Set Your Watches For the End of Windows XP 712
An anonymous reader writes "In one year today exactly, Microsoft will shut down support for Windows XP. The deadline will prove a challenge for many of Australia's largest users of IT, all struggling to migrate to new Microsoft environments." Net Applications' chart of current OS market share figures shows XP only slightly behind Windows 7, even now.
Is this the point in time.. (Score:5, Interesting)
"I'd rather have software that works than software that's supported?"
Because it's about time.
Re:Is this the point in time.. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not going to work when it gets riddled with malware because of unpatched remote exploits.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It already is riddled with malware. Windows 7 and 8 still struggle with it. It's time to simply throw the entire thing out and start over with a more secure base (such as BSD/Linux)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah cause that's working so well for Apple. Oh hang on...
Re:Is this the point in time.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, outside of a couple of incidents and a parade of trojans (most of which require astounding stupidity to install, give admin password, then run)?
So yeah - I'd say OSX has a better record over its 12-year lifespan than Windows has had over that exact same lifespan.
OTOH, Linux beats 'em both.
Re:Is this the point in time.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe, just maybe, the MS user base (at around 94%) is a bit more appealing to malware/virus writers than OS X (at around 5%) or Linux (at 1%)...
Re:Is this the point in time.. (Score:5, Insightful)
You discredit with a false assumption. Android can't be compared to windows as they are different platforms with different qualities for malware.
Sensitive files, large bandwidth for DDoS attacks, processing power for bitcoin mining etc is a desirable trait for malware writers exclusive to the PC. Android may be bloody popular for the end users but it still is lacking in the same way as OSX is to the malware writers, namely it's not as profitable.
Re:Is this the point in time.. (Score:5, Insightful)
The main issue with sandboxing in the style of Android is that it doesn't actually work. Any application that needs to be able to modify documents has the 'access SD card' permission, and that gives it access to all other documents. There is an inherent problem with this approach, in that you either give such coarse-grained permissions that they leak like a sieve, or you have such fine-grained ones that 99% of users don't understand them.
Currently, the most common way of deploying Android malware is to find a fairly popular app in the Market (sorry, Play Store), download it, add the trojan, reupload it with a different name and a price of zero, download it a few dozen times and rate it 5 stars, and then wait for users to install it. You can usually even keep the same permissions as the original, as it is pretty much the norm for applications to ask for far more permissions than they actually need.
If you did this on Windows, you'd have screensavers saying that they needed full access to C: to run, and users would just click 'yes, show me the kittens'.
Re: (Score:3)
The Metro comments I've read focus on the user interface, mostly on the lack of normal desktop and start menu. Android has both (desktop with both icons and widgets, and a launcher button). One could easily skin the homescreen to look like Win95.
Note that I've never used Metro nor do I intend to in the short term, so I don't know about its other faults.
Re:Is this the point in time.. (Score:4, Interesting)
What you would do is you don't grant that permission at all. Instead the applications has to get permission on a file by file basis to files outside its sandbox.
That's what Apple does and it is pretty effective in getting people not to grant permissions.
Re: (Score:3)
You are talking about redefining a system service. That's an not an application anymore but an OS change.
So as I understand it, you're claiming that anything that operates on more than one file per user interaction and isn't full-text search or file archiving, such as Dropbox or revision control, constitutes "redefining a system service" and should be made artificially "a mild pain in the neck" to users. Would you mind if I quoted you on this position?
Use a developer SDK
In your opinion, should a device manufacturer have monopoly power to provide such a developer SDK for devices that it sells?
Re: (Score:3)
Linux is also massively more widely-used on servers than Windows, but remains far more secure.
And people running Linux (on servers or desktops) tend to be fairly clued-up technologically, so they don't click on "free smileys" links on dodgy websites.
Re: Bullshit (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
The two most notable trojans in the wild today being the one that compromises your system while telling you that it will let you run Java applications, and the one that compromises your system while telling you that it will let you view flash videos...
Re:Is this the point in time.. (Score:4, Informative)
lol
Yet another Linux fanboi who doesn't really know anything about security or security models assuming that the Unix model is ipso facto better. Sure, the Windows shell has promoted a culture of insecurity, but the underlying model is far more advanced than what traditional Unix has to offer. Linux still has plenty of security exploits, but they aren't often well publicized because of the heterogeneous nature of Linux distributions and the fact that these exploits generally affect a smaller number of people (because so few people use Linux in the same environments that Windows is used).
FWIW, in 2013, there have been 73 CVEs for Linux, 41 for Windows XP and 47 for Windows 7.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
FWIW, in 2013, there have been 73 CVEs for Linux, 41 for Windows XP and 47 for Windows 7.
Meanwhile, almost every non-technical Windows user I know has been hit by malware of some kind, while no Linux user I know ever has.
Re: Is this the point in time.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Is this the point in time.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Now imagine that non-technical user on a different OS. Probably would get the same results....it's a user problem, not an OS problem.
While that's true to an extent, most of them aren't installing 'Nigerian Kitty Screen Savers', they're just browsing the web and ending up infected through some remote Windows exploit.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
...no, the vast majority of malware for a very long time on all OSes has been through social engineering.
Re: Is this the point in time.. (Score:5, Interesting)
I clean up PCs for my clients pretty often - 1 or 2 malware infections per week. These are folks using PCs at work, doing their regular job, not downloading games, screen savers or much of anything at all. Because they hire me to keep their systems running they are (usually) fully patched, with working and up to date anti-malware. ...
They do, in fact, mostly get infected by zero day exploits - from compromised web sites. And the compromised sites have been mostly places they go to in the normal course of doing their job. Order entry sites for parts distributors, a web site for booking conference rooms etc. Windows XP and 7 seem about equally vulnerable.
When they ask how they could have avoided the problem I don't have any really good answer. Locking the PCs down so tight they can't install anything might help - but that's just not practical.
I have them keep regular system image backups so it's easy to clean up
Re: (Score:3)
Locking the PCs down so tight they can't install anything might help - but that's just not practical.
I think you just undermined your own argument there. It is precisely because people can and do install things that they get infected. If you made them run as non-root/administrator and didn't allow them to install anything themselves (which they really shouldn't need to do on a work machine) would they really still get so regularly infected?
Re: Is this the point in time.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Is this the point in time.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Now imagine that non-technical user on a different OS. Probably would get the same results....it's a user problem, not an OS problem. They are the ones that click on the African prince email links.
It's not just a user problem. In Linux updates are channeled through a central repository so when a user is prompted to update he will do it to pretty much everything in one go. In Windows he will only be updating system files which have not been the target of exploits lately.
If you look at the last few years of common Windows exploits they have been deployed via bugs in 3'rd party applications, mainly Flash, Java and PDF. It's a user problem that they don't keep those applications up to date, but a system problem that keeping them up to date is too difficult for the average Joe.
OS X is closer to Windows in this regard. They don't have a problem with PDF since the native reader works well and has not contained meaningful exploit vectors, but in regards to Flash and Java the situation has been even worse then Windows. Java updates have lagged badly, and there has been no update mechanism for Sun / Oracle Java. Flash updates have been issued at the same time as Windows but it took ages to have an update mechanism and when it arrived it was flaky and looked so dodgy that I would not dare use it. App store could have offered a central repository like it does for Windows, but none of the vulnerable apps are there, so it does not help.
The user is just one part of the equation. You can of course blame him, but there are some realities you have to accept such as the fact that the user does not understand what's going on with the computer, does not have the patience to read the dialogues etc. With Linux updating is simple enough that even an average user can understand it, but there are other areas where the user will be in trouble.
Re: (Score:3)
Your conception of security and its evolution on Windows NT is flawed. The NT family was designed from day one for multi user access and security. It looks like and followed a single user OS (Win 9x and friends), but the underlying kernel code base is entirely unrelated.
Re: Is this the point in time.. (Score:5, Insightful)
The NT family was designed from day one for multi user access and security.
If that is true (and it may well be) I wonder why so many applications require administrator rights to run, not just to install. I suspect that is because historically applications always did have administrator access, and so developers expected this to always be the case. That is why I think Windows (even the modern, multi-user aware versions derived from NT) is still hobbled by its single-user history.
Re: (Score:3)
The parent is correct. NT was always designed as multi-user. As to programs requiring admin rights, the fault there lies somewhat in both MS and Developer hands. It's all to common for Windows apps to ask about installing an app for 'all users', which would generally require admin access if it writes to the HLKM registry keys.
A simple example would be OS X and it's Application folder, which provides a central point for 'common' apps, which any valid user account can initially drop an app into, but then all
Re: (Score:2)
So you think they're becoming infected on Windows by opening a command prompt and running random DOS commands because someone tells them to?
Re:Is this the point in time.. (Score:5, Funny)
Hi,
I am an Albanian virus but because of poor technology in my country
unfortunately I am not able to harm your computer. Please be so kind
to delete one of your important files yourself and then forward me to
other users.
Many thanks for your cooperation!
Best regards,
Albanian virus
Re:Is this the point in time.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you know any non-technical Linux users?
You're wrong. For the last five years my wife is a happy CentOS user. And as non technical as you can get it.
Yes she needs help with her PC, but roughly the same as when she used Windows before that. And for me it's less support work because of the reduced amount of bloatware and exploits targeting Linux.
When she moved from IE to FireFox and Outlook Express to Thunderbird the only thing I had to explain was what multi-tab browsing is. For the rest it was to her "all the same thing".
The main reason that non-technical users don't use Linux is that you can't buy preconfigured Linux systems in the big-box stores.
But this starts to become a moot point, because non-technical users just use a phone instead of a desktop or laptop.
Re:Is this the point in time.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Ipso facto? You want an ipso facto? For a few years prior to, and after the release of XP, I tried to keep three sons and a wife on computers. It proved to be nearly impossible. There were constant problems with viruses. Tons of malware, some of it installed by the likes of Compaq.
I finally converted the wife to Linux. My "service calls" to her computer have been for things like failed hard drives, and "Where can I find an application to do blah blah?" Not a single virus. Not one malware. One scare involving Wine, but no lost or corrupted data, no infestations.
Did the wife suddenly grow technically savvy, overnight? Hardly.
Despite the claimed superiority of Windows security - only the tech savvy seem to maintain a healthy Windows environment. But, a housewife who doesn't understand the differences between file systems can keep a Linux installation running for years, with very little technical support from anyone else.
Ipso facto - Linux has done something better than Windows. I think it's due to diversity, as much as anything. You may believe it's due to relatively low numbers of users. Whatever - Windows is ultimately less secure than any Unix-like which I'm aware of.
When XP has become history, then we'll see how the numbers stack up.
Re: (Score:3)
Despite the claimed superiority of Windows security - only the tech savvy seem to maintain a healthy Windows environment.
You could have just not let her run as a user that was a local adminstrator. Doing that results a similar level of security as running on Linux as a non-root user.
This does make it harder to do some things, but the vast majority of users where I have worked are not admins on their local systems and do just fine at their everyday tasks (e-mail, browsing the web, creating PowerPoint presentations, etc.). Unless your "non technically savvy" wife is doing some things that require some actual technical savvy,
Re:Is this the point in time.. (Score:5, Insightful)
And how does she get updates to Flash, Java and other programs that have their own updater program that require intervention by a user with and Administrator login?
I'm sorry, but no. Running as a non-administrator only works if you have someone else who keeps the system updated.
Re:Is this the point in time.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Once so configured, the update process runs in the background on its own, with no interaction required by the user.
You can also assign rights to use the update program without giving full root access.
Re: (Score:3)
A generous person would call it "bloatware". A less generous person calls it malware.
A game icon was installed on the system, you click the icon, it connected to the internet, and offered you a bunch of games. The server that the games came from was a known advert and tracking server. I don't think ANYTHING that happened on that computer was NOT monitored.
Spyware, malware, trojan, whatever you want to call it - it was installed because someone paid Compaq to install it on end user's computers. It was su
Re: (Score:3)
the underlying model is far more advanced than what traditional Unix has to offer.
No. That's exactly what part of makes Windows so insecure.
The security model is so "advanced", convoluted, and complicated, that the implementation cannot possibly be correct in any realistic universe.
There are so many errors and holes in Windows' implementation of security, AND holes in administrator practices, that you are pretty much guaranteed things will be insecure.
Yeah, you can do fancy things like run d
Re: (Score:3)
Running services as different users is even implemented poorly on windows...
On unix, the root user can simply setuid() to another userid, so it is extremely common and most server processes do exactly this to run with the lowest level of privileges they can.
On windows if you go through the official API you must "authenticate" as the user to run the service, which means storing the plaintext password for that account on the box (you can extract it using gsecdump). While the idea of having to authenticate as
Re:Is this the point in time.. (Score:4)
Well, perhaps the problem is that the Windows security model is too advanced? I have yet to meet a Windows administrator that really understood those models, while I am fairly certain that any UNIX/Linux admin understand the OS security models in-depth.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll probably upgrade my last XP machine.
Probably to Ubuntu. The X41 Tablet is not worthy of Windows 7 or 8. And Ubuntu will be an upgrade.
THAT is starting over with a more secure base. See how easy that is.
Re: (Score:2)
It already is riddled with malware. Windows 7 and 8 still struggle with it. It's time to simply throw the entire thing out and start over with a more secure base (such as BSD/Linux)
So throw the old crap away and build it again upon old crap?
Re: (Score:3)
Theres a number of problems with your theory tho...
Noone runs linux logged in as root and this has never been a default, while many users run windows as admin.
Linux makes it much easier to update all your apps, on windows it is painful to update anything that didn't come by default with the os so many people don't bother.
As for IT depts, naivety is the problem... They believe that they should protect their core servers and that workstations are far less important... In a sensible network this would be true,
Re:Is this the point in time.. (Score:5, Insightful)
> It's not going to work when it gets riddled with malware because of unpatched remote exploits.
Take a look at whatever latest OS you are currently running. Is it bug and exploit free? If you think it is, then come back in a year and there likely will be a long list of vulnerabilities found during that time. And they didn't just magically appear, most of these vulnerabilities are in your OS RIGHT NOW and there is a good chance the bad guys have known about them for quite a while too.
Even a brand new Windows 7/8/Blue or Mac or Linux shouldn't just be thrown on the net without some extra precautions.
With good practices, and and extra precautions, even Windows 95 can be "secure". Many people will choose to take this path, manage security themselves, and continue to happily run Windows XP.
Re:Windows 95 (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually Windows 95 is becomming secure because it is so obscure and limited that most current attacks are unable to run on it. Attacks that used to run on it are pretty much dead, much like Stoned for DOS is now officially no longer a threat to anyone. I remember seeing the article about a year ago, so sorry no current link to the story.
Re:Windows 95 (Score:5, Insightful)
^^this.
If you're still running 16bit DOS, your machines are highly malware resistant today. I know of no virus or malware circulating currently that will infect your machine.
Re: (Score:3)
^^this.
If you're still running 16bit DOS, your machines are highly malware resistant today. I know of no virus or malware circulating currently that will infect your machine.
If you're running DOS you're not going to be connected to the internet, so unless a Russian cybermastermind sends you a free floppy disk full of ASCII porn in the post, how are you going to get infected anyway?
Re: (Score:3)
Or against a guy with a tank and an RPG...
Re:Windows 95 (Score:4, Insightful)
They are resistant to the average malware. They are not resistant to a targetted attack from a hacker practiced in social engineering, and sufficiently skilled to look up one of the old exploits, or to write their own trojan.
So what? No system is resistant to things like that.
Re:Windows 95 (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Is this the point in time.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Is this the point in time.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, that's right--weren't they too busy trying to create and hype up their own proprietary "Internet" at the time or something? The Microsoft Network? That damn passing fad... it just won't go away!
Re:Is this the point in time.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, that's right--weren't they too busy trying to create and hype up their own proprietary "Internet" at the time or something? The Microsoft Network? That damn passing fad... it just won't go away!
Hindsight is always 20/20 isn't it? At the time, the Compuserve and AOL models of the internet were the dominant ones, i.e. walled gardens where you didn't really ever venture out into the wild internet. It would have been natural for Microsoft to think they could provide an alternative version of this, and it would have been a real money spinner (imagine if every Windows user had to pay MS $20 a month or whatever).
Re:Is this the point in time.. (Score:4, Insightful)
That's the thing though, it doesn't work. At least not particularly well.
XP was fundamentally a transitional OS. It's half-way between the bad old days of Win9x/DOS where there was no security and practically everything ran in the kernel, and Win Vista which institutes a proper security model along with evicting most drivers to the user-mode. The stability improvements alone made XP a vast improvement over Win9x, but it's still not a secure operating system.
The reality of the situation is that users (business and consumer alike) need to suck it up one more time and move to Win6.x. Yes it's painful, yes it's expensive, and yes, learning is hard. But Win6.x is the first Windows OS that implements a modern (and dare I say *nixy) security model. It's the first Windows OS with good 64bit CPU support. It's the first Windows OS with a graphics stack worth half a damn. Heck, it's the first Windows OS that doesn't run IE as Admin.
We must make the transition now, just one more time. After that, if users want to stop on Win6.x, that's okay. Even Vista perfectly fine since it implements all the major security features that make Win6.x necessary. Like any other OS there will come a time when Win6.x grows old and tired, but unlike XP Win6.x was built to last. It was built to be secure and even now, more than 6 years after its launch it doesn't have any significant faults. It's built to withstand the world that comes with the age of the always-on Internet.
But we can't stop on XP. XP is fundamentally broken and was never meant to be used like this for this long. Use Win 8, use Win 7, hell, use Vista, but please don't stop on XP.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How is this +5 insightful? Windows XP is Windows NT 5.1. It is not half-way to Win9x/DOS, and Microsoft had a proper security model for ages even before it was released.
Yes, it's outdated in many other ways, and it would be nice if the default security settings were even more aggressive, but it is not fundamentally broken.
UAC == sudo (Score:5, Informative)
Microsoft had a proper security model for ages even before [Windows XP] was released.
Except this proper security model wasn't enabled by default. New accounts defaulted to administrator, not limited user, and there was no concept of a "sudoer", or a limited user who can gain permission to perform an action through a relatively secure user interface. Windows Vista introduced UAC, which emulated sudo, and Windows 7 refined it.
Re: (Score:3)
As a Linux user for nearly a decade, this is one arguement that at least is reasonable from the Windows side. WinXP isn't made to be secure. Windows Vista+ is. I probably should get a copy of Windows 7 to keep around... ...but Metro??? I truley hope that Microsoft can backpeddle on that UI. (Though my guess is that they can't because that would mean they no longer support their newest design interface.)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
If they have to struggle... (Score:2)
Not Supported ... (Score:5, Insightful)
XP will no longer be "supported" but it will certainly still be used by 10's of millions of computers a year from now (and two, and three, and more). It's also a certainty that a stationary "unsupported" target will get a lot of attention by exploits and black hats.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The question is, what happens when M$ turns off the XP license server. If you try to reload with a valid key, how do you get it to activate ?? ...Is this the First M$ product going out of 'support' that needs this ??
Re:Not Supported ... (Score:4, Informative)
The activation servers will still be there after 2014.
See:
http://www.pcworld.com/article/250774/will_i_be_able_to_activate_xp_after_2014_.html [pcworld.com]
It's easy! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's easy! (Score:5, Insightful)
I really don't understand the slow uptake to 7.
Because XP does everything most people want and there's no compelling reason to switch?
Re:It's easy! (Score:4, Informative)
Compelling reason my ass. Stop being cheapskates.
My reason for using XP for my main workstation is because I really hate a lot of the interface changes in newer versions. The file requesters are different for little good reason, and the root directory is no longer the desktop. Lots of new, useless rubbish pollutes the GUI and much of it can't be removed. Everything is dumbed down. I couldn't care less about the Start menu, but the actual taskbar and pinned icons drive me nuts. The composited video system for the new GUI works MUCH more slowly, so most of my windowed multimedia and video software runs slower on Win7. It constantly thrashes the hard drive just as hard as Win95 did. The toolbars aren't as configurable. Selecting default colors is a pain (I do sensitive color work, so I want my desktop and taskbar to be neutral grey).
Everybody tells me I'm nuts for not loving Win7, but that's because they don't know what I do. If I just surfed the web, Win7 would be fine. As it stands, I can only use Win7 on my laptop, and I need XP to get real work done. I put off upgrading from Win2K to XP because XP was slower and I didn't really "need" it. I'm avoiding Win7/8 because those OSes are actually a downgrade for my requirements.
Re: (Score:3)
>A flashy UI that is actually very nice, very useful in many ways (Aero peek, preview, etc.) and doesn't look like Microsoft subcontracted PlaySkool to design it.
In both XP and Win7 I've set the theme to "Windows 2000", and then turned off the theme service. Unsurprisingly, this makes both OSes look like Windows 2000. Aero and all other effects are turned off (in System -> Properties -> Advanced -> Performance, set to "Adjust for best performance"). While bland, this saves system resources (n
Re: (Score:3)
Not so easy when it's an entire company with no real IT planning and everyone has random programs and random data that all needs to work for everyone to do their job.
Re: (Score:2)
Because it breaks a bunch of stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Software shouldn't break if it's written properly instead of using undocumented procedures?!
Uh, yeah.
Meanwhile, we're talking about Windows, where 'if it works, ship it' is the order of the day. Lots of things that worked on Windows 95 or XP break on 7 (for example, I have to run many old games as administrator because they write to the Program Files directory).
Re: (Score:2)
So? Knowing that stuff "created properly" just works does not make the stuff you actually have work. There are plenty of applications people actually have with various issues, most often is simply writing in now-protected or moved locations, and replacing them costs money... real money. If there's no prospect that replacing them will bring in more real money, or save real money, then it is an uphill battle in many business organisations.
Re: (Score:2)
You're assuming APIs don't change and become incompatible with older revisions over time.
Re:It's easy! (Score:4, Interesting)
Core 2 duo computers are the oldest pc that can run windows 7 with any sort of acceptable slowness. Computers cost money. You do not have to be an IT professional to do the math here. We have plenty of pentium 4s in my environment still. No one wants to buy a brand new pc for some intern or browsing the web and basic word processing when XP runs perfectly well on those same p4s.
Re:It's easy! (Score:5, Interesting)
I put a clean install of 7 on my 2003 laptop with a 2.4Ghz P4 and it ran faster than it did with a clean install of XP. Aero didn't work but I never expected it to. Vista, on the other hand, was pretty slow.
Re: (Score:2)
Laziness? XP to Vista I understand, Vista was a pile of poopy fart poops. But 7 [is] even more reliable than XP.
You don't have to qualify your impressions like you did... that's pretty much what everyone would say in IT department too. Verbatim.
Re: (Score:2)
I will upgrade to 7 (because Bioshock Infinite does not run on XP), but first I will upgrade my PC, even though the old one would be able to run the game. The reason is that it will be really inconvenient to move to another OS (because over the 5 years I have used this PC I made many little settings I forgot about, installed a lot of little programs) and for that I need to have the old and new OS running at the same time so I can use the new OS, but if I have some problem and am in a hurry I can just use th
Re: (Score:2)
XP -> 7 is entirely worth it. I'm no IT professional
You didn't have to mention that 2nd assertion
Re:It's easy! (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm no IT professional and don't know the logistics of it all but when I upgraded it was like day and night.
Hi. I am. I am right now on a team migrating a 140,000 desktops and laptops from XP to Windows 7. I do know the logistics. Those logistics is what is holding up the switch over, not the arguments for upgrading from XP. As it turns out, a lot of businesses don't have the deployment infrastructure to do this quickly. Despite tools having been on the market capable of this for a decade, it turns out that it's not a simple matter of "flip the switch. Eat bacon."
With our own rollout at about 56% and about 38 weeks minimum to completion, even corporations with a lot of extra cash (I work for a financial company. A big one.) have run into significant logistical problems switching to the new operating system. Internal meetings are already being held in board rooms about how to manage the switch from 7 to "another" operating system; Reluctant to jump to Windows 8, but cognizant of the fact that this process will have to be repeatable and successful. We aren't even done with this project yet.
This right here is the real story about the "End of XP"; It simply can't be switched off that fast by corporations. The technology, shockingly, moves faster than bureaucratic change. And that's all it is. That's what's keeping XP sitting in your rearview mirror with it's middle finger stuck out like it's an upset teenager in mom's minivan. Logistics. Pure, simple, logistics.
"We here in IT know you love Windows 7. I apologize for the delay. As soon as I'm done taking the burned out husk of my last attempt to get this to you on a shoestring budget out of the oven, I'll get right on to the next one." Meanwhile, at Microsoft Headquarters...
Re: (Score:3)
XP -> 7 is entirely worth it. I'm no IT professional and don't know the logistics of it all but when I upgraded it was like day and night. I really don't understand the slow uptake to 7.
If I have a machine running XP just fine, why should I spend money to upgrade to Windows 7? What "got to have it" feature is included in Windows 7 that isn't in XP?
The only reason some of my machines are running Windows 7 is because of DirectX 11. If you don't need that, there really isn't anything that Windows 7 offers that can't be done in XP.
Re: (Score:3)
You admit that you are no IT professional; so as I am one that is currently involved in a project to migrate my company to Windows 7, I'll try to explain it:
You can upgrade one system to Windows 7 by jamming in a DVD and probably be fine, given that you are the administrator of your machine and can fix any prompt issues that may occur, install drivers to fix any issues that arise with those, and update any applications that are stubborn and don't want to run.
I cannot upgrade 80,000 systems at over 2,600 phy
Re: (Score:3)
What dialogs are you using to shut down? I go to the start menu and click "shut down."
Re: (Score:3)
What dialog to shut down? There is none in 7! If you mean because some program is holding things open that's the fault of software not properly handling the shut down signal... and XP would warn for the same things.
Customizing the splash screen? I hadn't tried... I haven't had to reboot except for updates, because the sleep/resume works flawlessly (unlike XP).
It's more convenient because there are a lot of good drivers for 7 in Windows Update... like my ancient HP printer.
I like the desktop background sl
Who calls MS for support? (Score:5, Funny)
I have never heard of anyone doing this.
Re: (Score:2)
The only people who call MS support are MSPs and shops which depend on Microsoft's products working on their servers. They don't call for support on desktop issues, usually - it's usually more cost effective to just wipe it and put a newly imaged system out. No, it's the 'big ticket' systems - mail, DNS, web servers, etc. - that get all the support calls to MS.
Re:Who calls MS for support? (Score:5, Funny)
Nobody. They call you.
This is Windows support calling, your system has an infection.
Linux Desktop. (Score:2)
OK, it's become a joke now, but seriously, if we get our act together, we can have a viable replacement for XP for people who just want to browse, email, skype, google, play music, and the like. That's 90% of what people do.
Yeah, line-of-business apps. Except that people don't run those at home.
Even though I like Unity (the LTS version, not the braindead initial versions), I'd have to say a classic Mint desktop is likely to be more familiar to an XP refugee.
Re: (Score:2)
Anything is good enough for that, people are buying tablets for that reason which 99% of them run a *nix version at the core anyway.
Yep. Linux on track to outsell Windows by 2014 (Score:3)
"Is an Android device a computer?", you might ask. An Vista machine with a dual core 1.3 GHz processor and a GB of RAM is always counted as a computer, so I see no reason why a machine with the same specs running Linux, Android or any other distribution, isn't also a computer. So the way I see
Aftermarket Support? (Score:2)
If your company runs a couple thousand XP boxes, what kind of annual subscription would you be willing to pay to keep them going?
Time machine please... (Score:2)
But will business be ready (Score:2)
And if you think people are clinging to XP (Score:3)
Wait until Microsoft tries to force everyone to move to Windows 8.
Cheers,
Dave
Finally Microsoft makes it work, then comes Win 8 (Score:5, Informative)
With Windows 7, Microsoft finally made it work. They developed the Static Driver Verifier [microsoft.com], which uses proof of correctness techniques to insure that drivers won't crash the operating system, and made everybody run their drivers through it before they were signed. That eliminated about half of all crashes. Anything else was Microsoft's fault, and they knew it.
Microsoft also developed an internal tool that takes in crash dumps and matches them to other crash dumps. This made it possible to digest a huge number of crash dumps and tie them back to the cause.
With those tools, Microsoft finally had the ability to make the thing work. And they did. Windows 7 is much more reliable than previous versions of Windows.
Then, having finally produced a solid desktop system, they found they were being clobbered by the tablet industry, and came out with a desktop interface borrowed from a phone. Sigh.
My watch is set (Score:3)
for January 19, 2038. Because that's when Windows XP stops working
Windows 7 is more secure than Windows XP (Score:3)
But that also means that all those insecure apps they are using on XP won't be allowed to work the way they expect to when they move to WIndows 7.
Re: (Score:3)
What other choices do I have?
Mac's are light years ahead of Ubuntu and Ubuntu is moving backwards. There's only one realistic answer to that question.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, ReactOS! :]
Re:Great time to switch those computers to Ubuntu (Score:2)
An even better question they should be asking is "What other choices WILL I have?". Obvious to some, it is becoming more obvious to the masses that Microsoft has no intention of backing down from what it has done with Windows 8. Windows 9/10/11 etc, will be more of the same if not worse.
What options will you have 10 years from now when you need to do a critical desktop computing oriented task - tasks such as spread sheets and word processing
Re: (Score:2)
Support is in reference to updates for security patches.
In one year, any flaws discovered in Windows XP will go unpatched by Microsoft.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
More a sign that the world is abandoning Microsoft.
Microsoft Corporation (MSFT): Windows 8 Has Failed, Now What?
The rise of tablets and smartphones has shaken up the once dominant “Wintel” PC paradigm. In an attempt to re-establish its supremacy, Microsoft Corporation (NASDAQ:MSFT) designed Windows 8 to be a hybrid operating system, useful on a variety of platforms.
But Windows 8 adoption has been poor -- consumers seem baffled by the changes. Meanwhile, Windows tablets are selling poorly, and Windows Phone remains in fourth place.
http://www.insidermonkey.com/blog/microsoft-corporation-msft-windows-8-has-failed-now-what-110483/ [insidermonkey.com]
Re:Microsoft Abandoning Windows (Score:4, Insightful)
No - just that yet again MS produced a crap version of Windows. *If* history repeats itself, then Windows 9 will be considerably better than Windows 8
Re: (Score:2)
classic looks of windows 98 used in enterprises will be gone for ever.
Say what?
http://i.imgur.com/njNKxBg.png [imgur.com]
--
BMO
Re: (Score:3)