Microsoft extends Windows 7 support to 2020

Earlier today we reported that Microsoft had quietly extended its official support for Windows Vista by five years, until April 2017. Now it appears that Microsoft has done the same thing with the current version of its PC operating system, Windows 7. While its mainstream support is still scheduled to end on January 13, 2015, Windows 7's product support page now says it will offer extended support until January 14, 2020.

As with the Extended Support for Windows Vista, users of Windows 7 can expect to get security patches for the operating system for another eight years but don't expect to see massive patches for new features and content beyond January 13, 2015.

With this new support date extension, that means Microsoft might be officially supporting a whopping four of its Windows operating systems before too long. It plans to launch Windows 8 sometime before the end of 2012. Once that happens, Microsoft will be offering official support for Windows XP, Vista, 7 and 8 all at once. Microsoft has been urging businesses who still use Windows XP (and there are a lot of them) to upgrade to Windows 7 as soon as possible. Windows XP support will end on April 8, 2014.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Report: SSDs will run into performance issues in future

Next Story

Iran's internal Internet launch postponed until June

49 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

I don't get how this is news. This is just re-affirming what Microsoft has been doing since Vista's release. The OS gets 5 years of mainstream support, and 5 years of extended support. This hasn't changed since 2007. Why is it suddenly newsworthy now?

its not as if windows 9 is going to suddenly drop all this metro nonsense, if anything its gonna be more so. seems crazy not to go for windows 8 because the further down the line you go the worse/better its going to get. personally, i'm going to embrace windows 8.

ngc891 said,
its not as if windows 9 is going to suddenly drop all this metro nonsense, if anything its gonna be more so. seems crazy not to go for windows 8 because the further down the line you go the worse/better its going to get. personally, i'm going to embrace windows 8.

You may be right, but surely by 2020 we'll have something better than Windows anyway. Will we even be using desktops anymore by then? I'm certainly not going to embrace Windows 8 in any case; I'm not going to use something I don't like.

eilegz said,
I hope they extend windows XP support, hell even a SP4 would be great...

Not. Going. To. Happen. It's time to move on from xp.

Just some wild speculation but maybe Windows 8 is geared towards the consumer crowd for this release and Microsoft then focusing on Windows 9 to bring the sorts of updates that enterprise customers want thus those customers are going to stick with Windows 7.

Raa said,
Great move by MS, but they didn't need to extend Vista support.

They didn't. I don't know what that previous article is stating. Vista has 5 years of mainstream support (2007-2012) and 5 years of extended support (2012-2017). This has been the case since the OS was released. Windows 7 is the same way, and always has been, and I can only assume Windows 8 will follow suit.

bjoswald said,
Yay! Windows 8 doesn't even exist to me now. ;D

Windows 8 may as well be Windows Me, I think a lot of people are going to pass on it.

TRC said,

Windows 8 may as well be Windows Me, I think a lot of people are going to pass on it.

I know i'm passing, unless someone wants to buy me a tablet or a touch screen monitor.

CMG_90 said,
Good. Not everyone wants a touch experience on a desktop...

You are right. Many of us have intense data entry requirements, as part of our jobs, i.e., data entry. Try that using one of two fingers on a touch screen. Oh...how many companies are going to spend the money to add touch-screens to their systems and maintain keyboards and mice?

Windows Vista is in desperate need of a Service Pack 3. Ever done a fresh install of Windows Vista with SP2? You have to download like 700 MBs of updates. I still have it on one of my computers which I have no reason to upgrade since it is working well, would be nice if Microsoft could just release a roll up.

Unfortunately, not going to happen. Microsoft doesn't issue service packs for an OS after it enters extended support (which is still happening in April); if they were going to issue SP3 for Vista before then, we'd have seen a beta release by now.

Aaron44126 said,
Unfortunately, not going to happen. Microsoft doesn't issue service packs for an OS after it enters extended support (which is still happening in April); if they were going to issue SP3 for Vista before then, we'd have seen a beta release by now.

Well then, I guess I just have to turn to my updated Complete PC Backup when I need to reinstall.

Mr. Dee said,
Windows Vista is in desperate need of a Service Pack 3. Ever done a fresh install of Windows Vista with SP2? You have to download like 700 MBs of updates. I still have it on one of my computers which I have no reason to upgrade since it is working well, would be nice if Microsoft could just release a roll up.

You can download Windows Vista SP2 with all hotfixes integrated.

techguy77 said,

You can download Windows Vista SP2 with all hotfixes integrated.

He is talking about hundeds of thousands of hotfixes released after SP2. Vista REALLY needs an SP3. SP2 was in 2009. It's been 3 years and it takes time to integrate or install hotfixes.

Mr. Dee said,
Windows Vista is in desperate need of a Service Pack 3. Ever done a fresh install of Windows Vista with SP2? You have to download like 700 MBs of updates. I still have it on one of my computers which I have no reason to upgrade since it is working well, would be nice if Microsoft could just release a roll up.

This is a guess, but I think Microsoft don't want fresh, new Windows Vista installs to be nearly as convenient as fresh, new Windows 7 installs.

techguy77 said,
Yay, long live Windows 7

Because you've already decided you're going to skip Windows 8, right
(Can't be more obvious when looking at your posts..)

Oh, prejudices are so FTW

Please don't extend XP's support... please don't extend XP's support... DAMMNIT, MSFT, WE NEED PEOPLE TO GET OFF XP! But, you're gonaa do it, aren't you?...

MASTER260 said,
Please don't extend XP's support... please don't extend XP's support... DAMMNIT, MSFT, WE NEED PEOPLE TO GET OFF XP! But, you're gonaa do it, aren't you?...

Xp still works pretty well.
I use it daily.

MASTER260 said,
Please don't extend XP's support... please don't extend XP's support... DAMMNIT, MSFT, WE NEED PEOPLE TO GET OFF XP! But, you're gonaa do it, aren't you?...

I work for the government where we have 5000+ computers on XP SP3.
Most hardware here don't even support windows 7.

MASTER260 said,
Please don't extend XP's support... please don't extend XP's support... DAMMNIT, MSFT, WE NEED PEOPLE TO GET OFF XP! But, you're gonaa do it, aren't you?...

Don't worry, that won't definitely happen.
XP is far too obsolete, it'll die in peace.

boumboqc said,

Xp still works pretty well.
I use it daily.


horses and carts still work well, but I've gotten used the timesaving features my car gives me. Oh and I'm glad that other horse and cart users dont clog up the roads

boumboqc said,

I work for the government where we have 5000+ computers on XP SP3.
Most hardware here don't even support windows 7.

I believe the argument is really about the lifecycle of the machines themselves as well. If a machine can't handle Windows 7, then it must predate the release of Vista (same requirements) which released in 2006. So already, those machines are at least 6 years old. By the time XP's support runs out, the machines will be 8 years old. By that point, it's really time to upgrade to new machines anyway. The problem is companies that are so entrenched in XP that they still format new machines and install it instead of migrating to Windows 7.

To give some perspective, if the same lifecycle is applied, then its the equivalent to still running Windows 3.1 machines by the time XP came out.

Kushan said,

I believe the argument is really about the lifecycle of the machines themselves as well. If a machine can't handle Windows 7, then it must predate the release of Vista (same requirements) which released in 2006. So already, those machines are at least 6 years old. By the time XP's support runs out, the machines will be 8 years old. By that point, it's really time to upgrade to new machines anyway. The problem is companies that are so entrenched in XP that they still format new machines and install it instead of migrating to Windows 7.

To give some perspective, if the same lifecycle is applied, then its the equivalent to still running Windows 3.1 machines by the time XP came out.

The Problem is, while even though Windows 7 is the newest and greatest you can be just as productive on XP as you can on Windows 7 for the most part.

While Windows 7 might have UAC and a newer version of directX companies really don't see a reason to spend the money on upgrading to Windows 7

I have a Pentium dual core running in my house. it runs XP am I going to put Windows 7 on it? WHY!? When support ends I will be forced to but for what I need XP runs great.

Kushan said,


I believe the argument is really about the lifecycle of the machines themselves as well. If a machine can't handle Windows 7, then it must predate the release of Vista (same requirements) which released in 2006. So already, those machines are at least 6 years old. By the time XP's support runs out, the machines will be 8 years old. By that point, it's really time to upgrade to new machines anyway. The problem is companies that are so entrenched in XP that they still format new machines and install it instead of migrating to Windows 7.

To give some perspective, if the same lifecycle is applied, then its the equivalent to still running Windows 3.1 machines by the time XP came out.


That is one perspective.

Another is that XP is derived from (even though it preceeds it) Windows Server 2003. Thus many bugs found in WS2003 have significant relevance to XP, and vice-versa; WS2003 (including R2 and Home Server [except 2011*]) support ends in July 14, 2015.

All I can offer is kudos to Microsoft for realizing a significant portion of their users utilize older systems and thus support the OS for longer than most, if not all, operating systems' "owners" do.

* - Home Server 2011 does not currently have an EOL support date, but does have an end of mainstream support date of 4/12/2016.

edit to add:
Many / most systems capable of running XP can run Vista, thus Windows 7. Yes, you may miss out on some of the eye candy the latter systems provide, but still can run Vista and 7. Many of the "breakage"s between XP and the latter are due to network stack changes and such, and those have "work-arounds" and other solutions. And the majority of the rest are due to hardware vendors not supplying appropriate drivers.

Edited by abecedarian paradoxious, Feb 20 2012, 9:53pm :

MASTER260 said,
Please don't extend XP's support... please don't extend XP's support... DAMMNIT, MSFT, WE NEED PEOPLE TO GET OFF XP! But, you're gonaa do it, aren't you?...

I would hope that MOST people would have made the move to Windows 7 by 2014 lol.

Win7 I would hope gets a Sp2 with many additions Win8 is supposed to give. No reason to drop this level of additive support just cause Win8 is coming out. It will make money as its going to prob be default for all the major computer builders once released.

Ryano121 said,
We might need it if Windows 8 at the moment is anything to go by.

I love complainging about unreleased products.. the ipad 4 is also going to be really bad i bet

Lachlan said,

I love complainging about unreleased products.. the ipad 4 is also going to be really bad i bet

That would be a great comparison...if there were iPad 4s in existence that we've all seen and are able to try. Also he did say at the moment, but face it the current Windows 8 is pretty much what we are getting. There is no way I'm buying it so the longer Win7 lives the better.

Ryano121 said,
We might need it if Windows 8 at the moment is anything to go by.

Indeed, i loved Vista personally and Windows 7 was a great improvement on that. Too early to judge Windows 8, however i must be honest and say i'm not really impressed with what ive seen so far.

Nice to know i can happily stick with 7 if i wanted.

Ryano121 said,
We might need it if Windows 8 at the moment is anything to go by.

well Windows 8 isn't for laptops or desktops. Mostly a Tablet OS. Windows 8 looks like though if you did have it, would more or less require a touchscreen.. So... Like vista , again ahead of it's time. Nothing wrong with vista or 8, but they keep coming out before people are ready for it. and in these tough times. wrong time to experiment with the interface. Windows 8 looks like it lifted alot of the annoyances the latest Ubuntu releases have been doing. Which has turned me off Ubuntu ...

PatrynXX said,

well Windows 8 isn't for laptops or desktops. Mostly a Tablet OS. Windows 8 looks like though if you did have it, would more or less require a touchscreen.. So... Like vista , again ahead of it's time. Nothing wrong with vista or 8, but they keep coming out before people are ready for it. and in these tough times. wrong time to experiment with the interface. Windows 8 looks like it lifted alot of the annoyances the latest Ubuntu releases have been doing. Which has turned me off Ubuntu ...

TRC said,

but face it the current Windows 8 is pretty much what we are getting. There is no way I'm buying it so the longer Win7 lives the better.

You just replied that to a comment that sarcastically showed how stupid people like you sounded >.>

PatrynXX said,

well Windows 8 isn't for laptops or desktops. Mostly a Tablet OS. ...


Learn your facts please... Windows 8 is for all devices and brings major improvements to the desktop experience as well. Metro apps are not only for tablets/phones... the changes they recently made make it work much better on a desktop as well.

j2006 said,

Learn your facts please... Windows 8 is for all devices and brings major improvements to the desktop experience as well. Metro apps are not only for tablets/phones... the changes they recently made make it work much better on a desktop as well.

The problem with Windows 8 is that it's one OS for all devices.

Microsoft is pulling a jack-of-all-trades on this one, so that for various tasks you do on your computer, you'll suddenly jump in and out of Tablet Land for no special reasons. While in Tablet Land, there are no context menus, and the UI is no longer optimized for your large display, or even your mouse. Searching for an application? Into Tablet Land with you! Starting Office 2010? Out of Tablet Land with you! Trying a Metro app? Well, out you go from the desktop again!

This will be a dizzying experience with two different UI paradigms on a collision course. I wonder how their UX team let this pass. Or maybe they didn't, but they didn't get to have it their way, since Microsoft politics dictated a new grand OS for everything. After all - it looks damn good on paper.

Edited by Northgrove, Feb 21 2012, 2:25pm :

Cøi said,

You just replied that to a comment that sarcastically showed how stupid people like you sounded >.>

Really? Are you saying we are not getting Metro in Windows 8? Or are you saying I sound stupid for having an opinion that differs from yours? Now THAT would be stupid.

TRC said,

Really? Are you saying we are not getting Metro in Windows 8? Or are you saying I sound stupid for having an opinion that differs from yours? Now THAT would be stupid.

No,

Lachlan said,

I love complainging about unreleased products.. the ipad 4 is also going to be really bad i bet

TRC said,

but face it the current Windows 8 is pretty much what we are getting. There is no way I'm buying it so the longer Win7 lives the better.