Windows Xp nears End Of Life (THANK GOD!) Zero Day Forever April 8 2014

[SteveG1988]

http://www.paritynews.com/2013/08/16/2358/hackers-stockpiling-windows-xp-zero-days-as-eol-nears/

Well, Xp will begin to wind down, once APril 8 2014 comes around, bugs will not be fixed, security flaws won't be addressed

[mass_citizen]

http://www.paritynews.com/2013/08/16/2358/hackers-stockpiling-windows-xp-zero-days-as-eol-nears/

Well, Xp will begin to wind down, once APril 8 2014 comes around, bugs will not be fixed, security flaws won't be addressed

gonna miss it. lots of memories using it throughout high school and college. windows 8 is too tablet oriented for me.

[bugo]

Yeah, it's really good for those little old ladies who use their XP computers to check their email and nothing more...they're either going to have to buy a new computer or be vulnerable.  It's like a car that quits running after a certain time.

Steve Gum: You love Vista, but hate XP?  That's fucked up.

[SteveG1988]

Yeah, it's really good for those little old ladies who use their XP computers to check their email and nothing more...they're either going to have to buy a new computer or be vulnerable.  It's like a car that quits running after a certain time.

Steve Gum: You love Vista, but hate XP?  That's fucked up.

The fact that you hate vista is because you drank the flavor aide. Vista isn't that bad, i don't use it any more now that i have a newer laptop, i always ran 7 on my desktop

[mass_citizen]

more like a car that quits running after you stop doing oil changes..

[oscar]

Yeah, it's really good for those little old ladies who use their XP computers to check their email and nothing more...they're either going to have to buy a new computer or be vulnerable.  It's like a car that quits running after a certain time.

Sucks to be the little old ladies, huh?

I don't get the enthusiasm here for forcing them onto the upgrade treadmill, which involves hassle as well as spending money that some of them don't have.  Yeah, it's not practical to keep supporting old software forever, but let's be a little sensitive to people with marginal computer literacy, who would rather not have to change something that works well enough for them.

BTW, my desktop computer has Vista, which is kind of sucky (I liked XP more), but at least it runs some of my older software that I can't use on my Windows 7 notebook. 

[corco]

It has been 12 years though and XP's life cycle has been extended a bunch of times already- it's not like they're forcing people off Windows 7 or something. The internet has more or less evolved beyond XP's capabilities.

[SteveG1988]

It has been 12 years though and XP's life cycle has been extended a bunch of times already- it's not like they're forcing people off Windows 7 or something. The internet has more or less evolved beyond XP's capabilities.

Coutner argument from bugo prediction:

BUT THEY SHOULD UPDATE THE OS TO SUPPORT MORE

[hbelkins]

I hate Vista, not crazy about 7, have not experienced 8. I like XP just fine. It's what's running on the two old Windows laptops and my netbook and I have no plans to upgrade, since I rarely use those machines anyway.

[realjd]

It's the every other version problem with Windows. Windows 95 had problems. Windows 98 was great. Windows ME sucked. Windows XP was great. Vista had problems, but wasn't as bad as people remember. Windows 7 is excellent and is easily the best Windows release. Windows 8 sucks so much that I bought a MacBook.

[vtk]

more like a car that quits running after you stop doing oil changes..

Except you can't do your own oil changes and the manufacturer won't do it for you anymore

[Zeffy]

I use Windows 8, and I can't see why anyone has issues with it. I have zero problems with the OS. I loved 7, and I was able to deal with Vista. I loved XP because of how it was such a big leap from Windows Millennium (which yes, sucked), but also how smooth it ran and how nice the UI looked. But really, I think most PCs nowadays should be able to handle Windows 7. As amazing as XP is, it's time to let it rest.

[Revive 755]

I have an issue:  There are several older games that refuse to run on anything newer than XP.  If only the newer operating systems had much better compatibility modes . . .

[bugo]

I have an issue:  There are several older games that refuse to run on anything newer than XP.  If only the newer operating systems had much better compatibility modes . . .

+1

[ZLoth]

http://www.paritynews.com/2013/08/16/2358/hackers-stockpiling-windows-xp-zero-days-as-eol-nears/

Well, Xp will begin to wind down, once APril 8 2014 comes around, bugs will not be fixed, security flaws won't be addressed

That's for Microsoft core OS. There has been non-support for other Microsoft products for a while already. Internet Explorer 8 was the last IE browser that supported XP.

Other vendors have ceased support for Windows XP already, while others will be supporting Windows XP for a little while longer.

[ZLoth]

I don't get the enthusiasm here for forcing them onto the upgrade treadmill, which involves hassle as well as spending money that some of them don't have.  Yeah, it's not practical to keep supporting old software forever, but let's be a little sensitive to people with marginal computer literacy, who would rather not have to change something that works well enough for them.

Tell that to some of the bean counters. Sometimes, the employees are stuck with older equipment that needs to be upgraded, but until it actually affects the SVPs, it's "make do because it works, and it ain't broke". Hey, as long as it doesn't affect the SVP's bonus..... 

And, my rule of thumb has been that a computer has a life cycle of around 5-7 years. Unless, it's a Apple product, in which case, it's less.

[Mr_Northside]

Vista had problems, but wasn't as bad as people remember.

I always thought a major issue is that when Vista was released, you really needed a top-end machine (expensive) for it to really run smoothly.  Sure it would run on lower-end/budget machines - and in MS's desire to push it, it would be pre-installed on them, but it would run like crap. 

With Windows 7's system requirements being pretty much the same, but it being a few years later - what was an expensive high-end machine when Vista came out was a much more affordable computer when 7 was released.

I still use XP on the laptop I have, mostly because I'm cheap and just use it for web browsing, and occasionally an old scanner I can't get working on newer OS's.  But nothing lasts forever.

[Thing 342]

And, my rule of thumb has been that a computer has a life cycle of around 5-7 years. Unless, it's a Apple product, in which case, it's less.

Hey, my school still has some of the old coloured Macs (OS8, baby!), and they run like champs.

[J N Winkler]

I regard the ending of support for XP as a non-event.  I have already had to disable automatic updates on my lone XP computer because the Windows Update client has turned into a CPU hog.  I use this laptop mainly for taking notes at libraries and archives, playing video over a LAN, and logging into my main machine through Remote Desktop Connection.  All of those things will continue to be possible after support for XP ends.  CPU power is already the main constraint on what I can do with it--for example, I don't have enough to play Blu-Ray rips.

The real concern, I feel, is the dropping of antivirus and browser support for XP when Microsoft support for the OS lapses.  If I cannot update Firefox (version 8, which is what it has installed, now will no longer start without throwing up a plugin check with every launch) or get another year of Avast from next September, then I will still be able to use my XP machine as a thin client but it won't be available for general-purpose Web surfing.

In principle I can deal with the problems of software/OS obsolescence as well as limited CPU by buying a brand-new computer, but that is a pretty expensive solution.  The last time I investigated this possibility, the lowest price I found for a new laptop having CPU specs I would consider minimally acceptable for a second computer (i.e., not nearly as good as my main computer) was $450.

[Duke87]

I have an issue:  There are several older games that refuse to run on anything newer than XP.  If only the newer operating systems had much better compatibility modes . . .

There are compatibility issues beyond just the OS. Some older games cannot run on 64-bit systems (there is no fix for this without modifying the software). Some older games cannot run on dual or quad core processors (the fix for this is to adjust the path so the program runs on only one core). Some older games are not meant to be widescreen and look funny when your monitor doesn't have a 4:3 aspect ratio.

But yes, the fact that versions of Windows from Vista onward are no longer DOS-based does mean they can't run programs which depended on that. If you have a program that is a pure DOS program you can run it using DOSBox. It's programs designed to run on Windows 3.X/95/98 that are the tough ones to figure out.

[SidS1045]

http://www.paritynews.com/2013/08/16/2358/hackers-stockpiling-windows-xp-zero-days-as-eol-nears/

Well, Xp will begin to wind down, once APril 8 2014 comes around, bugs will not be fixed, security flaws won't be addressed

Color me skeptical.  Last figures I saw showed that of the installed base of Windows users worldwide, 31% were still using XP...almost a third.  No company drops support for almost a third of its installed base without consequences.  I guess M$ thinks they can weather the storm.

Deadlines like these have been pushed back before.  I'll believe it when I see it.

[SidS1045]

If you have a program that is a pure DOS program you can run it using DOSBox.

Not if that program needs access to certain hardware like printers.  Windows Vista and beyond have hardware access locked down tight.

I have a business-critical DOS app at work that requires printer access to function the way we need it to be.  We tried it on DOSBox, but no joy.  That keeps two of my machines on XP for the foreseeable future.

[SteveG1988]

If you have a program that is a pure DOS program you can run it using DOSBox.

Not if that program needs access to certain hardware like printers.  Windows Vista and beyond have hardware access locked down tight.

I have a business-critical DOS app at work that requires printer access to function the way we need it to be.  We tried it on DOSBox, but no joy.  That keeps two of my machines on XP for the foreseeable future.

7 and Vista 32 bit kept MS-DOS support, identical to XP except no full screen mode

[Duke87]

Not if that program needs access to certain hardware like printers.  Windows Vista and beyond have hardware access locked down tight.

I have a business-critical DOS app at work that requires printer access to function the way we need it to be.  We tried it on DOSBox, but no joy.  That keeps two of my machines on XP for the foreseeable future.

I would argue that if you have a business-critical program running on DOS that perhaps it's time to get a more up to date program.

I see reverse compatibility largely as a concern for playing old games, which can't just be "replaced" with new games. For business programs, old software should be easy to substitute for with new software, you just have to be willing to make the investment.

[realjd]

I have an issue:  There are several older games that refuse to run on anything newer than XP.  If only the newer operating systems had much better compatibility modes . . .

There are compatibility issues beyond just the OS. Some older games cannot run on 64-bit systems (there is no fix for this without modifying the software). Some older games cannot run on dual or quad core processors (the fix for this is to adjust the path so the program runs on only one core). Some older games are not meant to be widescreen and look funny when your monitor doesn't have a 4:3 aspect ratio.

But yes, the fact that versions of Windows from Vista onward are no longer DOS-based does mean they can't run programs which depended on that. If you have a program that is a pure DOS program you can run it using DOSBox. It's programs designed to run on Windows 3.X/95/98 that are the tough ones to figure out.

Windows 3.X runs fine in DOSBox.

For the extremely rare game that won't run on Win7 x64, and won't run after adjusting the compatibility settings, why not go grab VMWare? It's free and the virtualization capabilities built into modern processors mean it runs extremely fast.