Windows Vista Enters Extended Support 330
yuhong writes "On April 10, the second Tuesday of April, Windows Vista will exit Mainstream Support and enter Extended Support. This means that no-charge (free) support will end, no further service packs will be created, nor will future IE versions (such as IE10) be available for Vista. Also, no new non-security hotfixes will be created or be available without an Extended Hotfix Support Agreement (EHSA). This will last for 5 years before support for Vista completely ends in 2017."
Re:Long live XP (Score:2, Insightful)
in two years and your company will either be running botnets or migrating to a newer version.
all xp updates end april 8th, 2014
Re:Euthanize XP (Score:5, Insightful)
When are they going to put a mercy bullet in XP
You're implying that you're doing it a favour killing it? There's a reason it's still widely used. It works. I have yet to find something I can't do on the system. Every application runs on it save for the few that Microsoft's marketing department have deemed unsuitable like DirectX 11.
You shoot the race horse AFTER it breaks a leg and becomes useless, not while it's still in good racing condition.
Re:Euthanize XP (Score:5, Insightful)
This is assuming you are in the racing business, and not in the business of selling equestrians.
Re:I still have an Win 2000 Pro (Score:2, Insightful)
I have an old Win98 box with some historical files in poorly-supported legacy file formats (WordPerfect/Paradox/Quattro) that I fire up from time to time. A mere half-gigahertz processor, quarter-gigabyte of RAM, and it's still so responsive it feels like it's anticipating my commands.
Re:Who gives a flying fuck? (Score:4, Insightful)
The two of them?
I know you're joking but there is a boatload of people out there running Vista... just about everyone I know who bought a laptop before W7 was released (excluding the people who are adept enough to install Linux, XP or W7 themselves) are running Vista. These people don't even know they're running Vista; to them it's just a computer and as long as they can write their emails, look up stuff on the internet, play FreeCell and occasionally write a document they are happy and oblivious to the fact that they're using Vista.
Re:current os vista - next os will not be M$ (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Don't euthanize the able-bodied (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's see... Windows 7 is many times more secure than XP, has a better UI with better usability, better handling of wireless networks, better handling of external projectors, can be upgraded to IE9 (vastly more secure than IE6/7/8, even if you don't use it)...
XP needs to die. It really, really does. Win7 is better in almost every single way. Even if you only consider security issues, XP needs to die, and XP users should update to Win7.
I use Win7 at work and at home. Every time I have to go back to using XP, it's like trying to work with mittens on, or use stone knives and bear-skins. It's so ancient and obsolete and difficult to use I can't even stand it. Win7 is just better in every single way I can imagine.
Re:Long live XP (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm sure there are a lot of Fortune 500 companies still running XP. The biggest reason to upgrade by far, as has always been true for Windows, is for newer hardware support, or when security patches stop. Actually, I'm sure almost no one actually upgraded even to Windows 7, they just bought a new computer with it.
Re:Does this mean even more pown'd windows boxes? (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm pretty sure that the average user stopped seeing new features added sometime around win98 or 2000. Other than UAC in vista, I can't really point to a feature that my mom uses in win7 that wasn't there in 98.
Re:Who gives a flying fuck? (Score:4, Insightful)
The two of them?
There are more Vista desktops than Linux desktops out there.
Re:What Really Needs Support (Score:1, Insightful)
Here's some advice:
By writing "M$" you are letting Microsoft win. It makes you sound like your only reason for hating Microsoft is because they sell goods and services. Instead of writing "M$," try explaining specifically what you find objectionable about Microsoft and their products. By providing specific reasons and justification, you may be able to foment change in the individuals and organizations who currently consume Microsoft products toward the products and ideologies you prefer.
I offer you this advice because, as an old man, you should spend your remaining days more wisely than as a fat freetard faggot.
Re:What Really Needs Support (Score:5, Insightful)
There needs to be a new Godwin's law for when people use the term "sheeple", like when a person uses the term "sheeple" it automatically ends the argument because that person is too stupid to acknowledge they themselves are sheeple in some respect.
I mean in all honesty who thinks they can hold down a full-time job that requires a college degree and write an entire OS then support that OS for almost every instance that requires it and push those updates as fast as you can. Microsoft is in business because their specific OS is widely adopted and hasn't been supplanted because they have commercial partners and they are more than just hobbyists. Open source is /.'s mantra and all but really, open source can't solve everything and brings its own set of problems to the table (i.e. security...etc). I know you're an AC trying to get a rise but what is deemed "support" here is literally updates sent to the OS through the update tool besides the over-the-phone support as the article seems to imply. The fact it is going into the shut-down cycle this soon proves how successful Win 7 was well as how big a failure Vista ended up being.
Re:Euthanize XP (Score:4, Insightful)
Corporate IT runs XP because it runs a set of time-tested apps, that are either custom or extremely vertical. Updating to Windows 7 would mean:
1 - Upgrading licenses for the OS and probably office suites
2 - Possibly upgrading hardware
3 - Upgrading licenses for all your third party software
4 - Upgrading licenses for your web-based software to run in a newer browser (this is why so many companies still use IE6)
5 - Possibly upgrading server licenses to work with Windows 7
6 - Validating and testing to make sure all the new software works together (no small feat for large companies - think VPN clients competing with new active directory configurations, new authentication mechanisms, new IE mechanisms talking to new web app stacks that are probably custom, etc...)
7 - Re-train your support staff so they know the new software inside and out
8 - Finally you can re-train your users to use the new stuff
All that, for what? You're replacing a system that's known to work with an unknown quantity. The new functionality you get had better be WELL worth it, 'cause it's going to cost you.
Re:Don't euthanize the able-bodied (Score:2, Insightful)
Let's see... Windows 7 is many times more secure than XP...
This.
Off the top of my head, Windows 7 has ASLR, better DEP, UAC and the associated integrity levels (IE Protected Mode), and 64-bit vastly improves the security of the address space protections. A fully patched WinXP is still much easier to get malicious code to execute than a fully patched Windows 7, especially 64-bit.
Roundabout car analogy (hang with me on this): In the 1950s automotive engineers thought the safest way to build a car was to be as stiff as possible. People were getting impaled by their steering columns in a frontal collision, and the shock of the impact was being directly transferred to the human body. Today they build cars with crumple zones and buckling steering columns, even engine blocks which are designed to rotate down in the event of a crash. The energy of the impact is designed to be directed as far away from the human occupants as possible. This has produced measurable safety improvements and reduced injuries. WinXP is like driving a car based on the 1950s mindset. Microsoft didn't even take security threats seriously until SP2. Windows 7 was built with technologies under the hood to keep the user measurably safer in the event of an attack.
No I'm not a MS shill, but I do support primarily Windows systems at work. We have a MS kool-aid drinker at work and I thought he was nuts when Vista and Win7 first came out. I was one of the ones calling for MS to not end support on XP back then. But now that I understand what Microsoft actually did with Win7, I have changed my mind. WinXP does need to go.
Re:What Really Needs Support (Score:4, Insightful)
While you are correct with regards to supporting OSes in perpetuity, Microsoft has actually created an atmosphere of "perpetuity" to their OSes since cutting the cord with the command line all those many years ago. They wanted in the embedded device market... so they made XP work on o-scopes, etc. Well, those OSes need to last much longer than your grandma's computer OS, and Microsoft is increasingly aware that if they're not going to support their OS, someone will have an OS ready that will... and large, monolithic customers (the DoD for one) do not simply update their OS when Microsoft tells them to.
(Open Source has created much more secure and wonderful OSes than Microsoft could dream of creating, but that's for another post... and many folks did it while holding down a full time job.) They did it without forcing or requiring things to exist so they could invent a market, and in spite of Windows' sales numbers, there are many more Linux OSes run by the masses than ever before.... it's not your father's geek OS... :) Windows could cement their dominance by not dropping their OSes off the radar so quickly, but their hubris with regards to "the desktop" has shown many imperfections in the last few years... imperfections that are filled by other companies and their products.
Microsoft's OSes are manufactured to be compatible with each other. Windows 7 is just a better handled bug-fixed Windows Vista. For the most part, like Apple, Microsoft "obsoletes" their OSes artificially. The move to the NT-based kernel has solidified Microsoft's position with a real OS (anything before NT was a toy OS...), however with that comes the inevitable support dilemma that either helps Microsoft sell more OSes and keeps the package "fresh" so everyone will want the new OS with feature X, or it helps Microsoft maintain its existing base by supporting the OS so it won't be ditched in favor of the more plausible alternatives (more plausible and useable alternatives than we've seen in the history of computing I might add.)
While I agree that manpower is something Microsoft must contend with in their OS roadmap, I do not believe they are "hurting" by supporting two or three versions of their OS for at least bug fixes and the odd security patch. I'd be more inclined to believe that it is a substantial burden if Windows were a substantial rewrite each release... with the XP to Vista transition, far less of the OS was rewritten after many features promised were pulled (and still haven't seen the light of day... like WinFS, etc.)... but that is indeed a bigger difference than Vista to 7. But if they support Vista, they won't make any money peddling 7 (and soon to be 8...) That's not to say XP and Vista are twins... that's just to say that the underlying codebase (stuff that would benefit from bugfixes and security patches) is not as different as the boys at Redmond would have us believe.
My personal feeling is security and bugfixes shouldn't be something that gets dropped because of manpower shortages... after all bugfixes and security patches are repairs to something you already sold an unsuspecting public. Saying "well, buy 7 and that'll be fixed" is purely marketing... there is no technical reason to abandon an OS after a short time... Apple's just as guilty... requiring Lion for features that would work find for Snow Leopard. Apple's got the same problem Microsoft had with XP... it's good enough for most people. There's a realistic limit to support for an OS version, as we even see that in Linux, but Microsoft and Apple seem to be falling into the revenue grab trap... and the "sheeple" are not happy about it as they once were... even with smaller investments (with the OS costing more than most PCs that run it), people aren't keen on shelling out yet another $200 for an OS upgrade that just changes the second digit when you do "Ver" at the command line.
I don't believe the failure of Vista has caused Microsoft to "speed up" their shutdown cycle... I believe their increasing irrelevance in a changing market is pushing them to devote more and more resources to things they traditionally would've had "sewn up" in the bad old days of pre-convicted Microsoft.
Re:I still have an Win 2000 Pro (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed. I have several games here that require Voodoo graphics support (glide or minigl). Good luck getting that in a VM.
There are also copy protections that require the floppy.
What would be useful is if Microsoft and other vendors did a "final release patch set", and offered it to the public for all foreseeable future. So even if you can't get support anymore, you can at least install the latest official patches, no matter how old those patches are.
As it is, you can't - Windows update won't work, and the patch download pages either have been removed, or made inaccessible. If you have to reinstall, your only options are to either go unpatched or to pirate the patches.
I don't expect Microsoft to support OSes forever. But I do expect them to not remove patches that have already been released. The hosting costs are negligible - an entire Win98 patch set probably takes less space than a single typical Tuesday patch, and will be downloaded by far fewer people, so the bandwidth costs are pretty low too. And, face it, it's not like customers are going to run Windows 98 instead of Windows 7/8 either, so there won't be any lost sales. Just some goodwill, which they are short on.
Re:What Really Needs Support (Score:2, Insightful)
Hey, son, stop giving advice to older dudes, because it looks bad for both of us... also, if filthy words worked, this world would work perfectly, wouldn't it?
Look, kid. Nobody knows how old you are, and nobody cares. The software and stack people use DOESN'T MATTER. The only thing that matters is whether you use your skills for the betterment of mankind. Sometimes that means writing Linux kernel patches, sometimes that means selling Windows software.
The fact that you don't get this means you are immature, uneducated, unwise and unworldly. A fucking child.
You have to be a man before you can be an old one. Grow the fuck up.