Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
Guy on the Internet says "Shut Down XP."
Where are the crickets when we need them the most?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
A patch to remove the entire networking stack. Done.
Please keep us updated on all conversations you have with your mother. Thanks.
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.
Given that their monopoly abuse is what led to this clusterfuck they should provide patches until the end of time.
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.
I guess the last line is what Microsoft fears about - "or switch to another modern operating system, such as OS X or Linux."
Now, every 0day that hits, and Microsoft DOESN'T patch XP, after product end-of-life? Deep pockets. Lawsuit. Precedent has been established. :-)
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
if it would be his house or his car or his yacht that suddenly does no longer 'work'.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
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.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
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.
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.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Is this some kind of primitive version of Netscape or Lynx?
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
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.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
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...
This sig left unintentionally blank.
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?
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
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.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
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.
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.
'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.
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
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 ...
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.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
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.
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).
'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.
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.
Andy Warhol got it right / Everybody gets the limelight
Andy Warhol got it wrong / Fifteen minutes is too long.
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.
Yopu for you?
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
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.
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.
I think they did a patch for Windows 2000 the month after the last patch was supposed to come out.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
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.
No amount of patches will fix XP... it is broken to the core.
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.
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.
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...)
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
There's a better way.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
> 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?
I'm gonna tell my mother you're picking on me!!
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
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.
"Fish" (David B. Trout)
I have high hopes for reactos. You know, in five to ten more years.
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.
Greed is the root of all evil.
Please keep us updated on all conversations you have with your mother. Thanks.
"Son, hide this money under your mattress"
I am anarch of all I survey.
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.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
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.
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.
There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
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'
I tried to think, but nothin' happened!
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...
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
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.
http://saveie6.com/
That only works for software that doesn't make use of accelerated graphics as the vm wrappers for that are less than stellar.
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.
That's exactly what MS has done; sent pop up warnings. It has also already been all over local news.
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.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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??
"Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"
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.
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
They do the slowing down between versions, not so much between updates.
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.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
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.
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
They have sold faulty software to people so they should fix any fault found until there are no more to be found.
SURELY NOT!!!!!
This is often helpful. But other times, programs still do their own checks and refuse to run.
...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.
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?
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.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
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.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
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).
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
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.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
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.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
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.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
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 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.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
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.
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.