Windows XP Diehards

[lrixford]

Here is my take on XP. It was published today which makes this forum post apropos. You might love XP, however there are some real serious reasons to upgrade. Read on.

The Upcoming Windows XP Apocalypse

 

[Robert Barney]

Windows 7 seemed like a huge improvement over XP. Why would someone still want to cling to XP?

I'll respond to this post, because it asks a question that the article actually answered.

Did any of you read the article?

 

[moonlightandmargaritas]

I'm a Windows XP Diehard. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

In golf, there were hickory shafts, then steel shafts, then titanium shafts.

 

[Robert Barney]

From the original article:

The title - Perspective: Microsoft risks security reputation ruin by retiring XP​

Why?

seems willing to risk torching that hard-won reputation by pulling the plug on Windows XP.

Microsoft plans to ship the final public patches for Windows XP on April 8. After that, it will not deliver fixes for security vulnerabilities it and others find in the 13-year-old operating system.

The result, even Microsoft has said, could be devastating.​

So who cares?

Windows XP powers a massive number of personal computers around the world. According to Internet measurement company Net Applications, 29.5% of the globe's PCs ran XP in February. Using estimates of the number of Windows PCs now in operation, that "user share" translates into approximately 488 million systems.​

That's more PC's than the population of the U.S.

And a lot of those PC's are unable to upgrade to Windows 7 or 8.

Soooo...

They ain't going away anytime soon.

 

[lrixford]

If you read around XP will still be supported with patches for parties that pay a large fee. This includes organizations that run mission critical systems on XP such as governments and banking. (A large % of ATMs run XP.) the move is more directed to the consumers. Since large organizations can pay for added support, and many IT departments have seen this coming for a while and upgraded, the move is purely an business decision (more on that later) and will not have the impact that your article implies will happen against Microsoft's 'security focus' They have given a viable path to come into compliance, upgrade. The same choice was given to 95/98/2000 users. Finally, I doubt any consumer extensions will be given. From people I know inside Microsoft the decision is both business as well as technological. They are looking to the future and supporting the past is becoming problematic to the developers (and the bottom line). Of course, this is just my educated opinion.
XP computers will still run, just be unpatched.

 

[Robert Barney]

If you read around XP will still be supported with patches for parties that pay a large fee. This includes organizations that run mission critical systems on XP such as governments and banking. (A large % of ATMs run XP.) the move is more directed to the consumers. Since large organizations can pay for added support, and many IT departments have seen this coming for a while and upgraded, the move is purely an business decision (more on that later) and will not have the impact that your article implies will happen against Microsoft's 'security focus' They have given a viable path to come into compliance, upgrade. The same choice was given to 95/98/2000 users. Finally, I doubt any consumer extensions will be given. From people I know inside Microsoft the decision is both business as well as technological. They are looking to the future and supporting the past is becoming problematic to the developers (and the bottom line). Of course, this is just my educated opinion.
XP computers will still run, just be unpatched.

Wow, a thoughtful post.

I suspect Microsoft is going to be forced into extending the service period regarding security patches. Given the HUGE mistake that Window 8 was, with 8.1.1 heading back in the direction of Windows 7, Microsoft cannot afford to tick off consumers too much more.

Next thing you know people will be buying Apples and running products like Parrallels, and leave Microsoft in the dust.

 

[Josh]

I suspect Microsoft is going to be forced into extending the service period regarding security patches. Given the HUGE mistake that Window 8 was, with 8.1.1 heading back in the direction of Windows 7, Microsoft cannot afford to tick off consumers too much more.

I have no idea where you get your information. Apple can't afford to tick off it's customers because that's what they have going for them. Microsoft has most of the computing world locked down. Even windows 8 has more user space than OS X.

Usage share of operating systems - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For all the pomp and circumstance about how much of a threat all these XP machines are going to be under, they account for less than a third of all desktop browsing; a number that is only going down.

Microsoft has an operating system nearly all computer manufacturers use, that performs most tasks reasonable well, and allows computers to be sold with a standardized operating system for less than three hundred bucks brand new. They're winning on price/market power, not innovation and user experience.

Let's think about this reasonably, if you had a car that ran great for 13 years and then risked having an issue, no reasonable person is going to run back to the manufacturer and say "damn it Ford, this truck went 200k miles over 13 years and then I had to get a new one, what a total rip off, I'm never buying another Ford." Of course this isn't a great analogy because we're actually talking about a piece of software vs the actual equipment manufacturer, but the point remains the same; you are under the impression that Microsoft "cannot afford to tick off customers too much more". Anyone particularly savvy will lean towards linux, anyone moderately savvy and that likes Apple is going to join that camp, and the rest of folks are going to get whatever version of windows that comes on their computer when they buy it.

Let's also pause for a moment and consider this:

You think that after almost a decade and a half these computers are now going to become unsecure. The reality is that most botnets are infected windows machines of all versions. XP in and of itself isn't intrinsically secure; if security is really the goal, Windows XP alone never got you there.

 

[Robert Barney]

I have no idea where you get your information.

It's not information, it's speculation based upon things like:

The Morning Download: Windows XP Puts Electric Grid at Risk - The CIO Report - WSJ

which says:

One of the reasons XP is still predominant in the industry is that it could cost a utility more than $100 million and several years of work to upgrade an outdated system. Contractual obligations is another reason. In most cases, software vendors have included clauses in contracts that would void the warranties if utilities try to upgrade the operating system themselves, said Patrick C. Miller, founder of the nonprofit Energy Sector Security Consortium and a managing partner at The Anfield Group, a security consulting firm.​

So who is to blame if critical XP based systems get hacked, and important services are taken down?

Do you think Microsoft will escape liability?

What do you think their lawyers are telling them?

How many employees does Microsoft have working on this project?

And then there is this:

http://money.cnn.com/2014/03/04/technology/security/atm-windows-xp/

which says:

Major banks are now cutting special deals with Microsoft to extend life support for their Windows XP machines while they replace their fleet of ATMs.​

So if Microsoft continues security support from some XP machines, but doesn't provide it to the rest, doesn't that create a hell of a legal liability problem? You possess the fix for the software, but don't provide it to people who are then harmed by an operating system that you created, that you could have fixed, but decided not to fix.

And why are you doing that. So people are forced to buy one of your newer products. The motive is purely profit based.

And what about poor people who were given a computer with XP, and who can't afford to pay for a new computer. What about those poor [literally] people? Isn't this a malicious attack on the impoverished?

I just can't wait for the litigation, which is why I think Microsoft will have to extend.

 

[Josh]

It's clear you're never going to change your opinion and I'm not going to try to change it. To answer your questions:

IF the XP based systems get hacked, it's on the utility company. They've decided to use technology that's almost a decade and a half old and refused to upgrade, their lawyers should be pointing out that they've had years to plan ahead for this and if they wanted to avoid having issues they had more than enough time to react. Any competent security professional would also tell them that Windows is inherently insecure to begin with so relying on OS security provisions alone is a dangerous plan. Everything points to the companies/entities using these machines to hold the liability, not their unreasonable expectation that Microsoft should support this indefinitely.

I also have no idea how many employees Microsoft has working on this. I don't see any judge or court believing that Microsoft hasn't already exceeded the amount of support they could reasonably be expected to provide on this product.

Time will tell though. If it comes out that Microsoft does suffer any type of penalties for this decision in terms of any adverse court decisions please be sure to come back and update this thread.

 

[Norwayguy]

So is it to late for me to express my outrage over the lack of updates to my operating system of choice what I grew up with MS-DOS?