Forgot your password?

typodupeerror
Bug Networking Security Upgrades Windows Technology

Microsoft Says No TCP/IP Patches For XP 759

Posted by timothy
from the to-improve-your-customer-experience dept.
CWmike writes "Microsoft says it won't patch Windows XP for a pair of bugs it quashed Sept. 8 in Vista, Windows Server 2003 and Windows Server 2008. The news adds Windows XP Service Pack 2 (SP2) and SP3 to the no-patch list that previously included only Windows 2000 Server SP4. 'We're talking about code that is 12 to 15 years old in its origin, so backporting that level of code is essentially not feasible,' said security program manager Adrian Stone during Microsoft's monthly post-patch Webcast, referring to Windows 2000 and XP. 'An update for Windows XP will not be made available,' Stone and fellow program manager Jerry Bryant said during the Q&A portion of the Webcast (transcript here). Last Tuesday, Microsoft said that it wouldn't be patching Windows 2000 because creating a fix was 'infeasible.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Says No TCP/IP Patches For XP

Comments Filter:
  • In other words (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mc moss (1163007) on Tuesday September 15 2009, @08:16AM (#29424601)

    "not feasible"

    yeah right, more like MS wants people to move onto Windows 7

  • 15 years old (Score:5, Insightful)

    by vxvxvxvx (745287) on Tuesday September 15 2009, @08:22AM (#29424653)
    While the code may very well be 15 years old, that does not really matter to the user. What matters is how long ago Microsoft sold the product. If they sell software today that uses some code written 15 years ago you should be able to expect security updates for some period of time. Now, had they decided not to patch software they haven't sold in 15 years that would be totally OK.
  • I agree (Score:2, Insightful)

    by ZekoMal (1404259) on Tuesday September 15 2009, @08:22AM (#29424655)
    When you release something and then release something else, you should stop supporting the previous thing so that everyone is forced to buy the new one, even if it isn't necessarily better. You know, kind of like if Sony told you to take your PS2 and stuff it if something went wrong with it because the PS3 is out now.

    MS hate aside, they're just doing what they've always done. We don't get our panties in a knot when they don't release a Win 98 patch, do we? With Win 7 on our doorstep, there is no reason for MS to be supporting three separate OS. Well, aside from customer service. I just sort of shrug my shoulders and deal with it. Anyone running XP knows they're doing it because Vista/7 don't appeal to them; deal with the consequences.

  • by kevingolding2001 (590321) on Tuesday September 15 2009, @08:23AM (#29424665)
    From the FA. (Emphasis mine)

    The same two bugs were ranked "moderate" for Vista and Server 2008, while a third -- which doesn't affect the older operating systems -- was rated "critical."

    Yes, it's easy to take the "We won't be backporting this fix" stance when the old OS isn't vulnerable in the first place.

  • by Ancient_Hacker (751168) on Tuesday September 15 2009, @08:24AM (#29424671)

    For some unfathomable reason, MS rates remote code execution as a LOW impact problem for XP.

    And somehow, the TCP stack, perhaps the most modular and with the most well-defined interfaces, can't be replaced wholesale.

    This makes no sense, unless they're trying to get people to spend $$$ on moving to "Windows 7",
    or as the congnoscenti call it, "Vista SP2".

    ooooohhh.....

  • In other news... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Temkin (112574) on Tuesday September 15 2009, @08:26AM (#29424693)

    In other news... 10 year old Linux 2.4 kernel patched yesterday...

  • Re:15 years old (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 15 2009, @08:27AM (#29424701)

    This is the key point. It doesn't matter when the code was written - if it was sold "today", it's current code. Current code (sold on the scale of an OS) should be fixed, or declared "broken" and not sold.

  • Re:Yeah, right (Score:5, Insightful)

    by commodore64_love (1445365) on Tuesday September 15 2009, @08:28AM (#29424709) Journal

    The Navy will simply subcontract-out to Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, and other defense companies to upgrade all their systems from XP to Windows 7 and fix any programs that "break" as a result. It will employ some 10,000 workers at a cost of 1.4 trillion dollars. Then it will fail to come-in on time, so they'll spend an extra 6 months and 0.3 trillion on schedule overrun.

    That's SOP for the government.

  • Re:Upgrade or Else (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jonbryce (703250) on Tuesday September 15 2009, @08:29AM (#29424713) Homepage

    The XP virtual machine is not accessible from outside as it talks via a NAT router. Any attack would need to come from the Windows 7 host machine, but if that was pwned, there are many other ways to attack the XP virtual machine.

  • the true cost (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mach1980 (1114097) on Tuesday September 15 2009, @08:33AM (#29424733)
    The true cost of releasing a patch is not in compiling and distributing the fix. The money is spent on verification. By not releasing the patch to XP and w2k my estimates are that Microsoft is saving man-years in verification.
  • by Archeopteryx (4648) * <benburch@@@pobox...com> on Tuesday September 15 2009, @08:35AM (#29424745) Homepage

    There is really no reason for XP on a netbook any more. You aren't using it a high end gaming platform. You aren't running Adobe Creative stuff on it.

    You are using it to run FireFox, edit documents, read, IM and send email.

    Linux has all that covered and is even document-compatible with Windows.

    I have a Eee 900A with a 32GB SSD in it running Xubuntu and I connect to a corporate Radius network, bluetooth tether to my phone, and even use the web version of outlook on it to get at calendars.

    Flash even works.

    The only thing I can't do that would be nice is play Netflix movies as the Moonlight package does not have DRM in it (and likely never will.)

  • Re:Yeah, right (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 15 2009, @08:42AM (#29424797)

    Your car has a 15 year warrantee I take it. And at your request your car manufacturer gave you all of the blueprints and circuit board diagrams and codes and sensor readouts and dyno information and design documents that helped them design and build your car right?

    It's infeasible to support code this old. They didn't say it was impossible. Infeasible means that yes, they could spend lots of their money fixing code that is 15 years old. They could also spend that money to try and make new software that performs better on the whole.

    Why do so many people dig into microsoft for something that every company does. In fact, Microsoft is much better at supporting their older software than most companies. (Take a look at Apple for example).

    Stop blaming Microsoft for not pandering to your individual needs. They are a company. They make a product. Heaven forbid they try to make money off of it instead of offering insane 15 year + support.

  • by erroneus (253617) on Tuesday September 15 2009, @08:46AM (#29424841) Homepage

    Clearly, this is something Microsoft is leveraging to get people to move to Win7. (You know, in some fonts "Win7" looks rather similar to "Win?") But I have to wonder:

    There will be large government installations that still need to use Windows XP. Will they get this impossible patch? Also, does Microsoft's support claims for Windows XP fit within this windows and if not, how can Microsoft pull a stunt like this? Doesn't this mean they are dropping support for Windows XP "early"?

    What really needs to happen is that "the public" needs to be aware of what is happening and, in Fox News style, be instructed how to feel and respond to it.

  • 2014 ???? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by m0s3m8n (1335861) on Tuesday September 15 2009, @08:47AM (#29424847)
    I guess these guys did not read: http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifepolicy [microsoft.com] XP extended support goes thru 2014 and supposedly covers security fixes. I would think this counts as a security fix.
  • Re:Unclear (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Drakkenmensch (1255800) on Tuesday September 15 2009, @08:48AM (#29424869)

    It is unclear how large a threat this is to the end user. However the fact that XP is being loaded on netbooks suggests that Microsoft has a revenue stream that it should protect by writing a patch if it is serious.

    The Coca-Cola Corporation also had a steady worldwide revenue stream with its nearly 80 years old original Coke formula, and everything went smoothly when it upgraded it to the improved and more delicious New Coke- Oh wait.

  • Re:Yeah, right (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 15 2009, @08:51AM (#29424901)

    No, no, .... recycle it. Please!

  • by nielsm (1616577) on Tuesday September 15 2009, @08:56AM (#29424955) Homepage

    There's no remote code execution possible with this on XP, only DoS. You can make the system essentially freeze while the packeting is going on but that's it. Only Vista and Server 2008 have remote code execution exploits from this bug.

    Also you can only exploit this if the machine has software accepting TCP connections. If you have an (application) firewall blocking all incoming connections with no exceptions (such as XP SP2+ has by default) there's no real problem.

  • Re:Unclear (Score:3, Insightful)

    by blueg3 (192743) on Tuesday September 15 2009, @08:56AM (#29424961)

    There are essentially no software liability regulations.

  • by jollyreaper (513215) on Tuesday September 15 2009, @08:56AM (#29424965)

    A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 miles per hour. The rear differential locks up. The car crushes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now: do we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field (A), multiply it by the probable rate of failure (B), then multiply the result by the average out-of-court settlement (C). A times B times C equals X...

    If X is less that the cost of a recall, we don't do one.

    The first rule of screwing the public is we don't talk about screwing the public.

    The second rule of screwing the public is WE DON'T TALK ABOUT SCREWING THE PUBLIC!

  • Re:Yeah, right (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Moryath (553296) on Tuesday September 15 2009, @08:57AM (#29424973)

    Translation: "Sales of Vista didn't go well due to Vista being crap, and Win7 isn't actually all that much better, so rather than offer a product people actually want we're going to exploit our monopoly and withhold necessary security fixes from others in order to force people to 'upgrade.'"

  • by 140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) on Tuesday September 15 2009, @08:59AM (#29425003) Journal
    Would we really accept the following situation?

    Today GM announced that the GMC trucks have some fundamental flaw and they are prone to explode randomly. GM said it wont fix the issue because the design is very old, and fixing it is unfeasible. When asked if they will when they stopped shipping trucks with the fatal flaw, GM spokesman said, "we have not stopped building or shipping them yet. We need to compete with the low cost competitors in the net-truck market and so we continue to make and ship the trucks, but we wont fix the safety issue. The drivers may wrap themselves in bags filled with thermocol peanuts to get some measure of protection.

    If not, why do we let Microsoft get away with it?

  • Re:15 years old (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mcgrew (92797) * on Tuesday September 15 2009, @09:01AM (#29425033) Journal

    Now, had they decided not to patch software they haven't sold in 15 years that would be totally OK.

    If a defect in a 1994 Taurus was found, Ford would recall the vehicles at great expense to them. Especially if it was a design defect in an engine that was basically used in an engine still produced for a 2003 Taurus.

    There is NO excuse for any software company to NOT patch security holes in any product, no matter how old.

  • Re:Yeah, right (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mabhatter654 (561290) on Tuesday September 15 2009, @09:02AM (#29425035)

    Except I bought a brand NEW license of XP on my Acer netbook less than 1 year ago. That means Microsoft received NEW payment for that license in the last year (and a bunch of others) so obviously they're making money on it. Unlike patching cars you don't have to make additional parts, once you fix the problem in one copy of XP it is near-zero to fix the problem for ALL XPs as they're exactly the same.

    My local stores still sell NEW netbooks with NEW licenses of XP on them... where's bug support for the new buyers?

  • Re:Yeah, right (Score:3, Insightful)

    by PBoyUK (1591865) on Tuesday September 15 2009, @09:02AM (#29425043)
    The point is, it's Microsoft's fault that the problem has been allowed to escalate. It's Microsoft that released a hideous "upgrade" to XP and allowed it continue well past the point where it should have been consigned to history. It's Microsoft that continues selling a defunct OS out of a scrambling fear to stop a competitor from making inroads into a netbook market that they had disregarded. How many millions of netbooks with XP on them have been sold over the past 2 years? MS apologists like yourselves harp on about how ridiculous it is to support a 15 year old codebase. But guess what, if you continued selling the product of that codebase until recently, then yes, the consumer has a right to expect it to be maintained.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 15 2009, @09:03AM (#29425055)

    Best Buy's recent "training" slide #9, where they say that "Linux is safer than Windows" is a myth, the "Real Facts" states (referring to Linux) 'There's no guarantee that when security vulnerabilities are discovered, an update will be created. Users are on their own.'
    Here's proof that that statement is really talking about Windows...

  • by curmudgeon99 (1040054) <curmudgeon99&gmail,com> on Tuesday September 15 2009, @09:06AM (#29425087)
    Dude, How often do you hear of Mac Viruses running rampant? The reason Microsoft has to constantly patch their crap is because it's terrible. Mac is much more solid and the whole issue goes away... You are showing your Microsoft-centric world view. In the Mac world, the need to constantly fix old mistakes just is not a problem. It's a non issue.
  • by oodaloop (1229816) on Tuesday September 15 2009, @09:08AM (#29425109)
    Interesting article. I work with the Navy, as well as other services, DoD, etc and have never heard this. I've also seen the DoN purchase proprietary systems this year alone, so at least some people haven't gotten that memo. Perhaps for areas where viable open source alternatives exist, I could see that, like for servers. But many of the workstation applications have no alternative. And with changes in command every few years, his successor is just as likely to continue with MS as not.
  • Re:Yeah, right (Score:3, Insightful)

    by tbannist (230135) on Tuesday September 15 2009, @09:10AM (#29425143)

    Apparently they mispronounced "unprofitable". Because that's why they're not doing it, they don't want to spend the money and plus they want everyone to (pay for the) upgrade to Windows 7.

    It's pretty much standard operating procedure for most corporations.

  • by hesaigo999ca (786966) on Tuesday September 15 2009, @09:11AM (#29425149) Homepage Journal

    Please..all underlying architecture has not changed from xp to vista, even though they want you to believe this...and for them to correct the wrapper on xp, would be trivial, however, they are testing the waters about phasing out xp, and want to see what the backlash will be like, seeing as no one wants vista garbage, and maybe even no windows7!

    I prefer, being given the opportunity of just paying a yearly fee to keep getting updates on a system that runs properly compared to their new bloated versions of vista etc... too bad no one can pick it up like a linux distro and start their own version of windows...

  • Re:Yeah, right (Score:3, Insightful)

    by AngryNick (891056) on Tuesday September 15 2009, @09:12AM (#29425159) Homepage Journal
    So I should install a firewall between my computer and the 29,000 other XP machines on my corporate network? Thanks MS!
  • Re:Unclear (Score:3, Insightful)

    by BlueStrat (756137) on Tuesday September 15 2009, @09:13AM (#29425169)

    It is unclear how large a threat this is to the end user. However the fact that XP is being loaded on netbooks suggests that Microsoft has a revenue stream that it should protect by writing a patch if it is serious.

    The Coca-Cola Corporation also had a steady worldwide revenue stream with its nearly 80 years old original Coke formula, and everything went smoothly when it upgraded it to the improved and more delicious New Coke- Oh wait.

    Well, this is just MS's own business practices backfiring. MS with XP, Vista, and Win7 is now competing with itself, so MS's own aggressive monopoly defenses/dirty tricks dept. is seeking to derail it's own most successful OS! I wonder if they'll try to embrace, extend, and extinguish themselves next?

    Yes kiddies, that was sarcasm.

    Strat

  • In other words... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by AlgorithMan (937244) on Tuesday September 15 2009, @09:14AM (#29425193) Homepage

    backporting that level of code is essentially not feasible

    in other words:

    buy windows 7, damn it!

    it's the same feigned argument as when they refused to port DX10 to XP to boost Vista sales - uh - I mean it was because it's technically impossible... it's just that hackers ported it to XP later....

  • by sheph (955019) on Tuesday September 15 2009, @09:16AM (#29425207)
    Don't run an OS that you can't patch yourself. Seriously, if we put our trust in these guys after they've proven time and again that they really don't represent our best interests we are the only ones to blame. It's about time to let MS go gently into the night alone and without a sleeping bag into a rabid pack of wolves.
  • Weighted Down? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 15 2009, @09:16AM (#29425211)

    I wonder if the enormous deployment of XP will be the concrete block that causes Microsoft to sink to the bottom of the river.

    If Microsoft could not get XP users to adopt Vista and Win7 does not get them to upgrade either, then XP customers' inertia will pull Microsoft down.

    Microsoft can never go forward with XP users rejecting any new OS it produces.

  • Re:15 years old (Score:3, Insightful)

    by kimvette (919543) on Tuesday September 15 2009, @09:16AM (#29425213) Homepage Journal

    And yet, it is still available through OEM channels. Maybe distributors are ordering it through a wormhole?

  • Re:Weighted Down? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by HikingStick (878216) <z01riemerNO@SPAMhotmail.com> on Tuesday September 15 2009, @09:22AM (#29425287)
    And with Windows 7 returning us to the age of malformed-packet-inducable-BSOD, I'm doing everything I can to maintain XP as our platform over the next 2-3 years, including a final round of PC purchases with XP downgrade rights in place.
  • Re:15 years old (Score:3, Insightful)

    by tepples (727027) <slash2006@noSPAm.pineight.com> on Tuesday September 15 2009, @09:24AM (#29425311) Homepage Journal

    This is the key point. It doesn't matter when the code was written - if it was sold "today", it's current code. Current code (sold on the scale of an OS) should be fixed, or declared "broken" and not sold.

    The article mentioned an effective workaround: turn on Windows Firewall.

  • Re:Yeah, right (Score:2, Insightful)

    by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Tuesday September 15 2009, @09:25AM (#29425329) Homepage Journal

    Sounds like an opportunity for a class action lawsuit. When you win, the lawyer will get rich and you will get a coupon for a discounted Windows 7 License.

    I hear that if you join the IEEE and wait a week, they'll invite you to join the PC Club for $10 off. It apparently gets you windows and other googies like visual studio. Perhaps after Windows 7 ships they'll get it. Students join for $32, so take an online or local class you've been waiting on to make it cost effective.

    Anyone know any other crafty ways to get Windows? :)

  • by icebraining (1313345) on Tuesday September 15 2009, @09:31AM (#29425409) Homepage

    Red-Hat is commercial product. They're moving to the best of the two worlds: a cheap commercial product which they *can* adapt to their needs.

  • Re:I agre (Score:4, Insightful)

    by zippthorne (748122) on Tuesday September 15 2009, @09:31AM (#29425411) Journal

    Because Apple stopped selling versions older than 10.5 nearly two years ago and the upgrade to 10.6 is thirty dollars retail. Microsoft is still selling XP licenses.

  • Re:Yeah, right (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Estragib (945821) <(moc.liamg) (ta) (bigartse)> on Tuesday September 15 2009, @09:44AM (#29425533)

    Alternatively, sue Microsoft because they're breaking a sales promise. Windows XP is officially supported ("Extended Support" including security fixes) until mid 2010.

    From Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:

    Windows XP Service Pack 2 will be retired on July 13, 2010, almost six years after its general availability. In accordance with Microsoft's posted timetable, the company stopped general licensing of Windows XP to OEMs and terminated retail sales of the operating system on June 30, 2008, 17 months after the release of Windows Vista. However, an exception was announced on April 3, 2008, for OEMs installing to ultra low-cost PCs (ULCPCs) either until June 30, 2010, or one year after the availability of the next client version of Windows, Windows 7 -- whichever date comes later.

    On April 14, 2009, Windows XP and its family of operating systems were moved from Mainstream Support to the Extended Support phase as it marks the progression of the legacy operating system through the Microsoft Support Lifecycle Policy. During the Extended Support Phase, Microsoft will continue to provide security updates every month for Windows XP, however free technical support, warranty claims and design changes are no longer being offered.

    They still sold/licensed XP as late as June 2008, which means that in Europe they're even in the mandatory two-year warranty period, regardless of whether they claim your warranty expired in the "Extended Support" phase. I hope they get sued to hell and back. And then back again.

  • Re:Yeah, right (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Mhtsos (586325) on Tuesday September 15 2009, @09:55AM (#29425687)

    Maybe they should stop offering XP licenses then. (So what if it makes some room in the market for ubuntu netbook remix)

  • Re:Yeah, right (Score:2, Insightful)

    by bpprice (612705) on Tuesday September 15 2009, @10:12AM (#29425917)
    If MS had simply created a standards-compliant browser years ago, then this problem wouldn't exist. By buying into a Microsoft-dominated vision of the future of computing (which will never come to pass) the government agencies and other business simply hurt themselves. A REAL browser upgrade is simply to one that meets standards. IE doesn't count in that regard.
  • by RMH101 (636144) on Tuesday September 15 2009, @10:15AM (#29425967)
    Apple's not a terribly good example here. You buy software AND hardware from Apple. That nice G5 you bought 5 years ago? No parts available from Apple anymore, sorry. Oh, and Snow Leopard's dropped PPC support so won't run on it. One thing Apple's never been is scared of breaking backwards compatibility.
  • by harvey the nerd (582806) on Tuesday September 15 2009, @10:16AM (#29425969)
    The fix is to NEVER buy Microsoft products, again. Microsoft is a defective corporation that has made a mint off of selling knowingly defective products and reselling the HOPE that these defects will be fixed in the next update but reneging again, and again, and again, and again. MSFT's example of no/low quality has become the new American metric of quality, its business plan, corroding our society's business and work ethic, a complete mockery of the consumer laws on mechantability, deservedly debasing our reputation for quality goods.

    Since the government has been ineffective in enforcing these laws, falling for MS legal theories, only insistent market rejection will [partially] protect a consumer from the borg. No doubt we will be seeing more FUD IP attacks, like SCO, traceable to MSFT. Good luck to all. Fsck MSFT.
  • by nacturation (646836) * <nacturation@gmai[ ]om ['l.c' in gap]> on Tuesday September 15 2009, @10:22AM (#29426061) Journal

    Ah, a car analogy. It's more like this: You go to the Honda dealership and take a look at their 2010 models and purchase a vehicle. You discover that the engine has a serious flaw in it and ask Honda for a fix. Honda refuses because that engine is based on an 8 year old engine design. Except in this case, instead of a Honda you bought a brand new netbook and instead of an engine it came with a new copy of Windows XP.

  • Re:Yeah, right (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Just Some Guy (3352) <kirk+slashdot@strauser.com> on Tuesday September 15 2009, @10:26AM (#29426131) Homepage Journal

    Heaven forbid they try to make money off of it instead of offering insane 15 year + support.

    FreeBSD started as a branch of BSD, which began around 1977. Somehow a group of volunteers manages to support 32 year old code.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 15 2009, @10:31AM (#29426197)

    and nobody here on slashdot notices that they actually explained that xp past sp2 doesn't NEED the fix, as it's written and documented.

    reason: it's a flaw that affects all systems that have a listening service of some form on the firewall. all server os have it, vista, win7 have it. but xp doesn't.

    so it doesn't NEED THAT FIX.

    stop slashdotting and bashing microsoft, all of you.

    (and i fully support that they don't care about pre sp2 windows xp anymore, as no one should)

  • Re:Yeah, right (Score:4, Insightful)

    by MobyDisk (75490) on Tuesday September 15 2009, @10:34AM (#29426235) Homepage

    This is not Microsoft's fault. Talk to whoever created a web site that only works in specific versions of a specific browser.

  • by enriquein (1637881) on Tuesday September 15 2009, @10:39AM (#29426291)
    Has anyone even cared to read the article, or at least the statements before nerdraging over this? The version of XP that won't get a patch is vanilla XP. Even as a developer I'd say it's ridicolous to expect a software vendor to patch something that has been fixed by a security patch that has been out for years now. That being said, I still use XP at home and I was outraged when I read the headline, but heading over to the article I stumbled upon this quote (which btw has been quoted a couple of times already, I'm only re-quoting in hopes that it will get read):

    In the revised advisory, Microsoft explained why it won't patch Windows XP, the world's most popular operating system. "By default, Windows XP SP2, Windows XP SP3 and Windows XP Professional x64 Edition SP2 do not have a listening service configured in the client firewall and are therefore not affected by this vulnerability," the company said. "Windows XP SP2 and later operating systems include a stateful host firewall that provides protection for computers against incoming traffic from the Internet or from neighboring network devices on a private network."

    Interesting enough, if you are that concerned about security, then you probably already installed at least SP2. Which means that your XP box is NOT vulnerable to this type of attack. I guess computerworld needed a flashy headline to get some clicks and ad revenue.

  • Re:Yeah, right (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Philip K Dickhead (906971) <folderol@fancypants.org> on Tuesday September 15 2009, @10:41AM (#29426315) Journal

    How does this rate insightful, when the fellow knows nothing about his topic?

    Weird assertion: "Sales of Win7 are down so low MS isn't even promoting it in most places"

    Newsflash: There is no retail release of Win7 yet.

    Good point? "underpromise and overdeliver. They have been doing the opposite and wonder why people hate them.

    Excellent diagnosis. MS should also learn how to sell to the business, preferably the CFO - not keep hyping 'features' to IT - often the most dysfunctional outfit in any org.

    Wild claim: "There are lots of groundbreaking problems that people will not touch with a 20 foot pole"

    C'mon! Cite a bloody reference, or just yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre!

    In reality you make claims about Windows 7 sales that cannot be backed up - and use unspecific criticism to support the claim, without evidence. Allow me to explain some basics.

    The bulk of Corporation and Government purchases? They already owned Windows 7, before it was released, through the Software Assurance benefit in their contract through their reseller. Microsoft measures "deployment", not "sales" with these folks... You know Home Depot, Wal*Mart, Hewlett Packard, General Motors, even Google.

    Despite not even being offered as a public, retail item, Windows 7 will do very well on the day it goes to market. Retail sales are a tricky number. Most are through OEM installation on new computers - not shiny disc SKUs. So, for 2 months, these have been ramped through the manufacturing channels.

    Let's talk in February - when the after-Christmas inventory purge is complete. Then we can compare notes.

  • by curmudgeon99 (1040054) <curmudgeon99&gmail,com> on Tuesday September 15 2009, @10:45AM (#29426365)
    Certainly not. Macs are made by humans. However, you must have lived on Mars the past decade to not notice the constant stream of viruses and other trojans that are so successful finding new exploits in the MS ecosystem. Though indeed problems do occur in the mac, they are on a vastly smaller scale than on Windows. So, though I did make an exaggeration by making an absolute statement, it does jive with reality. Having been a software developer professionally for 13 years and privately for 20, I stand by my assessment that MS makes crap.
  • Re:you are off (Score:5, Insightful)

    by somersault (912633) on Tuesday September 15 2009, @10:55AM (#29426515) Homepage Journal

    Your argument doesn't work either though IMO. For one thing software changes a lot quicker than car technology so I was being pretty kind saying 10 years for the car stuff. You might expect a dealer to service a 30 year old car, but you're probably going to have to pay through the nose for it (and I've read of at least one case where a dealer didn't have the parts to service a car because it was so old).

    XP is not the latest software, it is simply the most popular. Even if the majority of people in the world preferred the original VW Beetle from the 30s (or whenever it started production, I think it was in production for something crazy like 50 years), it doesn't mean that VW are still obliged to find and fix design flaws in it. You'd expect a product recall if a large problem was found in the latest incarnation of the Beetle sure - but we're not talking about the latest version, we're simply talking about the most popular version, and it's getting out of its support lifetime. I don't think any other version of Windows has lasted so long.

    In this case the WINE team or some group like that could probably produce a replacement version of the TCP/IP stack to stick into Windows, it would be the equivalent of having to buy 3rd party copies of OEM parts for an ancient car. Yes you can "keep it running", but the original manufacturer has stopped supporting it. MS are not shutting down all old copies of XP, they're simply stopping support.

    IMO it would be nice of them to keep supporting it, and some companies would do so, but they have no obligation to. And it's definitely not MS's style to be 'nice'.

  • by Volante3192 (953645) on Tuesday September 15 2009, @11:00AM (#29426555)

    The problem with all these analogies is Microsoft DID put a long warranty on XP, and SP2 is still covered.

    http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?LN=en-us&x=8&y=10&C2=1173 [microsoft.com]

    So the analogy here is, you buy a car. The manufacturer offers a 15 year warranty. 10 years in they find a flaw, they don't fix it and instead tell you to take it to a third party mechanic for a workaround at which point you find some lawyers and sue their contract breaching butt into next year.

  • by DrXym (126579) on Tuesday September 15 2009, @11:05AM (#29426621)
    it's the same feigned argument as when they refused to port DX10 to XP to boost Vista sales - uh - I mean it was because it's technically impossible... it's just that hackers ported it to XP later....

    It isn't a feigned argument. Having development resources, development environments, build engineers, QA testers, release engineers + assorted managers to fix vanilla XP when it's already fixed by a service pack is a monumental waste of time. Just keeping a shoestring operation running would probably cost MS tens of millions of dollars in resources.

    Of course they're not going to want to do it. I'm sure if you paid them enough money they might of course, but who could blame them?

  • Re:Yeah, right (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Binestar (28861) * on Tuesday September 15 2009, @11:17AM (#29426777) Homepage
    I know a lot of people who have pre-purchased windows 7 to have on release day. I didn't see that happening with Vista.
  • Re:Yeah, right (Score:4, Insightful)

    by TheRaven64 (641858) on Tuesday September 15 2009, @11:20AM (#29426819) Journal
    That's not really a fair comparison. The branch that is currently developed of the Windows NT codebase is Windows 7. The branch that is currently developed of the FreeBSD codebase is 8-CURRENT. Fixes are backported to 7-STABLE and 6-STABLE from there. FreeBSD 4 was the stable release series back when Windows XP was released, and it no longer receives updates. The last release from the 4.x branch was in 2005 and, although the RELENG_4 branch is still open for commits, it is not officially supported by the FreeBSD team. Of course, upgrading to FreeBSD 6 was free and easy for FreeBSD 4 users...
  • Re:Yeah, right (Score:3, Insightful)

    by shaitand (626655) on Tuesday September 15 2009, @12:15PM (#29427585) Homepage Journal

    Apparently the marketing trick worked. People are talking about windows 7 as if it were something other than vista when in reality its vista with a service pack and a rename.

  • Re:Yeah, right (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Steauengeglase (512315) on Tuesday September 15 2009, @12:29PM (#29427801)

    And ruin wars in foreign countries for Gallium? Now way.

  • Re:Yeah, right (Score:5, Insightful)

    by knorthern knight (513660) on Tuesday September 15 2009, @12:44PM (#29428001)

    > They would also be perfectly within their rights to stop making
    > Windows altogether and start manufacturing refrigerators...

    Knowing Microsoft, it'll probably be their first product that never freezes.

  • Re:Yeah, right (Score:3, Insightful)

    by JasterBobaMereel (1102861) on Tuesday September 15 2009, @12:58PM (#29428191)

    Microsoft gave people the tools to make IE6 only websites and pushed hard to get people to use them

    So IE6 Only Web applications are very common inside businesses (and the Navy)

    Microsoft have not given an easy upgrade path for any of these applications, and IE7/8 break them, and so it is 100% Microsoft fault ....

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 15 2009, @01:02PM (#29428233)

    it's the same feigned argument as when they refused to port DX10 to XP to boost Vista sales - uh - I mean it was because it's technically impossible... it's just that hackers ported it to XP later....

    Except those hackers consider the endeavor a failure, more than a year ago.

    From Here [blogspot.com]

    It is with great sadness that I announce the closing of Falling Leaf Systems, LLC. We set out over a year ago to provide users of both "old and unsupported" as well as "alternative" Operating Systems the ability to run the latest games for the PC. Unfortunately, Falling Leaf Systems was unable to achieve that goal.

    So, what, is it that we've redefined success to include failure, which means that the failed attempt to port DX10 to XP, now counts as a success and proves Microsoft wrong?

  • Re:XP is teh dead (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Khyber (864651) <khyberkitsune@gmail.com> on Tuesday September 15 2009, @02:01PM (#29428967) Journal

    The XP firewall is practically fucking useless to begin with. That still doesn't give them the right to jump out of a contractual support obligation 5 years in advance.

  • Re:Yeah, right (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Fulcrum of Evil (560260) on Tuesday September 15 2009, @02:39PM (#29429441)
    Sure, it's immune as long as you don't run remote desktop on your XP box. I mean, who does that?
  • by racermd (314140) on Tuesday September 15 2009, @05:28PM (#29431695)

    Here's more ammo - Microsoft offers a fix for Windows Server 2003 which is based on many of the same core components as Windows XP. You very well might be able to use the Windows Server 2003 hotfix on Windows XP without any modification. If I were in charge of patching desktops in a large corporate environment (and I was at one point), that's exactly what I would do (after testing that it works) while screaming bloody murder to my Microsoft rep. Then, I'd let the network guys know about it so they can lock things down at the gateway, as well, if it wasn't already.

    Translation: "By NOT fixing Windows XP like we should, we are artificially creating a reason for you home users to 'upgrade' to Windows Vista or Windows 7 and seriously pissing off our corporate customers."

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 15 2009, @06:11PM (#29432489)

    DX10 was never ported to XP in any significant manner. It was from this project: which hasn't been updated since January, 2008 [blogspot.com] as it is now defunct. If you want to try to make something of the work that they started (meaning actually getting it to easily allow you to use DX10 in a meaningful manner on non-Vista/7 platforms) they did release their work under the LGPL. But honestly, this isn't going anywhere because Microsoft was just simply not talking out of it's ass when it said porting DX10 to XP is not so trivial as some make it seem.

    Maybe you should look into things before you start throwing around statements you can't support.

  • Re:Yeah, right (Score:3, Insightful)

    by shaitand (626655) on Tuesday September 15 2009, @10:16PM (#29435073) Homepage Journal

    "The start orb now has a fade-in highlight effect when the user moves the mouse over it."

    Truly I was mistaken. Clearly these are the sort of things that distinguish one operating system from another and are not merely a fluff list.

    Its not the size of the feature list, but how you use it. Quite frankly, if fade-in highlight effects are even on the list then it is obviously a slow newsday.

Use the Force, Luke.

Working...