Microsoft extends updates for Windows XP security products until July 14, 2015 | Hacker News Reader

Microsoft extends updates for Windows XP security products until July 14, 2015

thenextweb.com

67 pointsfraqed122 comments

Skip the blog and go right to the source: http://blogs.technet.com/b/mmpc/archive/2014/01/15/microsoft...

"To help organizations complete their migrations, Microsoft will continue to provide updates to our antimalware signatures and engine for Windows XP users through July 14, 2015.

"This does not affect the end-of-support date of Windows XP, or the supportability of Windows XP for other Microsoft products, which deliver and apply those signatures."

From reading the blog post it doesn't look like security updates will be released. This means you can be infected by any new vulnerabilities, but can clean it up.

Yeah, the key words in the title are "security products": "antimalware engine and signatures".

...mostly because newer versions of Windows are so absurdly bloated, and just as slow as a decades old machine on ever more powerful hardware, that there is almost zero benefit to upgrading beyond XP.

Seriously.

A single core 1.5GHz Pentium 4, with 512MB of RAM, running XP delivers all of the same features that Windows 7 delivers with a quad-core 3GHz iCore7 and 8GB or RAM.

Notepad still chokes on 500KB of plain text wrapped to the window, Paint still struggles with images above 5000 pixels square, MS Office still takes eons to load, and one large document created by any particularly incompetant user will destroy 15 minutes of your day. One bad tab in a browser (any browser), and your entire system might grind to a halt for minutes on end. Starting and stopping windows services takes ages. Hard drives are still just as noisy as fuck, and god knows what the fuck is even being paged to disk anymore. Network traffic is relatively opaque, despite prettied up WYSIWYG spikes on logarithmic line graphs of monitors that provide meaningless information.

And then Windows 8 comes along and tries to disenfrachise the common layman end user even further by covering everything up with a touch-based interface even for machines that have no touchscreen, and follows Ubuntu's lead of serving up ads in a local file search.

If you want a version of Windows that doesn't embody this nightmare, call Microsoft directly and provision an Enterprise account with one of their helpful sales reps. What's the price tag? Why, the sales rep will inform you of that once you answer some simple questions.

Gee, I wonder why "enterprises" refuse to budge off of XP.

Have you ever tried running a modern browser on a machine with less than 2GB of RAM? It's not pretty.

But that sort of plays into my point.

With a 64 bit version of XP, and 8GB of RAM, you could fit the entirety of the operating system in memory, paging file and all. A clean install of XP, with nothing else included, occupies about 3GB of disk space. You'd still have 4GB of RAM free to run the system.

But as of Vista, the mandatory minimum RAM was escalated (from 64MB) to 1GB, and all to support a hideous UI, and not much else. The operating system sprawls across 64GB of disk space.

With every new version, it feels just as shitty as before. Despite umpteen quadruplings of hardware resources, shit still feels like it's Windows 95, fucking again. Nothing gets faster. Drop $3,000 a year, just to swim against the tide, with incremental changes in the appearance of progress bars, so that ugly animations can actually flash periodically as they steal your youth from you, rather than inflicting anxiety whilst freezing intermittently.

Every subsequent version of Windows fails to improve, continues to suck, and in some areas it actually gets worse than it already is. But christ almighty. After 20 god damned years. Why?

Your parent's point is that at least some of the bloat is not actually Windows. There was a time when Firefox occupied tens of megabytes in RAM. Today it occupies at least 500MB at all times, for me. So good luck with your 512MB Windows XP machine of yore- and that one isn't the fault of Windows.

An application installed at the option of the end user is not subject to the same rigorous requirements that an, oftentimes, compulsory operating system is subject to.

Especially when the operating system costs money, and lots of it.

I still don't see how Firefox bloating proves your point about Windows.

Maybe it has something to do with the background service Firefox has to bundle with their Windows installer now. You know, because Windows registries and Windows user policies are borderline retarded. But I agree, I'm really not sure why you decided bring Firefox into this discussion either.

dubfan was the one who brought up browsers.

Firefox with 30 tabs and several Youtube videos uses about 334MB So, while surfing just 5-8 websites at a time you'd have enough memory. Sometimes I'm even using a computer from 1996 which struggles even with xp – it's good enough as a compile server (Pentium II).

Yep. It must be a conspiracy between MS and Intel to encourage both software and hardware upgrades.

Windows sucks, but it's not much better with desktop Linux. It's painfully bloated compared to 10 years+ ago.

> It's painfully bloated compared to 10 years+ ago.

You can always install fvwm and boot into it. If you are so inclined, even CDE is open source these days.

That's totally not my experience. Yes, it requires more space/RAM, but in fairly regular for today 4GB RAM machines, Win 7/Win 8 fly compared to Win XP with 3GB RAM.

So, my anecdata sees yours. Any real data/benchmarks to share?

And don't forget they're actually stripping out tons of features from the newer versions too, and in the process also making it require more resources at the same time.

I run Firefox 24 (TenFourFox) on a 1 GHz G4 PowerBook with 1.25 GB RAM. It's pretty OK. Runs Gmail, Google Docs, most non-video sites fine (MacTubes to the rescue there).

It's definitely usable.

I am impressed by the fact that you're running such an old machine and have managed to avoid the rabid upgrade habits that apparently infect Mac users! (I myself have to sedate myself to overcome this). I suppose the "if it isn't broke, don't fix it" adage comes in here, and I am mighty impressed that you are continuing to live with such an old old machine. Is OSX usable on that? I recall 10.5 (and older) being horribly "crashy"; 10.6 was far better for me, but it was probably the desktop software I was using that was causing system instability. What's the battery life like?

It's running OSX 10.4 (Tiger). It's stable at least under my usage scenarios. Apple hasn't provided updates for this version in years. It's not my primary computer anymore, but it still works, is fairly rugged, has a nice form factor and keyboard feel, so I do keep using it fairly regularly for routine stuff like email, remote access to systems at work (ssh), etc.

>Paint still struggles with images above 5000 pixels square

Really? Just checked, created 6000x6000, painted some lines, made transformations to selection, resized actual big photo to this size. Everything is responsive.

> A single core 1.5GHz Pentium 4, with 512MB of RAM, running XP delivers all of the same features that Windows 7 delivers with a quad-core 3GHz iCore7 and 8GB or RAM. A Pentium 2 running at 300MHZ, with 64MB of RAM, running Windows NT 4, delivers all of the same features that Windows XP delivers with a beefy 1.5Ghz Pentium 4 with 512MB of RAM.

At some point old technology will be refreshed. How far do you want to go with this?

They will only update antimalware signatures, nothing else.

Direct link: http://blogs.technet.com/b/mmpc/archive/2014/01/15/microsoft...

Ugh. This operating system is almost old enough to vote. Can't they just let it die?

And provide more fodder for the botnets? Fun!

Those computers become fodder in July 2015. I think this delays the inevitable.

But there will be fewer of them in 2015 than today.

Hopefully, but I think the rate of change decreases over time. Increasingly, the computers left on XP will be computers that won't be updated. One example is the following: we have a computer in my lab we have several computers that are controlling lab equipment. They will not be upgraded, as the software won't work on any modern OS. Our option is to stop using tens of thousands of dollars worth of equipment or unplug them from the wall.

Sometimes such problems could be solved by reverse engineering and binary patching such software.

Which has a non-negligible cost. I'm thinking of dedicating an old laptop I have with XP to running some audio hardware, for which driver support ended with XP but which is otherwise in good working order. Of course I could find other products to replace it, but I'd rather use the money for something else.

I hope the rate of change decreases... but I think it's going the opposite way. We are generating enough e-waste as it is already without a mass trashing of otherwise perfectly working machines not powerful enough to run a newer OS. Each new CPU model released is already providing smaller and smaller improvements in performance. The day when hardware stops getting faster and bigger couldn't come soon enough; maybe that's when software will actually get more efficient and we'll finally realize what a wasteful approach we've been taking with software development for the past few decades...

They likely only extended support in the fear another company snaps up their corporate customers. There are plenty of alternative supported distros that would work on older hardware, different methodologies (IE BYOD), or virtualization strategies that could cause a domino effect in corporate environments in which they become less dependant on MS products.

I wonder how many these XP users are customers in any sense that involves money, it appears (from the outside) to be a worry about losing theoretical marketshare.

Heh, the machines still running XP in corporations are likely doing so because of the applications. If they were going to move to Linux, they'd just upgrade to Windows {7|8}.

Until linux can compete with an OS old enough to vote, we'll still need XP.

Even assuming that Linux cannot compete with XP (what does linux have to do with this discussion anyway?), it is still ridiculous to think that we need XP. We have OSX, Vista, Windows 7, and Windows 8....

Don't you find it interesting that all your supposed alternatives are paid software? (never mind the fact that Vista, 7 and 8 are almost identical OSes)

> Even assuming that Linux cannot compete with XP

But XP was a paid OS. I know it was paid for moons ago, but I don't think it is unreasonable to expect a $100 upgrade after 12 years. Alternatively, I think many Linux distros work better than XP will come August 2015.

The price of the OS you are upgrading to does not equal the total cost of upgrading your OS necessarily.

Just the time you spend not working and making backups, doing the upgrade and dealing with the various historical artifacts it leaves behind will end up costing more than the license.

The last time I upgraded my Fedora box (with fedup) I spent most of the duration working uninterrupted, then had the upgrade perform itself over lunch. The last time I did it on Ubuntu, I worked throughout the process, only having to stop for the reboot required to switch between major kernel versions. Minor kernel changes happen without rebooting.

> Alternatively, I think many Linux distros work better than XP will come August 2015.

I know you probably live on another planet, but, here on Earth, I've been using Linux and BSD since before Windows Vista was launched and I can tell you it has always worked much better than Windows on the same hardware. I'll give you I am not an idiot and I will not pick hardware that is not supported under Linux because the manufacturer doesn't want it to be, but, so far, my experience has been very nice.

Every once and then I use Windows - I've been assigned Windows computers on several occasions - and I always notice how convoluted, absolutely illogical and inconsistent an operating environment it is, with scars that lead back to its predecessor, that half-assed copy of CP/M. It's only suitable for human consumption because humans have been subjected to it since the early 90's and have adapted to it. Any human who has been freed from this torment will resent deeply having it forced upon them again.

I've got a really interesting example of this: I installed for my little sister (12 years) Kubuntu on her computer, now she has used it for half an year and she says it "just works". Using Windows XP or iOS at school is really difficult for her, because it is "so illogical", "nothing works as expected".

But then again, to a Windows user BSD and Linux are convoluted and illogical (I've been using Linux for years and still have no idea which folder a program will install to. Every distro handles it differently). And you can't say that BSD and Linux don't bear scars of their predecessor, a half-assed copy of AT&T Unix. Any time I have to hit the command line to do something that should really have a proper GUI over it, I'm reminded of its past.

Every OS has its warts. There's no need to trash talk software, it can't hear you.

> still have no idea which folder a program will install to

Why would anyone want to know where the program installs? I want to run programs, not look at them with a filesystem browser.

> And you can't say that BSD and Linux don't bear scars of their predecessor, a half-assed copy of AT&T Unix

It's more like AT&T Unix and BSD evolved together. There was a point when AT&T was selling BSD software with the copyright notice removed. And, if we are building copies, it's much better to be a copy of Unix than of CP/M.

> Any time I have to hit the command line to do something that should really have a proper GUI over it

I can't imagine what kind of activity you were trying to perform...

It's not trash-talking software. It's pointing out its warts.

The newer versions of Windows have much higher system requirements. Seriously, get out of your rich man's ghetto at least occasionally. Many people still run very old computers because they do not have the disposable income to buy new ones.

My computer can run the newest version of Windows but I have a Windows XP/Win 7 dual boot setup. I keep Windows XP around because of old games from the Win9x/WinXP era which do not work (correctly) on newer Windows versions. Unfortunately, there is no WindowsBox (i.e. a DOSBox equivalent) yet. I have tried virtual machines but the experience was not positive. They are for running old office apps, and tend to fail miserably at running DirectX games.

Rich man's ghetto?

Give me a break, we have to look to really the bottom rung classes of 3rd world countries to find people unable to scrape enough money together over a decade to buy half-decade old hardware needed to run a copy of Vista they would inevitably pirate.

Anyone in a first world country with internet access can find old PCs capable of running more than XP on craigslist or the local equivalent for literally a couple of dollars. Anybody without internet access won't be getting any support anyway.

Seriously, machines from 2009 are half a decade old at this point, they are cheap as dirt.

You "need" XP for your games? Well fine, keep it around, but expecting free support for that is nuts. Talk about a first world problem...

Unless this third world country is the south side of Chicago you're very wrong. Over the summer I worked with a non-profit who's only mission was to get computers into the houses of people. we were working with <2gb of ram and hard drives that topped out at 50gb, I don't even want to think about the processor.

I would say that doing it in small-scale bulk is a different animal than an individual doing it for them-self.

These machines seem like excellent candidates for running Linux with a light desktop environment. If the owners will not spend money on software that's Windows-specific (chances are they'll need modern browsers and Microsoft doesn't offer one for XP), why install Windows on them?

If you want people to use the computers, you need a version of Windows. I'm not saying that Linux machines are unusable, just that normal people won't use them.

Something like this, even people who don't have a computer at home have used one at cafes and the library, these people generally don't have time to waste on learning a new interface.

XP was released in Fall of 2001. At best, it's going through puberty and is about to have its bar mitzvah.

L'Chaim!

Windows XP is Jewish?

Only the antivirus/antimalware definitions are being updated. Windows XP and Office 2003 are still on track for end of life on April 14, 2014 (88 days and counting down...)

How old is BSD? Perl 5? XHTML?

It is not as if software spoils.

>BSD

OpenBSD's latest significant version was less than 3 months ago

>Perl 5

5.18.2 was released this year

>XHTML

1.1 was released a bit more than four years ago

The fact of the matter is that old, unupdated software holds everyone back.

WindowsXP was updated patch Tuesday.

The common term "bitrot" suggests otherwise

Bitrot typically refers to individual bits flipping (due to cosmic rays or device failure or whatever), which spoils one copy of the software if you do nothing to correct it, but isn't the same thing as a version no longer being relevant.

According to Wikipedia, "[OpenBSD] was forked from NetBSD by project leader Theo de Raadt in late 1995."

As long as it interfaces with anything else, it does.

If your software is completely isolated and self contained, sure, there's no practical bitrot.

But the Internet changed the software world - software rots out in the wild.

> Can't they just let it die?

Why?

If it aint broke don't fix it. What new features do the newer versions of windows provide that makes it worth spending money, and worse time to upgrade?

I don't use it myself but I know a TON of people on XP and the computer works fine, they use openoffice, a browser, and a few games.

Computers used to get faster all the time, that's not true anymore. They are now appliances - you use them till the break, instead of upgrading all the time.

In April, when Microsoft stops devoting resources to fixing security issues, it very much is broken.

The OS itself might not be broken (though I find 7 way better) but for some native app developpers like me the continued XP support is not welcome at all, since it means some of our customers will probably still not upgrade which means we still have to support them. And that means we cannot use all C++/C# features we want or have to resort to ugly workarounds. Just compiling C++ for XP means having to set a flag in Visual Studio, and if you want to do that for multiple projects automatically you've gotta do it system wide. Thats' not nice. Worse is .Net 4.5 is simply not supported at all, so no new goodies which are quite welcome.

That's your fault for choosing Microsoft as your development platform. You've put them in the driver's seat of your business, which is never a good thing.

Yeah! Who needs to target 75% of the desktop market!

http://www.netmarketshare.com/os-market-share.aspx?qprid=9

Just because Microsoft dominates the desktop market doesn't mean you have to use their tool chain when developing for it - this is especially true when creating commercial applications, not so much for creating business applications for internal use.

Microsoft often places restrictions on their tool chain for marketing rather than technical purposes and if you're a commercial software outfit you should be very wary of using their tool chain for that reason.

You should consider a broader point of view. Aka never say never.

Let me illustrate: first of all, I did not choose that platform directly (though if I could, I would, it is very hard to beat Visual Studio once you get into it), the branch we're in did. This is not some allround web/mobile app but a dedicated high performance desktop application that targets eg the automotive industry. And it's commercial. So if a big player (think Bosh/Siemens) asks you for software that runs on XP, you deliver it, simple as that. The other option is loosing them as a client, which would be about the worst mistake you can make in a startup you have to live from. And by far the easiest way to deliver what we need is by using Visual Studio, don't even try to deny that.

Btw another thing about automotive and other huge industries is the typical life-cycle of a product (which in turn is used to produce other, erm, products) is waaaay longer then your typical application. Hence, XP still kinda lives there in some places. Also a lot of the hardware used there is built to last, e.g. your typical National Instruments ADC easily lasts 25 years. Which sometimes leads to (sometimes rather bad) decisions like 'well, then the software should keep on running for 10 years straight from now with no updates. And that again adds to the reasons why XP is still around.

Can't your product just stop supporting XP?

Like web developers charging for ie6 compatibility, push your true costs of supporting XP to XP - if the conundrum "should we pay $200 more for software X or we can get Windows 8 and it's $200 off the software" seems like an easy answer given no other software in the picture.

Can't your product just stop supporting XP?

not really an option at the moment. We really thought about it, but then we were like 'it's only for one more year'. And then something else came along, see my other comment below.

I believe IE6 is the definition of broken.

I suspect Microsoft is planning to have Windows 9 available by then. I have a computer that is too old to run Windows 7, and was going to retire it. I'd rather not deal with Windows 8, and was considering replacing the old computer with a Mac or with a Linux machine. If Windows 9 is out by the time XP finally dies, I can stick with Microsoft Windows.

Update: It's just anti-malware signatures, nothing else :-( I really hope the new Microsoft CEO decides to extend XP support until Windows 9 is out so I won't have a tough choice come April.

I didn't know anyone liked using Windows. Especially when you can get almost any UX under the sun in linux, assuming any proprietary software you need runs under wine.

You are not thinking from an average user point of view. They don't know what any of those words mean, and even if they did they couldn't handle them; even installing windows is impossible for most people.

They don't have to know what those words mean. Most versions of Linux have everything that the average user needs right out of the box, and if most PCs were shipped with a popular user-friendly distro, 99% of people wouldn't even notice or care.

Admittedly if you want to run native Windows programs that aren't available for Linux then you're kind of screwed. Wine usually does a pretty good job but it isn't usable by the average layman at all. But it's getting better. The only programs that aren't usable on Linux nowadays are basically games, MS Excel and Photoshop.

Just curious, have you ever supported end users? My experience tells me that most people would freak out when presented with something as dissimilar as any linux variant after being a Windows user for a decade or more.

Really? I've installed it on a few relative's computers and they have all loved it and were able to pick it up completely on their own. Literally in one instance I installed ubuntu on my dad's laptop, and left the day after. He didn't even call me once for help on how to open something or do something (except for installing Skype, which he would have done anyway if it was a windows machine). It was all there. And these are people that don't know how to attach something to an email. IMO the biggest problem is getting the damn OS on the computer, everything after that is cake.

Plus, pretty much every linux distro has a sort of "start" menu, and a taskbar. What kind of problems are you encountering?

As a basic example, I've experienced multiple users yell at me or my technicians (this was at a previous job) because the icons on their desktop changed locations. I can't imagine how they would have responded if their start menu looked different. While my mom is much nicer than many of these ex-customers treated technicians, she still struggles to grasp basic computing concepts such as traversing through Windows Explorer and copying and pasting pictures from her camera to her My Pictures folder. I can only fathom how she would react if I reformatted her laptop and installed linux on it.

I would second this. Many office staff (who tend to be women) just use the computer because it is part of their job and don't learn their way around a system or learn the concepts of files etc. (I am not attempting to be sexist btw - just many people my wife work with in the office don't attempt to learn anything new and can't cope with basic changes to the system; they complain that Word isn't working because they have set the font to white and are typing onto a white background, for example. A web browser is "the Internet" and they don't know the difference between "Windows Explorer" and "Internet Explorer", and have no idea where their files are etc. etc. etc.) I can see why the iPad took off with its lack of usable file system from a user perspective, because you don't need to learn any of the stuff you would with a PC.

Icons that have moved is the end of the world for some people. Putting Linux onto a desktop would be like the end of the universe, despite how easy we find it to use.

You really did not have to mention that they were women in your post, that was totally unnecessary. And it is sexist, despite you're saying it isn't.

Apologies, it wasn't meant to be sexist but I don't have a comparison. In my experience, all of the women I have worked with have less PC skills than women (and my wife does too); my wife will happily work stuff out but there seems to be a vast swathe of people who don't, and who switching to Linux would be like the end of the universe; that was more what I was trying to imply.

This is not to say that there are many women who have skills that vastly outweigh men!

EDITED: To stop blabbering. I would update my parent post too for less offence but I have left it too long; apologies.

I get your point. But you could have omitted (who tend to be women)- and (I am not attempting to be sexist btw); you would have gotten the same exact point across.

Understood, and lesson learned!

Oh, wow. I had no idea it could be that bad. But IMO, those people are the outliers. You obviously have some sort of sampling bias since you work in tech support. I'm betting a lot more people would be able to adapt quite nicely. I mean, it isn't unfair to say that Linux Mint is more like XP than Windows 8 is, right?

And for the stubborn people, maybe there should be an effort to make a Linux distro that has the same exact look and feel of Windows. Native Wine support and all that jazz. :P

My dad installed Linux on the computer of a tech-illiterate poet friend of his, and she was quite happy with it.

Do you know his usage patterns? it's possible the only thing he uses it for now is to skype with you/his grandkids...

He trades stocks using Charles Schwab, watches Youtube videos and Skypes.

Where do you get those percentages? Having worked on tech support I can tell you that 99% of people aren't able to do more that click start menu and launch their favorite program. If the that is missing, they usually just give up and must be guided.

It's just a guess, based on my experience with exposing Linux to a handful of my extremely computer illiterate family members.

Sample bias. It's hardly surprising that people who have to call tech support aren't exactly tech maestros, but that's not necessarily representative of the general population.

After managing an outsourced IT firm for ~9 years, I've found that there are a huge amount of users, in a variety of industries, that function as deletes has stated.

I'm a mac user, but honestly I've always thought Windows 7 to be a good OS. I've never really used Windows 8.

Windows 8 is alright on a Surface but on a computer with a big screen, it is sadly very mixed up and a frustrating experience. Like iOS 7, you have no idea if anything is a button or is text until you wave your cursor/hand over it, and then some things are hidden until you do that, so for new users it is HORRENDOUS (even if they're competent Windows users), and for experienced users it is still pretty HORRENDOUS. But on a Surface, it is quite good!

I use Windows 8 on a computer with a big screen and quite like it. Sure the whole Metro UI thing is a bit of disaster, but it's easy to pretty much ignore it. And once you ignore Metro it's back to being a decent desktop OS that is basically Windows 7 with a few neat improvements.

That being said I agree that I wouldn't recommend it to an inexperienced user.

I liked using Windows. Keyboard shortcuts for everything and you could be pretty free from using a mouse most of the time. Being able to log into any machine on campus and accessing your files was great. Active Directory can work really well if it was set up properly. SMB worked well for a network drive shared amongst your team, especially for large linked resources, like spreadsheets or databases, while still using named drives as the path (S:\Finance\2014\Projections.xlsx). Dropbox is only ok if you're willing to carry offline copies of the entire shared drive with you everywhere you go (ie, 10GB is ok, but not 100GB or more; our shared drive was multiple TB).

Plenty to complain about, too, but that's true of all OSes, to be fair.

I think you really hit the nail on the head with the keyboard shortcuts thing. On Vista and beyond, they made the listview headers accessible by Tab in Explorer. This was STUPID.

So XP really is dead easy to use with keyboard shortcuts, particularly in Classic mode. OSX by default only lets you tab to text boxes, which you need to change in System Preferences, but can't get to without a mouse because you can't tab to the control to change it...... the irony......

I do, since 1992. Have used almost all other major GUIs, but at the end of the day, I always come back to Windows.

I once spent a rather long time trying to get Linux to work like Windows, but in the end gave up because it still didn't "feel right" to me.

I think *nix has an awesome CLI, but dismal GUI options, while Windows is just the opposite.

You're right about Windows CLI - PowerShell is dreadful!

Have you used KDE? It doesn't look like windows, but it is quite easy to use.

    >It's just anti-malware signatures, nothing else :-( I really hope the new Microsoft CEO decides to extend XP support until Windows 9 is out so I won't have a tough choice come April.

Out of curiosity, if the PC is chugging along just fine on a 13 year old OS, what non-antimalware update were you expecting to come along in the next 18 months that wouldn't force your hand in to moving to either Mac or Linux?

I don't want to connect an unpatched computer to the internet. It could be pwned or worse.

Disable/uninstall Adobe * and Java. Don't configure a default gateway on it and force all traffic through a proxy (on the local subnet). You're probably good.

I think it is not difficult to buy machines preinstalled with Win7. OEM Win8 Pro also lets you downgrade to Win7 Pro or Vista Business.

I really hope the new Microsoft CEO decides to extend XP support until Windows 9 is out so I won't have a tough choice come April.

They allow only a minimum of two years after a new version release before the previous version goes into extended support, which lasts for another five years. Rounded up to the nearest quarter, this makes the end of mainstream support for XP April 2009 and the end of extended support the now infamous April 2014 date. This is despite the fact that Vista RTM had plenty of problems and by the time XP entered extended support which was around the time Vista SP2 released, Win7 was just around the corner.

There is mention here of Windows 9 out in April 2015 http://mobile.theverge.com/2014/1/11/5298798/windows-9-relea...

If I were MS I'd provide no updates to laggards. They either can't upgrade or they won't upgrade, so what's the point? What does another year of virus definitions really get them when the Fisher Price OS can already be exploited in so many other ways?

I guess we also just learned the release date for Windows 9...

Millions of machines about to loose MS support. Millions of machines unable to run windows 7/8/9. Millions of people suddenly very interested in linux.

MS isn't worried that people won't upgrade. They are worried that they will.

Also, this may have to do with the Target malware as the afflicted POS machines appear to be running XP.

Not being a troll, but where do you think most of these people are going to buy these linux boxes? A quick search on bestbuy.com's top deals are all Windows 8 machines. I think these people are more likely do one of four things before migrating to linux:

- Do nothing and use an un-patched machine - Buy a Windows 8 machine - Buy a tablet - Buy a Mac

lol, I meant to say that they will be installing linux on the old XP machines, without buying new hardware. There are plenty of tiny distros that could keep those XP machines running safely for many years.

Fairly sure it's not shitty machines keeping XP alive... it's shitty custom software that only runs on XP and shitty IT departments.

>Shitty IT departments

There you go.

I don't think that there will be a sudden mass conversion. Look at the mess of Vista and the unpopularity of Windows 8. There wasn't a mass migration to Linux.

Home users will just buy an iPad because they realised that they didn't actually use Excel at home and so didn't need a PC. Businesses will just upgrade to Windows 7/8/9 and IT departments will moan/groan.

Millions of people who will continue to not care what OS they are running.

Got a client said ,their oracle form only work on win xp internet explorer 7. Thanks god for them . But to me it was disaster because to suggest web application compliance to internet explorer 7 :( Anybody knew about their activation for windows xp after april 2014. i still got laptop using windows xp.. 2008 laptop.

It is probably no coincidence this match the date of the end of support of Server 2003.

Microsoft should spin off Windows XP (perhaps in combination with IE6) and sell it to some private equity firm for exploitation. It would live on for centuries ;-)

Wasn't able to get Windows XP updates for months now. Not quite sure where the issue lies, but forums are roaring.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com