?

Re:Microsoft for security?

[Anonymous Coward]

> How often have you ever called microsoft at work?

Why would I do that? Microsoft isn't allowed at work. We are an security company.

> It is for the security updates right?

Is that like calling Cheney for gun safety tips, and calling Obama for help with economics homework?

Or calling open source developers for SSL solutions

Re:My mother just called a couple hours ago

[I'm New Around Here]

I'm gonna tell my mother you're picking on me!!

Internet Explorer not XP

[Anonymous Coward]

Just saying this patch was for Internet Explorer not Windows XP as an OS.

I can only speculate if Microsoft will release OS patches but so far Microsoft has not ''set an awful precedent by caving and issuing a fix for Windows XP'', they patched a flaw in Internet Explorer, that is it...

12 years is a nat blinking

[Anonymous Coward]

Who in the f#ck is anthony whatshisname? 12 years isn't shit for something that worked so well for the world of computing to be torn down because microsoft wants to make more money. Go f#ck yourself.

re: If they didn't they could be accused of sittin

[Anonymous Coward]

I think this is the most reasonable analysis. XP hasn't had any gamebreaking bugs in quite a while, and then something hugely public comes along and is all over the news (regardless of severity), just a hair past the cutoff date for support? I've spoken to a few other tech's about it, and two of them independently brought up the same point. This turns a major PR loss into a PR victory, especially since they're already patching XP for governments that are paying extra for it. Might as well make the big ones public.

Besides, it's in microsoft's best interest to discourage people from investing time in exploiting microsoft software bugs, and XP is still too big.

reactos

[Anonymous Coward]

I have high hopes for reactos. You know, in five to ten more years.

Re:reactos

[narcc]

I've been waiting for reactos for a very long time. It's nice to see the project active again.

Its about saving IE

[TomGreenhaw]

If Microsoft hadn't fixed IE for all platforms, it would die a gory agonizing death. If the US Dept. of Homeland Security says don't use IE until its patched, you can bet a shrinking sliver of the pie would vanish in weeks.

Re:My mother just called a couple hours ago

[ignavus]

Please keep us updated on all conversations you have with your mother. Thanks.

"Son, hide this money under your mattress"

Spin off

[Spazmania]

What Microsoft *should* do, if they were a responsible company, is spin off a new company called "Windows XP." The new company gets a license to all technology in XP for the purpose of maintaining it. It continues on an update subscription basis winding down staff with the decreasing revenues.

To do otherwise is planned obsolescence. Americans let the U.S. automakers know what they thought of that in the '70s... by buying Japanese cars.

This is not an XP patch

[aviators99]

This is a patch to IE, not XP. IE is not EOLed. They have committed to fixing bugs in IE. It just so happens that the easiest way to patch IE is via Windows Update. This is a non-story that's being treated as though they actually patched a security bug in XP.

Re:This is not an XP patch

[PPNSteve]

This is a patch to IE, not XP. IE is not EOLed. They have committed to fixing bugs in IE. It just so happens that the easiest way to patch IE is via Windows Update. This is a non-story that's being treated as though they actually patched a security bug in XP.

EXACTLY.

How everyone is making this an XP EOL thing is very annoying and totally wrong. The patch is for IE and, as it should be, system independent. I know that for my XP install (yes still use XP as MS doesn't provide proper upgrade paths.. [that's a whole 'nother story]) IE is treated as a separate application from the OS, same as Firefox or Chrome.

I'd be very disappointed if it wasn't patched.

Obsecurity

[Anonymous Coward]

I run one XP and two virtual XPs. None use IE.

I will not patch.

Ha

FU

Old hardware can't run Vista or 7 or 8

[Anonymous Coward]

Old machines can only run XP. Those machines can still have good security by using something like Sandboxie or Shadow Defender.

Re:Old hardware can't run Vista or 7 or 8

[zwarte piet]

They do the slowing down between versions, not so much between updates.

Each XP security update should slow things down

[Anonymous Coward]

Give users a stronger incentive to move off of XP:
Each security update should slow everything on the machine
down by ten percent...

Aren't most bugs related to IE?

[scrad]

Maybe I am missing something, but aren't the majority of 'security' issues related to Internet access and IE? I mean, it's not XP that's broken or needs fixing, is it? And, how old is 'IE' in this context? Just sayin'

Re:Aren't most bugs related to IE?

[zwarte piet]

IE, outlook/express, msword, java, flash, adobe pdf reader, and MSN Messenger. (the last one is luckily already already dead)

Whatever you do you are cursed.

[Z00L00K]

Whichever operating system you do select you will have bugs that need to be patched if you are going on the net.

The lowest risk might be an obscure *NIX box with Lynx as web browser, but that's almost inhumane...

Re:Whatever you do you are cursed.

[zwarte piet]

Read-only systems, not containing any valuable info, running in a virtual machine seem to be ok.

I.E. user percentages

[jafffacake]

If Microsoft didn't patch I.E., most XP users would download and install a different browser. Almost overnight Internet Explorer as a common standard for web access would dissapear.

Re: I.E. user percentages

[KevReedUK]

Wrong! If Microsoft didn't patch IE, most Windows users would just keep on using it. They would only switch browser if: 1) They were aware of the pros / cons of the alternatives 2) IE didn't work on a site that they really want / need 3) Actually knew about the security risks, and gave a damn about not being part of them problem To suggest otherwise would be to credit the majority of them with far more knowledge than they possess (not that they need it).

Why is Sebastian Anthony still alive?

[Anonymous Coward]

He's only delaying the inevitable, anyway.

Seriously: I dislike Microsoft with passion. So much so that I would re-phrase Anthony with just "Microsoft is setting an awful precedent" -- no qualifiers.

But the argument is one of the silliest I've heard. Disappearance of an operating system (or of a living organism or whatever) is *always* the inevitable. Wheher actively help in ending things or not is a decision one'd have to take on a case-by-case basis. And actual usage numbers is a perfectly valid criterion to base the decision on. You may disagree with Microsoft on this one -- or you may not.

How about...

[valerio]

...Windows 7 Pro with XP Mode? You get to run your App virtualised and a more modern, supported O/S

Re:How about...

[Euler]

This is often helpful. But other times, programs still do their own checks and refuse to run.

Uh you guys aren't getting it

[Anonymous Coward]

MS patched IE on XP because they want you to use IE, not some other browser that is still patching on XP.

"Those folks don't keep up on tech sites, and it's

[Barlo_Mung_42]

That's exactly what MS has done; sent pop up warnings. It has also already been all over local news.

Do it to him and his family

[houghi]

If he ever comes in a situation where he needs help, especialy to save their lives, don't do it. Yes, his mom and dad will be save from dying. But to what end? I's just delaying the inevitable.

The issue is not if Microsoft must keep supporting it. The issue is that there is no alternative, except getting a new OS and that costs money. Also there is no alternative and MS does not give you one.

If I were foced to have my care repaired at the company that sold it to me, there would be hell to pay if they would stop servicing it after even 10 years. Tere are cars out there that are around 50+ years.

However I can go anywhere to have it repaired if it is broken and unsafe. So there are several options and one does not exclude the other.
Microsoft with all it billions goes on and support it for free for security updates.
Microsoft sells extended warrenty at a reasonable price tat covers the cost (and a marginal profit) forthe extended service updates. I bet the most expensive part would be to get in the revenue.
Microsoft sells the support to others (plurial) that can then compete in giving support.
Microsoft gives away the source, so people can look after it themselves.

I am aware that that last part will not happen.

Sebastian doesn't understand malware writers

[Anonymous Coward]

If you were a malware writer with a zero day in hand, would you release it before or after Apr 8?

Of course you would wait till after. Then that exploit will work forever on XP.

MS knows this and the day they claim to stop patching is not the day they actually stop patching.

Why not?

[skovnymfe]

I wonder what's stopping Microsoft from releasing Windows 7 Home Basic as a free optional upgrade to XP and Vista users via Windows Update.

Re:Why not?

[zwarte piet]

... it would most likely result in those users not buying a new os, wich is a loss of income.

If Microsoft hadn't patched IE on XP

[bakedbread]

If Microsoft hadn't patched IE on XP some people would have switched the browser. I doubt anybody would have switched the OS that hasn't already. Just imagine the press: "XP users should really switch their OS, but if you are on XP at least switch to a different browser." With releasing this patch (which you correctly state they had anyways) this message didn't go around the world. TL;DR IMHO we will not see security patches for the core XP just IE for the "public".

XP may be broken...

[Anonymous Coward]

...but Vista+ are all broken in worse ways.

Automatic updates turned of in April

[jasonbrown]

I started turning off automatic updates on XP boxes that people were going to keep as it had become an unnecessary service. Then I'm told that MS is going to issue another update via Windows update to IE. This irritates me. So what am I supposed to leave the Windows update service turned on just in case MS want to send another one sometime??

Re:Automatic updates turned of in April

[PPNSteve]

Hasn't your XP converted to Microsoft Update?

If you have other MS products (i.e. MS Office) you'll want the updates for them won't you?

Please suicide now

[Anonymous Coward]

"But to what end. It's just delaying the inevitable."

You're going to die someday.
Please do us a favor and kill yourself today.
You are a waste of breath.

No... it's not about Microsoft. Or security.

[denzacar]

This is even dumber.

The idea that this entire opinion piece runs on is that same old story where money belonging to a single large business is worth more than the sum of the money belonging to its customers.
Because... Freedom, Justice and the American Dream*.
As opposed to godless communist pinko consumer rights satanists.

Cause that is what the "argument" that "Microsoft cannot feasibly continue to support Windows XP indefinitely" boils down to - nonsense.

Why can't they support it? Is it the technological ability? Did they fire everyone who knew how to code? Who made those other, "safe", products then?
Is it that they can't release secrets about their obsolete products to new staff? What?

Other than "it costs XY dollars to do ZQ fix", which other reason could there be?
He even suggests spending money on new Microsoft, Apple or Linux products (free as in pay for training and new hardware infrastructure including hiring or retraining your support personnel) - as only possible solution.

So clearly... money is the issue. And the solution.
When a company spends it - it's an issue.
When customers spend it - it's a solution.

So, just as clearly, it's not the customer's money but company's money that's precious here.
Microsoft's, Apple's... whoever. People should save money to companies that sell them products.
Customers should just shut up and switch to new software (and hardware to run it) already and support the economy by doing their duty as customers - by spending money.

Or are they America-hatin commie-pinko terrorists?

 
 
 
*fauxtriotism added to accentuate the nonsense of the underlying argument of said opinion piece.

Faulty Software

[SkunkPussy]

They have sold faulty software to people so they should fix any fault found until there are no more to be found.

When...

[WillyWanker]

...Mr. Anthony buys me a new computer or OS + the necessary hardware upgrades for all my XP boxes then he can tell me what I must do. If not, STFU.

always judge the cover by the glue

[epine]

Unfortunately, this entire line of argument sets a precedent for non-productive lines of argument. It usually turns out that the person advancing such an argument is rarely concerned with precedent after all.

OR...

[Anonymous Coward]

when a software isn't sold or supported by it's developer it becomes abandonware, and when a software is abandonware then it's public domain and anybody can use it legally without being branded as a pirate... if microsoft doesn't want to keep supporting it then they could release the source code and let the community do the rest.

Unlike cars

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft while dropping support does not permit 3rd party support, as happens with cars. They made a rod for their own back.

Virtual machines?

[Anonymous Coward]

IF someone is that worried about the flaw/ security of a no longer supported 12 year OS, then why not run it in a virtual machine ? There are plenty of software out there that can do this, Virtual PC, XP mode in 7 pro, Virtualbox, VMware. You can isolate the VM from your main machine and do whatever you need to do with it. That way if something happens, when you get it all set up, you can take a snapshot, and then just revert to the snapshot before said problem. That way you don't compromise your main system/data with a infection or security hole that won't get patched. Although the newer versions of these softwares require that you have Virtualization of some sort supported on your CPU.

they should supporrt it or pay

[rhalstead]

There will be hundreds of thousands of copies still running..if not millions. That leaves a hole to infect other more modern systems. XP does all those user need, they shouldn't have to update to protect some one else. There is only one responsible for infections via XP and that is MS.

Meh, who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

The only reason for IE on Win XP... a vehicle to download a better browser: Chrome, Firefox, Opera etc.

Microsoft, if you don't want to patch stuff that's perfectly fine. After all, the 'planned obsolescence and forced upgrade' business model had worked perfectly fine for you, hadn't it? That's the same reason why Win Vista users cannot install IE10... you'll need to upgrade to Win 7 for the 'enhanced experience'. Never mind if the code base for Win Vista and Win 7 are mostly identical. Just a snazzy new taskbar and some tweaks for Win 7, that's all.

After almost three decades, nothing has changed. Take a bow, Microsoft apologists.

They should just stop patching ALL their software!

[Anonymous Coward]

If you must "patch" software it must have been released, if it has been released it is old and should not be supported! A new bug? A new release! (and a charge on your credit card)

Everyone knows that the quality of software is determined by how fresh it is (much like shellfish). Old software (more than a few weeks) should just be outlawed!

BTW, just for the record. XP was and is the best OS Microsoft has released (except for maybe OS/2 1.3). Both in quality of software, user interface and documentation.