London's Metropolitan Police Still Running 27,000 Windows XP Desktops (thestack.com)

An anonymous reader writes: London's Met Police has missed its deadline for abandoning the out-of-date operating system Windows XP, as findings reveal 27,000 computers still run on the software two years after official support ended. Microsoft stopped issuing updates and patches for Windows XP in Spring 2014, meaning that any new bugs and flaws in the operating system are left open to attack. A particularly risky status for the UK capital's police force – itself running operations against hacking and other cybercrime activity. The figures were disclosed by Conservative politician Andrew Boff. The Greater London Assembly member said: 'The Met should have stopped using Windows XP in 2014 when extended support ended, and to hear that 27,000 computers are still using it is worrying.' As in similar cases across civil departments, the core problem is bespoke system development, and the costs and time associated with integrating a new OS with customized systems.

Comments

Lots of citites still run windows

[Anonymous Coward]

unfortunately not many cities have upgraded to linux yet.

Re:Lots of citites still run windows

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux comes out with new versions every year or so, which completely breaks much of the stuff that came before. Trying to run a government or even a moderately complex business with Linux machines would be the mother of all clusterfucks.

Re: Lots of citites still run windows

[Anonymous Coward]

My god you're a stupid motherfucker, but that's pretty typical for this site. Linux isn't the solution for everything, especially when you may have specialized applications that only run on Windows. That might include things like forensic tools and other specialized software that they need. Besides, perhaps they don't want the cost of retraining people to use a Linux system instead of the familiar Windows environment. But you losers never think of that, only that your shitty ass toy OS is the solution to everything, and that nobody should run anything else. Take your Linux shit and shove it up your ass behind the Yoda doll.

Re:Lots of citites still run windows

[Anonymous Coward]

1. There is CentOS, with 10 year LTS releases.
2. Google is a super complex business, they almost exclusively use in house linux distros.
3. If you want/need to run custom built apps, make sure you have ownership rights on the source code. Then you can port it yourself in the worst case. Of course, you need (either to employ or to contract) people who can do this. But usually with source code and working documentation, its easier to port to the new system than without.
4. With COTS products, take the most popular version as possible, preferring open source products. Open source products are not guaranteed to be continued in development (and being ported to newer platforms), but its more likely to happen for them as for commercial products. Their source code might land in a drawer because its not profitable for the company to maintain the software, or it got aquired or whatever, and you can't get it out of there.

Re:Lots of citites still run windows

[__aaclcg7560]

Trying to run a government or even a moderately complex business with Linux machines would be the mother of all clusterfucks.

You're obviously not familiar with the patching process for Microsoft Windows. I give my thanks to Microsoft everyday for the job security it provides me.

Re:Lots of citites still run windows

[BarbaraHudson]

Well, all those people who didn't upgrade from DOS are still laughing./

As are those running Java applications, where all you have to do is copy the class files to your new machine and if you didn't use native functions or other non-portable code, or a custom java (such as on cell phones back in the day) you're still sitting pretty. (No, I'm not talking about "browser apps", which are rather limited to begin with.)

On today's computers, the problems with Java's speed are pretty much gone for most use cases.

Code targeted for java 1.5 (aka Java 5.0) released in 2004 runs just fine under 8.0 (the current release) released in 2014.

Re:Lots of citites still run windows

[Merk42]

1. There is CentOS, with 10 year LTS releases.

And Windows XP was supported for 13 years. So in 10+ years time we'd have the same story, but with an outdated version of CentOS rather than Windows.

The problem isn't Windows vs Linux or Proprietary vs Open, it's entities being too cheap/lazy to update their software when something it relies on goes unsupported.

Re: Lots of citites still run windows

[Anonymous Coward]

> the cost of retraining people to use a Linux system instead of the familiar Windows environment.

You obviously think that there would be no retraining required to go from XP to 10, Office 2006 to 2016. You'd be wrong. Windows 10 is _not_ "the familiar Windows environment", just as XP was not "the familiar 3.1 Windows environment".

Re:Lots of citites still run windows

[RabidReindeer]

People never seem to figure out that software isn't write-once/run-forever. Over time, software rots from the outside in. Sure, the bits are all there, but the hardware and external services that they are designed to talk to eventually change so much that having the original bits is useless.

Budgeting software as a one-time expense is like buying a Mercedes and never doing an oil change.

There is a problem with Proprietary versus Open, though. I still have the source-code disks for Red Hat 7. Not the RHEL one with systemd, the original Red Hat version 7.2, circa Y2K. If my organization was tied tightly to it, having the source code means that if a problem arises relative to the OS, I could pay someone a no-doubt exorbitant amount of money to dig into that code and do something about it. You can't do that with Windows NT. Even if you had the deep pockets that allowed you source code access to NT, Microsoft probably repealed that by now. Essentially, if you need source code changes for Windows NT, the cost wouldn't be merely exorbitant, they'd probably be ruinous. And, of course, they could simply refuse to help you at all. Because as far as I am aware, Microsoft never licensed Windows unconditionally and in perpetuity to anyone, and if certainly wouldn't have been cheap if they did.

And cheap is a lot of why you end up with thousands of dead copies of XP running on critical systems daily.

Re:Lots of citites still run windows

[RabidReindeer]

Yes, but that's because code targeted for Java 1.5 on Windows would run equally well under Linux. Because Java was designed from Day 1 to be future-proof and portable. Lotsa luck with those Visual J++ apps, though.

Now excuse me while I go trying to find what they've renamed Network Neighborhood to for this Windows release.

Re: Lots of citites still run windows

[Anonymous Coward]

It may well be incompatibility issues on the programs.

Re:Lots of citites still run windows

[PRMan]

Incorrect. Microsoft has sold source code access to several companies.

Re:Lots of citites still run windows

[Anonymous Coward]

No - what they did was sell READ permission to source code.

The code could not be compiled...

Re:Lots of citites still run windows

[jawtheshark]

It's been a while since I did any Java programming. Actually, it's been over 7 years, but that does mean I was around the 1.5 days. I was one of the few who used Linux, and boy did I find bugs due to assumptions that you shouldn't make when working on cross platform applications. At typical one was using a hardcoded "\" as a path separator instead of the System.getProperty("file.separator") value.

Maybe the underlying libraries now catch these things, but back in the day it didn't. Even with Java, writing platform independent code does require some care.

Re:Lots of citites still run windows

[MareLooke]

Ironically enough hardcoding "/" as path separator would most likely have worked... (which doesn't make it a good idea, of course)

Re:Lots of citites still run windows

[RabidReindeer]

Actually, as I understand it, Windows itself will honor a "/" as a path separator in some cases. Probably the biggest reason that DOS/Windows ended up using a backslash as a path separator was what a lot of the CP/M and MS-DOS paradigm came from the DEC OS world, where "/" was used as a switch prefix instead of the dash character used by the Unix OS. Making a "/" in a filepath potentially ambigous.

Java, on the other hand, will cheerfully honor a "real" (forward slash) as an abstract pathname separator on all OS's and convert as needed when using file path (java.io.File) references. It's a smart thing to do. Not only is the code more portable, but backslashes are used as escape characters when compiling Java strings, and you can cause yourself all sorts of grief by forgetting to double-up on them when coding DOS-style paths.

Slash and backslash aren't the only path separators I've seen in a long and evil career, I've also seen angle-brackets (<disk>directory>file) and colons (:disk:directory:file). But the OS's in question are more or less extinct now.

It's not as simple as "just switch over"

[ZeroPly]

As someone who is on the tail end of a 700 computer migration from WinXP to Win7, I feel their pain. A single critical program that won't run on Win7 can be a showstopper. Not to mention special hardware for which no Win7 drivers are available - all of a sudden that $120 upgrade cost for a Win7 license became $25,120 when you include the cost of a new laser engraver.

Re:It's not as simple as "just switch over"

[Arnold Reinhold]

They had years to plan for the transition and they can always leave a few isolated XP boxes up to support laser engravers and the like.

Re:It's not as simple as "just switch over"

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone who is on the tail end of a 700 computer migration from WinXP to Win7, I feel their pain. A single critical program that won't run on Win7 can be a showstopper. Not to mention special hardware for which no Win7 drivers are available - all of a sudden that $120 upgrade cost for a Win7 license became $25,120 when you include the cost of a new laser engraver.

If you have a handfull of boxes that can't be migrated, fine, put them on an isolated network without internet access. But don't give us the bull about "single critical programs", you and every other admin on the planet knew for years that the day would come where XP would be done, you had enough time to replace that "single critical programs". That applies especially for Office computers. If the cops have security relevant programs that only run on XP, they have a lot more problems than just XP...

Re:It's not as simple as "just switch over"

[Archangel Michael]

The way I look at it, if you cannot afford or buy updated software to replace the "mission critical" software running on outdated systems, you're not evaluating the situation correctly. You cannot afford not to, you just have chosen different priorities or your "mission" isn't that "critical"

IT systems are not a "buy once, keep forever" like older mechanical systems of the past. That Laser Engraver may work nearly forever, but the Computer that controls it won't.Places without upgrade policy/plans get stuck, only because bean counters don't understand the cost of a compromised systems.

Re:It's not as simple as "just switch over"

[AmiMoJo]

Seems unlikely they would have 27,000 PCs with hardware that isn't supported by Windows 7, and if they do it would make sense to get a driver created for it. More likely it's just their usual incompetence.

It's going to bad when the first copy of the Police's national database is stolen. It's got a lot of information about not just criminals, but everyone they come into contact with. Biometrics, photos, suspicions, unproven allegations, random comments... And they are relying on XP to keep it safe.

Re:It's not as simple as "just switch over"

[geekmux]

As someone who is on the tail end of a 700 computer migration from WinXP to Win7, I feel their pain. A single critical program that won't run on Win7 can be a showstopper. Not to mention special hardware for which no Win7 drivers are available - all of a sudden that $120 upgrade cost for a Win7 license became $25,120 when you include the cost of a new laser engraver.

Since I'm going to assume that not every computer in your organization has a laser engraver attached to it, I'm thinking that a moderately-built Win7 machine running a virtual XP environment under VMWare Workstation would likely be far less than $25,000.

Then you lock down that virtual XP environment where it does not talk to anything other than the laser engraver. Perhaps you have not removed the issue altogether, but you've certainly taken considerable steps to insulate risk by keeping the unsupported OS restricted from access.

Re:It's not as simple as "just switch over"

[Anonymous Coward]

[[and they can always leave a few isolated XP boxes up to support laser engravers and the like.]]

Not if they have software or hardware has to have a network connection for 3rd party licensing purposes. While I agree they had a lot of time to make the conversion, it's not always so simple for those special cases.

Re:It's not as simple as "just switch over"

[Anonymous Coward]

The way I look at it, if you cannot afford or buy updated software to replace the "mission critical" software running on outdated systems, you're not evaluating the situation correctly. You cannot afford not to, you just have chosen different priorities or your "mission" isn't that "critical"

Probably not an effective set of questions for the London Police, whose operational expenses and budget are separate from their actual function. I doubt they could even present a definitive demonstration of their value, given the abstractness of the problem.

IT systems are not a "buy once, keep forever" like older mechanical systems of the past. That Laser Engraver may work nearly forever, but the Computer that controls it won't.Places without upgrade policy/plans get stuck, only because bean counters don't understand the cost of a compromised systems.

The real question is, why can't a computer keep on connecting to that Laser Engraver, and what is the REAL impediment? Is it actual costs, or is it the price?

Is the issue a compromised system, or is the issue a flawed approach in terms of rights and ownership?

Re: It's not as simple as "just switch over"

[Anonymous Coward]

You're assuming that the decision was remotely in the control of the admin. In my experience in large organisations it's only senior management who have the power to stump up the necessary cash and sponsorship for a migration project like that. The critical apps will probably have all been developed by different parts of the business, for different Requirements, to different standards. And at the time the project probably didn't want to pay the extra cash for the source code, or have since lost it.

In that situation the admin will indeed have seen it coming for years, and probably been banging on about it nearly as long. Doesn't mean they were in a position to be able to do anything about it...

Re:It's not as simple as "just switch over"

[Anonymous Coward]

They had years to plan for the transition and they can always leave a few isolated XP boxes up to support laser engravers and the like.

Maybe, but those XP machines are going to be infinitely more secure from a national security standpoint than Windows 10 machines. The article is describing a set of systems used by police, meaning there are serious national security issues that can arise from foreign actors (a corrupt politician with connections, a spy, an intelligence agency operative, etc) when the system is known without a doubt not only to stream telemetry overseas but to collect data for mining purposes. There is absolutely no assurance Microsoft can provide to prove the Windows 10 system doesn't even include backdoors more easily exploitable than the known Windows XP bugs aside from their word, which would be a stupid thing to trust the welfare of your nation with even if it were a private entity other than Microsoft.

Re:It's not as simple as "just switch over"

[unixisc]

For applications that had to stay on XP, couldn't they have just run it in VirtualPC/XP mode under Windows 7, while running everything else natively?

Re: It's not as simple as "just switch over"

[Anonymous Coward]

We still run a few xp machines for legacy functions.

We remove them from the domain, use local firewall to block all but needed ports, stop the server service and block outbound communications to the Internet at the firewall.

Re:It's not as simple as "just switch over"

[Joe_Dragon]

VMware Workstation can't do PCI Pass through so if that laser engraver needs an custom card then no. It can do true serial pass through? use an usb one as real one?

Re:It's not as simple as "just switch over"

[Anonymous Coward]

you had enough time to replace that "single critical programs".

Have you followed IT news at all, like in the last 50 years?

When a government agency have to replace a large outdated system that has been in place for a decade and more the new system typically costs more than ten million to develop.
The specification will typically be so poorly written that the end result becomes unusable and the old system will be used for yet another decade until the problems have been sorted out.

We aren't talking about a single developers favorite text editor not working on the new OS.

Re:It's not as simple as "just switch over"

[BarbaraHudson]

[[and they can always leave a few isolated XP boxes up to support laser engravers and the like.]]

Not if they have software or hardware has to have a network connection for 3rd party licensing purposes. .

That's the future for Windows 10. Your network goes down, you don't just lose your "cloud", but the ability to do pretty much anything. They'll make sure they keep a local cache of the start menu ads, "for your convenience during the interruption of service."

Re:It's not as simple as "just switch over"

[BarbaraHudson]

Maybe the software for the laser engraver is running on dos and the latest version of windows won't support it in a dosbox? Kind of like all those win9x games, and win32 games with 16-bit installers.

Re:It's not as simple as "just switch over"

[BarbaraHudson]

Seems unlikely they would have 27,000 PCs with hardware that isn't supported by Windows 7, and if they do it would make sense to get a driver created for it. More likely it's just their usual incompetence.

Go down to your local underfunded hospital. There's lots of old hardware floating around that are just chugging away doing their jobs even though you wouldn't want to run anything more modern on them, like something that requires more than 32 megs of ram.

Re:It's not as simple as "just switch over"

[Anonymous Coward]

There are no underfunded hospitals in the UK because socialism.

Right??

Re:It's not as simple as "just switch over"

[thsths]

That is all very nice, but as an engineer I am always surprised how many IT problems are self inflicted.

"Every computer has to run off the same image" must be up there with the most painful guidelines ever. 90% - sure, 98% - good. But every computer? That is just not feasible, and there is always going to be the odd laser engraver, scanning oscilloscope, motion simulator, or ATM machine that still runs an obsolete OS as an embedded system. Nothing wrong with that as long as network connections are strictly limited, and no data from the public is being processed.

And while we are at it, why is anybody migrating to Windows 7, a system that is already EOLed? Surely by now migration to Windows 10 would be indicated.

Re:It's not as simple as "just switch over"

[Anonymous Coward]

We have some specialty software with hardware dongles or PCI cards that won't run under VM. They need some direct hardware access the Windows 7 virtualPC/XP mode doesn't allow.

Re:It's not as simple as "just switch over"

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe the software for the laser engraver is running on dos and the latest version of windows won't support it in a dosbox? Kind of like all those win9x games, and win32 games with 16-bit installers.

Who knows? I'm not sure there's a definitive list of hang-ups for them that's been released, so there could be 27,000 different reasons.

Re:It's not as simple as "just switch over"

[ZeroPly]

We actually do that for our accounting software, but that opens up another can of worms. For example, the software opens up reports in Excel and needs an email client available. That means we need a copy of Office running _inside_Virtual PC. Now all of a sudden we're looking at licensing two copies of Office per machine - not chump change. Export to PDF functionality? Sorry - even though you have a full blow Acrobat DC subscription, it won't work inside your Virtual PC.

And of course, it's possible to get malware inside the Virtual PC. So now we're looking at two antivirus licenses per computer.

Re: It's not as simple as "just switch over"

[Gadget_Guy]

We remove them from the domain, use local firewall to block all but needed ports, stop the server service and block outbound communications to the Internet at the firewall.

Apart from removing them from the domain, surely that is what you should be doing for all your computers no matter what OS they use? I do this even on my home systems - block everything and only allow what I want to access the world, not what the developers want.

Re:It's not as simple as "just switch over"

[Darinbob]

Years to plan, but generally when you have no budget the planning is pointless. These are not like corporations where expenses are approved with a rubber stamp.

Another issue is that this "planning" often happens at the IT level, which over time has become more insular and disconnected from the larger organization they're supposed to be working with. So plans come down as directives or orders, "do as we say" rather than "let us help you".

Re:It's not as simple as "just switch over"

[boristdog]

I still have to support NT4, XP, VxWorks, Win98 and even some networked DOS machines in our factory.

You don't go changing the OS on a piece of equipment that costs over a million bucks to replace and all the software for the equipment is written for that OS. You just keep supporting it. And when you have hundreds of machines that cost a shit-ton of money to replace but work fine with the old OS, you keep supporting it.

And you call the new employees a buncha goddamn whiners because they don't want to learn "old stuff."

Knowing old stuff makes you valuable.

Re:It's not as simple as "just switch over"

[HiThere]

It the London Metropolitan Police the same as the police for the "City of London"? If so the problems couldn't happen to a "nicer" bunch of guys.

Re:It's not as simple as "just switch over"

[Anonymous Coward]

IT is counterproductive like that.
When I am talking to them about getting an industrial machine connected to their internet for VPN remote access and updates, they jump past the step about 'get it working first'. Their process is to start at completely blocked, and tediously unblock one protocol or port or whatever one at a time until it works.

They can't see the value of start with minimal blocking, verify that it communicates, everyone else can all move on, then *they* can keep blocking things until it stops communicating and then go one step back. Hours or actually literally days of so many people's time wasted.

Don't get me started on actually connecting to THEIR precious Corporate VPN. So let's say the software to communicate with the machinery only runs on a legacy OS and is locked to that machine. If I can't run their newfangled intrusive Java virus scanner that takes 1.5 hours to complete, reports all software installed, and downloads god knows what and installs them as drivers, then I can't be on their network... I don't even *want* to be on their network and have fileshare access and whatnot, I just want the equivalent of a really long stretched cable plugged into whatever connector! But IT people don't distinguish like that, that's not what's written in the textbook example.

Re:It's not as simple as "just switch over"

[HiThere]

From most of the reports I've encountered, MSWind10 should be avoided no matter what the circumstances. I've encountered one report that (with certain options I don't remember) they've fixed many of the GUI problems. Everyone else has been dubious, speculative, or downright abusive about things like it's privacy policy, it updating requirements, etc.

Re:It's not as simple as "just switch over"

[Skuld-Chan]

We ran into this same issue - in our case it was a video/controller board for some electron microscope - and the board itself was like 15k, and it just wasn't in the cards to upgrade it mid research project. So all dozen or so XP machines get to use the local network and that is it.

Every single other application I was able to hack/triage to get running on Windows 7 or 10 in some way or another.

I would suspect in the police dept - network security should be as concerning as physical security though - you never know when a cop turns his/her back and someone attaches a device to their XP PC or Laptop.

That said - my experience with IT law enforcement - is that its a scary world where people like to browse porn on downtime, people build all manner of in house solutions to every problem imaginable (cops are odd like that - many seem to be self proclaimed IT experts...).

Re: It's not as simple as "just switch over"

[Anonymous Coward]

No.

Re:It's not as simple as "just switch over"

[thsths]

That is all very nice, but if you want to avoid Windows 10, you have to avoid Windows. Or you stay with an unsupported product like Windows 7, but then again you could have saved yourself all that trouble and stayed on unsupported Windows XP.

Windows 7 is nearly seven years old, and extended support will end in just over three years, so migrating to it now is madness.

Re:It's not as simple as "just switch over"

[Sir_Eptishous]

We just run XP vms to support the few apps that have to run on XP.

Re:It's not as simple as "just switch over"

[Sir_Eptishous]

And while we are at it, why is anybody migrating to Windows 7, a system that is already EOLed? Surely by now migration to Windows 10 would be indicated.

You're right.
You don't work in IT.

Re:It's not as simple as "just switch over"

[kaatochacha]

I'll speak to this, as IT.
Because we've NEVER had staff request something way past what they really need, and essentially lie to us to get it.

I've also worked with older devices, in my case an expensive HAAS CNC machine, that would ONLY work with an older version of windows ( Unless you wanted to buy their new machine). They used bizarre dongle that we couldn't push through VMS, and even VMS that said it would work didn't work.

Re:It's not as simple as "just switch over"

[breeze95]

As someone who is on the tail end of a 700 computer migration from WinXP to Win7, I feel their pain. A single critical program that won't run on Win7 can be a showstopper. Not to mention special hardware for which no Win7 drivers are available - all of a sudden that $120 upgrade cost for a Win7 license became $25,120 when you include the cost of a new laser engraver.

You can always run XP Mode in Win 7 Virtual PC. That's what my organization did when we upgraded to Win 7. We had a few programs that were tied to XP; so, we ran those programs in Win 7 Virtual PC-Windows XP Mode. Problem solved.

Re:It's not as simple as "just switch over"

[mjwx]

As someone who is on the tail end of a 700 computer migration from WinXP to Win7, I feel their pain. A single critical program that won't run on Win7 can be a showstopper. Not to mention special hardware for which no Win7 drivers are available - all of a sudden that $120 upgrade cost for a Win7 license became $25,120 when you include the cost of a new laser engraver.

I completely agree with your point but if you've got an SA or other enterprise or SMB licensing agreement with Microsoft then your upgrade licenses are $0. If you're buying OEM with 50, let alone 500 desktops you're doing it wrong.

But I do agree with your point, the major cost in doing any kind of upgrade comes in support and ancillary costs, not in the upgrade itself.

Re:It's not as simple as "just switch over"

[jabuzz]

I suggest that you do an internet search for "dongle emulator", then run the software in a VM.

Re:It's not as simple as "just switch over"

[BarbaraHudson]

Less so than in certain US states, that's for sure.

Re:It's not as simple as "just switch over"

[ModernGeek]

Then write some custom software/scripts to allow those functions to pass through to the parent machine. SysAdmin isn't meant to be a walk through the park. Use a little bit of ingenuity to make the workflow smooth.

Re:It's not as simple as "just switch over"

[ModernGeek]

I always held the philosophy that security starts with the network. If a custom or legacy solution needs to be roped off, then what's the problem? Almost anything can be mitigated.

Re:It's not as simple as "just switch over"

[datadefender]

That is exactly what will happen with the Internet of Things in a few years:
Lot's of expensive and well functioning machines connected to outdated software.

Re:It's not as simple as "just switch over"

[HiThere]

Well, I avoid MS Windows for other reasons having to do with the EULA, so that's ok.

Re:It's not as simple as "just switch over"

[Anonymous Coward]

All that hardware still running WinXP would happily run with Linux installed............sadly (apart from additional cost) even Police don't like change like so many other organisations and individuals.

Re:It's not as simple as "just switch over"

[david_thornley]

You're assuming the updated software exists, which isn't a given. That laser engraver may have a driver that doesn't run on anything past XP (Vista introduced new driver requirements, IIRC), and the manufacturer has a financial interest in getting you to replace a perfectly good engraver.

Re:It's not as simple as "just switch over"

[david_thornley]

Very likely someone with budgetary authority sees 27K PCs running just fine, and doesn't want to allocate the money to upgrade them. Security is usually an easy thing to disregard when making plans, because it's unlikely to bite the decision maker very soon. In cases like this, it might not bite the decision maker at all.

Re:It's not as simple as "just switch over"

[xiux]

And you call the new employees a buncha goddamn whiners because they don't want to learn "old stuff."

They are probably concerned with investing a significant amount of time learning skills that may not be broadly marketable. Sure, it makes you highly marketable to a niche market, but it's continuously shrinking. That might seem risky to someone that probably has another 35 years of their career ahead of them. Being able to quit and move anywhere and find a job has it's advantages.

On the other hand, the work may not be interesting enough at the wages offered. Companies compete for employees with money, time off, and among other things, interesting work. If interesting work wasn't a factor there wouldn't be so many postdocs qualifying for food stamps.

Not sure I agree risk aversion or the desire for fulfilling work qualifies one to be a whiner.

Knowing old stuff makes you valuable.

That highly depends on what stuff you're referring to. I don't see many job ads for 8-track player repair techs, but maybe the handful of them out there are making good money.

-----
IMHO, a more long term solution is, for a company spending millions on a piece of equipment, to have more control over the software. To do otherwise means you're at the mercy of the manufacturer, and sometimes it's not in their interest for customers to keep using the same, perfectly running, old equipment.

Re:It's not as simple as "just switch over"

[ZeroPly]

"Write some custom software"?

We're not a software company. You seriously expect us to hire programmers to write custom code, hire project managers to oversee the programmers, and then take on the care and feeding of that code? Not just code, but system code?

I've been in IT a little over 25 years now. If I brought your idea up at a senior level strategic meeting, I'd be laughed out of the room. This is enterprise level IT, not a bunch of guys gluing shit together in their garage.

Even older systems?

[DidgetMaster]

I wonder how many systems around the world are still running Windows 95? DOS? Older versions of Linux, Unix, or Apple's operating systems?

Re:Even older systems?

[Yvan256]

My CNC is connected to a ThinkPad 760XL running MS-DOS with TurboCNC.

Now get off my lawn.

Re:Even older systems?

[PPH]

I know of some old PLCs with programming and HMIs that run on XP. The manufacturer is unwilling to port their software to newer platforms. And the PC components were written to check for XP-specific components and abort if they were not found. They don't actually use these components, but my guess is that these tests were 'baked in' by the development toolchain to prevent running the produced s/w on Wine or Apple platforms.

Re:Even older systems?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just run it virtualized?

Re:Even older systems?

[110010001000]

CNC? You mean 3D printer???

Re:Even older systems?

[PPH]

virtualized

That's still a full up installation of XP. Even if it's running on a hypervisor on newer h/w.

Re:Even older systems?

[TheRaven64]

It may be a full version of XP, but if you have a shared folder and a shared clipboard, but no network access for the VM, it's useable and a lot safer than having XP directly attached to a network.

Re:Even older systems?

[Yvan256]

I don't think an old Dremel 395 qualifies as a 3D printer.

Unless you meant "subtractive 3D printer", then yes.
 

Re:Even older systems?

[ilguido]

I know some _new_ PLCs running on WinXP embedded or, even worse, Win CE 6.0. There are current EATON PLCs running on Windows CE 6.0, and there is a big cruise ship, that will launch this autumn, automated by a network of Win CE 6.0 machines.

At least on Linux you could patch the kernel yourself (I mean, if you're a big corporation like EATON or Siemens), but this Windows lock-in in industrial automation is one of the worst problem ready to explode: ten years ago all these insecure plants weren't connected to the Internet like they are today (remote assistance, remote diagnostics and all that stuff), but now they are and it is a terrible thing.

Re:Even older systems?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have at least 10 DOS machines, a handful of Win 3.1 and maybe 2 or 3 OS2 machines right now. Also a dozen or more 95/98/NT boxes. All because the tools that connect to them are anywhere from $1 - $15 million to replace.

Re:Even older systems?

[HiThere]

Well, I've got one MSWind95 system running, but it's about to go away, and a Mac 10.4 system that is turned off, and has been for over a year.

In both cases the machines have been retained because of proprietary software that held data in proprietary file formats written by companies that have died. This has created in me a very strong bias in favor of FOSS software, and especially GPL, though if the code is open other FOSS licenses can also be accepted.

Re:Even older systems?

[thegarbz]

Lol that's cute. I work with a DOS programming / HMI tool for turbine control and for programming safety systems on several of our plants.

Re:Even older systems?

[Anonymous Coward]

I was talking the other day with someone who does customer service for a bank. Apparently they are still using windows 98.

Re:Even older systems?

[PPH]

DOS is so old that there isn't much of an attack surface by network. No infected USB drives either. Just don't stick any unknown floppies in the drive.

Re:Even older systems?

[thegarbz]

Amen to that.

extended support

[Anonymous Coward]

Didnt the UK pay M$ a staggering sum for "extended support"?

Re:extended support

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, they did. It's not the case that these computers haven't been updated in 2 years.

core problem ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is submit that bespoke system development is not the core problem. The core problem is using a closed system for your bespoke system developments.
If this were done on Linux chances are it would not be a problem at all.

Re:core problem ?

[HiThere]

I've got some Linux programs (from Loki Software) that only run on an installation in a virtual machine. The problem isn't all in the OS, some times it's in the programs that don't like the newer systems.

Run them for another ten years

[iamacat]

As long as firewall is on and you run a fixed set of apps from trusted sources, you are perfectly safe. So is IE if you only visit internal sites. And for external browsing, browser security is more important than OS security. There will be forked versions of recent Firefox and Chromium builds forever.

The whole upgrade hype is largely financially motivated on part of Microsoft and consulting agencies.

Re:Run them for another ten years

[mdm-adph]

To IT Admin,

Don't worry, I've got the solution to our Win XP upgrade issue -- it's a weird forked version of Chromium I found on some website. I'm sure it's super safe.

Thanks,

Random Internet Person

Re:Run them for another ten years

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as firewall is on and you run a fixed set of apps from trusted sources, you are perfectly safe. So is IE if you only visit internal sites.

yeah, because a cop knows the difference between intranet and internet. Or the admin who obviously was in a coma for half a decade did think of locking down IE and maintain a safe installation of of a browser that's not available of-the-shelf for XP...

Re:Run them for another ten years

[Anonymous Coward]

IE-on-WinXP (IE8, that is), even with all the best-available service packs and patches, does not implement even remotely-modern TLS ciphersuites. It's stuck in the world of TLSv1.0 and awful (non-AES, non-Forward-Secret) ciphers. It's also not patched to be resistant against newer TLS implementation bugs. The base OS is also rife with local exploits. It's best to just assume from the get-go that any XP machine connected to the internet is compromised, and that even if it's not compromised its communications are not secure even when your browser shows a little lock icon.

As much as I hate Microsoft (I think it's been over 10 years since I even owned an MS box, and that was just to run games), and as much as the newer Windows versions suck, staying on WinXP is a Very Bad choice in security terms. At the very least, you *must* use a relatively-recent custom build of Chromium or Firefox rather than IE-on-XP (which at this point is nothing more than an aggregated collection of awful internet security flaws). But even then, you'd be much better off getting rid of XP completely. I don't care what you update to: Win7, Win8, Win10, Linux, Mac, a Chromebook, whatever. Just get off of XP for your own sake.

Re:Run them for another ten years

[AchilleTalon]

The whole upgrade hype is largely financially motivated on part of Microsoft and consulting agencies.

Not really. Your scenario means the sysadmins must forever deal with exceptions, control tightly the set of applications, the trusted sources and so on. There is an extra burden of work for this and it is prone to errors from the sysadmins. So, the switch may worth the extra bucks depending on the size and complexity of the environment. I tend to believe it is the case here with 26 000 workstations still running Windows XP.

Re:Run them for another ten years

[iamacat]

Say Microsoft is charing you $75 to upgrade each seat. Now ad in labor, troubleshooting, user training / support. Very optimistically real cost to just get built in functionality running to the same level will bring the total to $200/seat or 5.2 million dollars. I have no idea how much of your hardware will need to be upgraded, again with associated labor costs. Add in fees for upgrading Office and 3rd party apps that do not run well Windows 10. And cost of fixed in-house apps.

I will be happy to assist with locking down your existing workstations for a small fraction of what you think the total cost is going to be.

Re:Run them for another ten years

[coldsalmon]

I run an XP desktop at my office. It's used exclusively for our high-speed document scanner. It's not allowed on the internet, meaning that it only accepts connections to and from our file server, which is running Debian. I don't see any reason to upgrade to Windows 10 for this use. There are five computers in my office, four of them desktops, so this means that 25% of the desktops at my firm are running Windows XP.

Re:Run them for another ten years

[iamacat]

IE8 is not for going online, it's for shortcuts to specific internal web apps, with address bar hidden. Actual web browser is a company-standard build of chromium auto-updated through puppet.

Re:Run them for another ten years

[hey!]

Well, in theory you're right. But as the old engineering saying goes: in theory, theory and practice are the same but in practice they're different.

Sure, in many cases you can depart from best practices and still be OK ... if you are scrupulous about other best practices. But if the reason you're being cavalier with the rules of thumb you're breaking is that you don't have the budget or bandwidth to implement them, chances are that reason applies across the board.

So a lot depends on why you do something questaionable. For example you might keep XP around because you have software that doesn't run correctly in XP compatibility mode and the company that wrote the software is gone. It's plausible that you could run XP on a limited number of computers that you watch carefully as you look for a replacement app. But if the reason that you're running XP is that you don't have the capacity to admin your computers properly, you're just screwed. Even on computers straight out of the box running the latest and greatest.

Re:Run them for another ten years

[Anonymous Coward]

IE-on-WinXP (IE8, that is), even with all the best-available service packs and patches, does not implement even remotely-modern TLS ciphersuites. It's stuck in the world of TLSv1.0 and awful (non-AES, non-Forward-Secret) ciphers.

I tend to agree with parents remarks. Browsers come with their own TLS stacks. Who cares what IE8 supports?

The base OS is also rife with local exploits.

What else is new? Guarding against privilege escalation is a lost cause on most popular general purpose computers. They are so plentiful and easy to come by that reliance on their non-existence is a nonstarter especially if you are likely to be the subject of targeted attacks.

Your best and only practical opportunity for mitigation is to lock down the local environment so only approved software runs and users can't fuck with hardware (stray USB and flash memory ports) and disallow people from fucking around (web surfing, gaming) and only do what is necessary.

It's best to just assume from the get-go that any XP machine connected to the internet is compromised

You are free to assume anything you want.

and that even if it's not compromised its communications are not secure even when your browser shows a little lock icon.

Every browser that is not IE has its own TLS stack.

I don't care what you update to: Win7, Win8, Win10, Linux, Mac, a Chromebook, whatever. Just get off of XP for your own sake.

It's not that I don't agree security has been improved in later versions of Windows it is just in practical real world terms OS version doesn't hold a candle to benefits of locking down hardware and software environments.

Re:Run them for another ten years

[BarbaraHudson]

Your scenario means the sysadmins must forever deal with exceptions, control tightly the set of applications, the trusted sources and so on.

And how is this different from what goes on every day under any scenario dealing with networked computers?

Re:Run them for another ten years

[Anonymous Coward]

There are five computers in my office, four of them desktops, so this means that 25% of the desktops at my firm are running Windows XP.

One out of five would be 20%.

Just sayin'.

Re:Run them for another ten years

[Anonymous Coward]

... largely financially motivated on part of Microsoft ...

My mother recently decided she wanted her computer to play blu-ray movies, just in case. So I helped her buy a blu-ray drive, bigger DIMMs, bigger HDD. I install it all and discover her 4 year-old motherboard BIOS doesn't recognize blu-ray drives. So she has to buy a new motherboard, CPU and Windows OS to run a blu-ray player application.

New hardware requires new software.

Re:Run them for another ten years

[kaatochacha]

20% of computers, 25% of desktops...

Re:Run them for another ten years

[PRMan]

$5.2 million isn't really that much for a company that employs over 27,000 people.

Re:Run them for another ten years

[iamacat]

I am not necessarily suggesting downgrading new hardware to Windows XP. Gradual replacement provides a perfect opportunity to slowly roll out Windows 10 and resolve any problems without breaking all users at once. Once you are down to couple of thousand old PCs, by all means do a mass upgrade / potential hardware replacement to standardize.

Re:Run them for another ten years

[iamacat]

Just locking down existing software can be conceivably done in 100K (say a month time for 3 engineers and support for 1% of users who had an unexpected problem). You already have ability to push group policies and remotely install software in bulk right?

If your company routinely accepts 5000% overspending, this will not be the only project when this happens and expenses add up. Doubly important for a police department or other entity running at taxpayer expense.

 

Re:Run them for another ten years

[Anonymous Coward]

No - but it is a lot for a company with only 500 people.

Re:Run them for another ten years

[Anonymous Coward]

BTW, I said that because the US Navy did a study on desktops with XP some years ago.

Standard support was computed to be about $3,500 PER YEAR.

The cost quoted for one system is VERY low. The missed expenses are the required ongoing support (which gets more expensive), the retraining, testing, management, call support, new anti-virus support...

It really is more expensive than $200 per seat.

Re:Run them for another ten years

[iamacat]

Despite me advocating not migrating as OP, US military is not a model of financial efficiency and thrifty organizations can probably manage a lot less than $3500/year or in total. Painstakingly make everything look and work the same in a customized image, create simple in house software to provide any missing functionality, have early adoption enthusiasts that will be on help to provide peer support, and so on, Best done by gradually bringing in new systems when old ones need to be replaced anyway of course.

Re:Run them for another ten years

[Anonymous Coward]

Say Microsoft is charing you $75 to upgrade each seat. Now ad in labor, troubleshooting, user training / support. Very optimistically real cost to just get built in functionality running to the same level will bring the total to $200/seat or 5.2 million dollars. I have no idea how much of your hardware will need to be upgraded, again with associated labor costs. Add in fees for upgrading Office and 3rd party apps that do not run well Windows 10. And cost of fixed in-house apps.

I will be happy to assist with locking down your existing workstations for a small fraction of what you think the total cost is going to be.

And how much will it cost when they inevitably get a virus which spreads across those 27,000 PCs? This is a police department after all and there are no doubtably quite a few people who would be happy to write malware targeted at the police departments and there is no way you could lock down these computers to the point where that could not happen while having computers that serve the purposes of the department (a couple hundred pcs would be feasible but a potential 27,000 use cases worth of PCs?). And, after that attack, there is no way you could reasonably argue that they should keep those 27,000 PCs on WinXP anymore so they would still have to spend the money on upgrading them all.
TL;DR; Upgrading from WinXP is inevitable so better to not waste the money on trying to keep it on the PCs...

Core problem

[Bert64]

Bespoke software development isn't the problem, software not developed to sensible cross platform standards is the problem.
I regularly use a piece of bespoke software that was developed many years ago as a standards compliant webapp, it still works today in all the major browsers on any platform - including on mobile phones, which didn't even have browsers when this software was written.

If you plan appropriately when acquiring new software, these problems wouldn't occur.

Re:Core problem

[NotAPK]

"a standards compliant webapp"

Sure, but what if the software has to do something with real hardware: machine control, machine vision, network analysis, hardware programming and IO, data logging, etc.... no "webapp" is able to do anything like that. And while a good cross-platform native program will compile cross platform without [much] issue, what about the hardware drivers that you rely on. What if multiple vendors are involved?

All I'm saying is that it can get really complex really quickly. For my work, provided I can get Linux drivers for the hardware (and prefer vendors who provide them) or write my own interface (say take an RS232 specification sheet and write a nice wrapper to expose a simple API for my software) then I'll go Linux every time!

Re:Core problem

[Anne Thwacks]

what if the software has to do something with real hardware

then write low level driver code in standard C, and the UI in Java, or BASIC or anything that is not machine dependent. Come on, some of us knew how to do this in 1980.

OTOH, perhaps the problem is all down to hiring young whipper-snappers, and paying peanuts.

Anyway, its entirely likely that not even one of the 27,000 XP machines are connected to the Internet anyway. I know its hard for people here to realise it, but there are many uses of computers that do not involve the internet.

And the plod probably can't use Google if they tried, let alone reliably type "https://". Have you ever been in a Police station?

Re:Core problem

[NotAPK]

"then write low level driver code in standard C"

While a nice modular approach that will most certainly be platform specific.

When it comes to hardware IO there is nothing that offers true write-once compile-anywhere... :(

Re:Core problem

[iampiti]

But if you do it well you only have to rewrite the hardware specific portion which should be fairy small

Re:Core problem

[Bert64]

So create an appliance that is bundled with the hardware and provides a web based ui to it... Not too difficult, and many such devices are built this way already.

Re:Core problem

[NotAPK]

The end user still needs to use a client terminal of some kind, which we supply, but yes, doing it that way would allow any terminal to do the job.

My main concern will be latency, as I need to deliver a HD (> 3MP) video feed at 20fps to the user.

But you've given me something to think about. Thanks.

Simple solution

[MitchDev]

M$ doesn't sell or support XP anymore, release the source code and let the market create it's own security patches.

Win10 is a combination of Spyware and Adware masquerading as an Operating System...

Re:Simple solution

[Anonymous Coward]

let the market create its own

Re:Simple solution

[BarbaraHudson]

M$ doesn't sell or support XP anymore, release the source code and let the market create it's own security patches.

Maybe everyone can buy patches for windows 2000 server from the Russian mob or a github account

Re:Simple solution

[gtall]

And remove one of the major clubs MS uses to beat its users into migrating to their latest? They'd be cutting their own throats. Also, XP would then never die, it would get reborn as "MS without MS" and represent a fork of their alleged software that they do not control.

Re:Simple solution

[avandesande]

This idea has been discussed to death... the drivers and a lot of OS code is protected with NDA from various vendors so they can't release the source code.

Re:Simple solution

[The-Ixian]

I think you are assuming that every Windows release has different code.

I would be willing to bet that Windows 10 is basically Windows 2000 with updated UI and a few more drivers baked in to the kernel.

When a Windows vulnerability affects all previous versions of the OS, it's a strong indicator that this is true.

Re:Simple solution

[MitchDev]

Well, if they aren't supporting it or selling it anymore, they should lose copyright protection over it then.

Re:Simple solution

[MitchDev]

Sorry, don't care. If they no longer support the OS they should lose all copyright over it.

Re:Simple solution

[MitchDev]

Doesn't matter, when a company stops supporting a product, they should lose the copyright over it and it should become public domain.

Re:Simple solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice idea - but they don't. You have another 95+ years to go.

Re:Simple solution

[Anonymous Coward]

This idea has been discussed to death... the drivers and a lot of OS code is protected with NDA from various vendors so they can't release the source code.

The NDAs are irrellevant.

The right of long term public oversight over business arises under the 9th Amendment. No rational person can deny this, and certainly no ethical lawyer can deny it.

Once the source code is no longer being sold and maintained, an obligation to release the source code in it's entirety, without trying to hide it or obfuscate it, becomes a logical and neccesary consequence of this right.

The Bill of Rights is the highest law in the land. When it comes into conflict with a lessor law - such as contract law, or copyright law, or any other law - the lessor law must yield. Rights retained by the people are by definition retained by the people - no entity of government can authorize the government to create laws, orders, policies, procedures, or precedents infringing the Bill of Rights.

In writing the original NDA contracts without a provision acknowledging this, the lawyers involved failed to take into account their legal responsibilities under their oaths to uphold the law. That's certainly incompetence at a minimum, and since the legal profession - as a class in society - is in a position of massive ethical conflict of interest with regards to recognizing the 9th Amendment, it can be presumed to be unethical practice of law.

Similarly, the executive staff - and members of the board of directors - for companies producing software have an obligation to act in accordance with the law, including the Bill of Rights, as part of the price of doing business. Indeed, holding any such position is entirely conditional on compliant with the law, so by choosing not to release the source code, the executives and board members are disqualifying themselves from their positions (and forfeiting the benefits gained from unlawful conduct while in those positions).

Only unethical lawyers would fail to recognize the truth of any of these statements. Unfortunately, that seems to be the norm in the US legal profession, and like so many other sociopaths, the executives in charge of software companies hide behind the shield provided by unethical practice of law.

Support not over

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft stopped issuing updates and patches for Windows XP in Spring 2014

That's absolutely not true. I still have a few XP desktops and they are still receiving critical updates from Microsoft Update. This is contrast to e.g. Windows Server 2003 - those servers not getting updates anymore.

Unfortunately they don't think of cross platform.

[jellomizer]

So you are on Windows now. That is all good and fine. However the majority of your Applications should be Web Standards Based developed in a easy OS portable language. With a database system available in multiple OS.

Because time and time again, The next generation of Computer/OS breaks a lot of compatibility and moving over to a new platform is a big headache.
Vs that web application developed in PHP back in 2003 while may not be pretty will still work on Windows 10 or the Bosses new iPad. Without having to rework the entire thing.

should have.....

[phantomfive]

'The Met should have stopped using Windows XP in 2014

The Met should have begun the switch to Linux (or at least open source technologies) in 2001.

Re:Unfortunately they don't think of cross platfor

[unixisc]

Particularly when mobility apps require mainly going out of Windows, given the pathetic acceptance of the Windows Phone platform. Having something cross-platform would then work on Android, iOS as well as most flavors of Windows

Linux rocks

[stooo]

>> Trying to run a government or even a moderately complex business with Linux machines would be the mother of all clusterfucks.
Nope.
It just works.
Some administrations switched a long time ago.... Example : Munich City services, French Police (Gendarmerie)....

Re:Linux rocks

[Anonymous Coward]

My 70 year old aunt, who was hardly computer literate, runs Ubuntu just fine. If old bill is too dumb to learn ubuntu, let them stay ignorant.

Re:Linux rocks

[avandesande]

Just a guess but I doubt your aunt does very much or what she does is very similar to business needs.

Re:Linux rocks

[Anonymous Coward]

She probably does a lot more useful work than PC Plod ever did on an XP machine.

Re:Linux rocks

[Ravaldy]

My 70 year old aunt, who was hardly computer literate, runs Ubuntu just fine. If old bill is too dumb to learn ubuntu, let them stay ignorant.

By those standards Windows XP must be a god given gift. It still resides on 70 year old aunt's computers 13 years later.

Switching to Linux is much simpler

[stooo]

JUL
Linux Rocks

What's wrong with XP?

[OrangeTide]

If the government would have forced Microsoft to open the platform or continue support indefinitely there is no technical reason not to continue using XP. The only barrier right now is the lack of support, which means no security updates.

But as an operating system it still does the job of launching your applications and getting shit done.

Re:What's wrong with XP?

[superwiz]

It's main danger is in that runs services in the same session as the locally logged-in user (session 0). This will always remain a vector of attack. But other than that, it's just as easy to secure as Win 7.

Re:What's wrong with XP?

[Tablizer]

MS perhaps should incrementally charge more for security updates for older OS's rather than outright pull the support plug. It could be a nice revenue source for them. They do like money, no?

I suspect they did the bean-counter math, and found it's more profitable for force full upgrades rather than get a trickling-in of support fees from older OS.

Re:What's wrong with XP?

[OrangeTide]

Pay-to-play, even if they pass the support effort on to a 3rd party contractor, would be nice for customers. But ultimately I think Microsoft wants everyone to buy new computers and new copies of their latest operating system. The planned obsolesce has always been about money, the security aspect is a convenient excuse to push that agenda.

As an example, SABRE (airline reservation system) has been running in one form or another since the 1970's. And even though ACP (IBM Airline Control Program, an operating system) was only officially supported for about 10 years ('68-'79), it continued to be used in production environments for decades after that.

But to be fair IBM was traditionally about selling big hardware and support contracts and not about selling software, a very different style of business compared to Microsoft.

Good

[Anonymous Coward]

It's safe from invasive Microsoft "patches". Definitely safer than windows 10 for handling sensitive information.

Web UI = Salvador Dali [Re:Core problem ]

[Tablizer]

developed many years ago as a standards compliant webapp, ... If you plan appropriately when acquiring new software, these problems wouldn't occur.

I'm not sure what you mean by "standards compliant". The standards are only suggestions, and not all browsers followed them, or interpret them differently, and CHANGE how they interpret them over time.

I've seen web apps "break" and/or degenerate due to browser implementation changes that one could not foresee.

One really annoying problem is that if Page X opens Page Y in a new browser window via a form (Http POST), and if one put a JavaScript "Close" button on the Page Y ("window.close();"), Internet Explorer added a very annoying and confusing warning prompt I think around version 7. (The Windows "X" close button is too small to be practical.)

Granted, it wasn't an outright show-stopper, but created bunches of phone calls from confused users. I've had to go back and re-code bunches of web apps.

The less you rely on JavaScript the better. JavaScript DOM manipulation often breaks or acts flaky over time, often due to alleged "security patches". But JS gets you the interaction users and managers expect from an app such that it's hard to avoid it. Many managers don't care about 7 years down the road, they want it pretty now.

And odd rendering differences seem to pop-up over time. I tested the hell out of one app in 3 diff versions of IE and in FireFox around 2009 because I knew it had to last many years. Last year when I happened to check it, stuff was shifted all funny in FireFox and Chrome. (Oddly, IE did it right, which is unexpected.)

Granted, web apps are probably more likely to wilt rather than outright die such that they still may be use-able, just grow distorted or clunky over time, like a Salvador Dali painting.

(Notice: Rant Ahead)

I really miss WYSIWYG layouts from the desktop days: no funny shifty shit (except for Windows fonts, but it could have been prevented if MS wasn't dicky). They traded DLL-Hell for Render-Version-Hell. Auto-flow layouts suck maggots, they are job security for testers and UI fiddlers, but a Yuuuuuge waste of resources. I want to focus on domain (business) logic and solve real problems, not on shifty fiddly UI's.

Bring back vector-based plotted coordinates to bring back productivity. Auto-flow can flow into my damned toilet. Tim Berners-Lee probably cost the world economy around 5 to 20 $Trillion. I'll punch him in the afterlife along with the guy who invented neckties, since all 3 of us will wind up in Hell for the suffering and ranting we, I mean they caused the entire Planet.

A new CRUD-Friendly network UI standard is needed.

Re:Web UI = Salvador Dali [Re:Core problem ]

[Tablizer]

Addendum

Note that auto-flow could still be computed on the server-side. That way you have a single consistent flow-render engine rather than have 30-odd client-side render engines that web apps typically have now (10 odd browser brands with roughly 3 versions each).

Vector-based coordinate plotting would simplify the client, turning it into a dumb and simple coordinate plotter of basic vectors and GUI widgets that fill the exact containing rectangle that you ask of it.

Re:Web UI = Salvador Dali [Re:Core problem ]

[mbkennel]

> Vector-based coordinate plotting would simplify the client, turning it into a dumb and simple coordinate plotter of basic vectors and GUI widgets that fill the exact containing rectangle that you ask of it.

I welcome you to the X window system.

Re:Web UI = Salvador Dali [Re:Core problem ]

[Tablizer]

There may be lessons in parts of X-windows, but it has latency problems over typical Internet connections. Every character you type has to make a round trip before it's displayed. I'm not against client-side input boxes (if done well).

Re:Web UI = Salvador Dali [Re:Core problem ]

[Anonymous Coward]

Can - but the only time I saw a latency problem was with video. And I was testing X connections between Washington, DC, Alaska, San Diego, and Stennis Space Center.

Turns out ssh/sshd will combine packets, compress them, then encrypt the result for transmission. Saves a LOT of time, and provides the network security that raw X connections don't have.

So latency is not that big a problem.

XP forever

[Anonymous Coward]

I still use it in my virtual machines. When we land humans on Mars there will be a XP machine with us.

Easy solution

[Sir Holo]

All they need to do is to firewall them with Linux boxes containing two Ethernet cards. Just like everybody else does.

Some of us ARE stuck on XP. For example, a piece of multi-$M scientific equipment might only have drivers that were issued for XP, back when it was purchased. We don't fix what isn't broken; we firewall or ghostwall it.

Re:Unfortunately they don't think of cross platfor

[BarbaraHudson]

"Web standards" aren't. They are like post-a-bomb cockroaches - they keep proliferating and mutating. Same with browsers.

As a long-time opponent of Java, I have to say that with the advances made, it's more than good enough, and code written a decade ago for 5.0 that doesn't run in a browser runs just fine in 8.0. Just need the current runtime for your particular host (the class files can just be copied from one OS to the other and run). Just don't use either native methods, and use the provided abstractions for things like directory separators in file names.

And if you didn't, the only class files you'll have to decompile and fix are the ones affected - the code in the other class files will still run fine.

retail support ended

[superwiz]

I believe contract-based enterprise support is still available. My retail-licensed XP vm's still get occasional security update pushes, too.

Re:retail support ended

[Anonymous Coward]

What you believe is true, despite the click-bait article's allusions. Proof? Here's the Premier Support Agreement that provides support through 2019.

https://www.london.gov.uk/site...

Police Laser Engraver

[wasteoid]

Why do police need laser engravers?

/sarcasm

Are we going to hear the same when Win7 is over?

[Anonymous Coward]

Will it be disturbing that people will keep using Windows 7 beyond the supported lifetime, or will it be disturbing that privacy sensitive applications will be migrated to Windows 10?

Windows XP Unofficial SP4 puts it on the POS track

[Joe_Dragon]

Windows XP Unofficial SP4 puts it on the POS track

Re:Windows XP Unofficial SP4 puts it on the POS tr

[Anonymous Coward]

But you don't have to hack it to get critical updates.

Re: Unfortunately they don't think of cross platfo

[Anonymous Coward]

How can you type "web" and "standards" in the same sentence and pretend not to be joking? This whole web mess is a bad joke. I can understand that toy companies like Facebook and Google like it, but please keep it out of the real world.

Good for them.

[Anonymous Coward]

I have one Windows XP machine and all the rest are a flavor of Linux.

I have Windows 7 but have not installed it.

I will NOT get Windows 8.x nor Windows 10 as they are pure spyware. I will install Windows 7, under my tight controls and maintain my own image, but that will be the last version of Windows I ever use.

Microsoft and conflict of interest

[Futurepower(R)]

My article about Windows XP: Microsoft Windows XP "end of life": Conflict of interest.

Amen

[Anonymous Coward]

I am typing from a 11+ year-old XP work machine, which is still suitable to write programs with, and which doesn't have (since I took it over) any dubious anti-virus software on it. It does have ad-blockers in each browser, and sits behind a company firewall. I see, and have had, no issue with this. Heck, it boots faster than the new quad-core Dell they're trying to make me upgrade to! It seems most upgrading today is done solely due to FUD.

Re:Amen

[The-Ixian]

It seems most upgrading today is done solely due to FUD.

Here are the main drivers for updating (in my opinion), in order:

- Support (While I may be able to deal with 99% of issues, those 1% issues can be show stoppers. Software support is a much needed life line)
- Hardware compatiblity (drivers....)
- Security (operating systems that receive continued patches is a really good thing)
- Management (better deployment options, group policy changes, etc)
- Software needs (newer software requires a current OS*)

* Most of the time, this is probably arbitrary installer settings which won't install unless it detects a certain OS version. Presumably, this is for the benefit of the software maker and not the end user. Still... if you are out of spec at all and try to get support... you will fail flowchart step one on any tier one support call.

billy clubs

[Anonymous Coward]

They're used to old technology. They still use billy clubs instead of guns.

Another Slashdot spin on HEY WINDOWS HERE GUYS!!

[Anonymous Coward]

You can only mention Windows on a tech site maybe once a week and not have people recognize what you are doing Slashdot.

Windows is FBI. Slashdot is FBI. Windows is Spyware. Slashdot is Spyware advertising sprinkled with Pokemon GO stories.

Re: Unfortunately they don't think of cross platfo

[jellomizer]

There is a good portion of the W3C that is well supported by the major browsers and if if you follow those your app tends to function correctly in all of them.
I tend to stick to xhtml standard while the most picky, tends to render rather identically across all modern browsers.

Snoopers charter...

[Anonymous Coward]

They are only allowed to use an OS with shit encryption.

National security issue?

[Stan92057]

I think patching security holes be forced on Microsoft. Any new security hole should be a matter of national/World security and if Microsoft refused to path them, then they should be forced to open the source so it can be patched. That is IMO windows is bigger them MS.

Re: Unfortunately they don't think of cross platfo

[Anonymous Coward]

I had to read "post-a-bomb cockroaches" a couple of times. I thought it was some new weird terrorist device which not only explodes but showers you in cockroaches.
Post-A-bomb cockroaches.

Re: Unfortunately they don't think of cross platfo

[Anonymous Coward]

But, what if it wasn't Java, but proprity software? Based on say up to you core systems, without a currant updater company? Many companies would have written in future proof software. Maybe this one? But we are not there, therefore all wishful thinking?

hey, sing along!

[swschrad]

hack-hack-hack
hack-hack-hack
hack the bobbies
hack the bobbies... ahhh

How do you limit connections?

[Futurepower(R)]

How do you arrange that Windows XP connects only to your file server?

Re: Unfortunately they don't think of cross platfo

[BarbaraHudson]

Then I guess they'd have to get together with everyone else in the same boat and pay someone to reverse-engineer the thing. It's not like it's impossible, and probably cheaper in the long run since they'd then get the source as well as someone able to maintain and modify it.

Re:Unfortunately they don't think of cross platfor

[Ravaldy]

So you are on Windows now. That is all good and fine. However the majority of your Applications should be Web Standards Based developed in a easy OS portable language. With a database system available in multiple OS.

Not all business needs can be satisfied with web applications.
- You can't upload GCode to a machine using a web browser
- You can't capture specialty device input using a browser
- You can't do anything that requires access to system protected resources due to the high level of security implemented in browsers
- You can't effectively do CAD on a web browser (although that is becoming a dead argument with OnShape).

Fact is that you have plenty of situations where web applications just don't cut it either because of security limitations or simply because the browsers don't do certain things well yet.

At the end of the day there is a large portion of the needs of businesses that can be satisfied but there is still plenty that cannot.