Microsoft to start nagging Windows XP users about upgrading on March 8th

Microsoft will notify Windows XP users, who have Home and Professional editions, on March 8th that the platform is reaching it’s end of life via Windows Update.

The notification is a direct push to those consumers who are still using the platform stating that it is time to abandon the decade old operating system. By utilizing Windows Update, any users who have this feature turned on will receive a desktop notification that the platform is about to become woefully unsecure (our words, not Microsoft’s).

By making the notification appear directly on the desktop, it will be quite hard for the consumer to plead ignorance that they were not aware that Windows XP would no longer be supported after April 8th. This direct push by Microsoft is a warning shot across the desktop for any user who is still relaying on an operating system that was designed for the technology of more than a decade ago.

If you are still using Windows XP, Microsoft has also announced a new migration tool that will help you transfer to a modern operating system. The free tool will likely remove all excuses from existing users who have yet to upgrade to Windows 7 or 8.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Microsoft's free Windows XP transfer tool leaves you no excuses for not upgrading

Next Story

Rumor: Nokia working on 'Martini' handset for Windows Phone 8.1

71 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

The support lifecycle of Windows Server 2013 ended July 2015. I recommend Win2003 to XP users. The kernel (NT 5.2) of Windows 2003 is better than XP (NT 5.1). Unfortunately, even if you've using to as the deskop os, some softwares can't directly install to Win2003 as for "Server". Even so it's possible some solutions.

Why am I still use Windows 2003 (NT 5.2)? Simply: it's more lightweight than Longhorn builds (NT 6.x). Besides, it's lightweight, speed, real-classic GUI. (Even if my computers not outdated.)

NT 6.x cores very heavy and CPU & RAM & Disk usaging too much against contain many useful features. Simple a test: Windows PE editions contain only main core. Please compare WinPE 1.x and next versions. Definitely WinPE 1.x (in other words NT 5.x) is more speed and slight than next version (NT 6.x). That is why many people are still using XP.

NT5.x editions' setup bulk size: 500-600 MB (after setup takes up in disk 1-3 GB)
NT6.x editions' setup bulk size: 2-3 GB (after setup takes up in disk 10-15 GB)
What about Android and iOS?

What is the core build of Windows 9/Threshold? Most probably it will be built over NT 6.x (Longhorn), like it's predecessor. in other words, NT 6.4. When is abandoned time of NT6? Windows9: 6.4, Windows10: 6.5, Windows11: 6.6, Windows20: 6.992...
And again I'm still will be using Windows 2003.

Actually I can understand to Microsoft; brand new the main core is very hard and risk (Vista example!). But Mobile OSs incredibly fast spreading. In this case, how much longer survive Windows while built over heavy the cores (NT6.x)? First thing to do minimalize-lightweight NT core, not still updating, optimizing to NT 6.x.

In fact, most people can be approved to a releasing modernized NT 5.x. As long as, Windows don't become more clumsy, more RAM-CPU-Disk usage. Therefores, MinWin implemanting very important. Next Windows' shouldn't more over bulky.

Is it impossible? Never. A example: NT 5 or "ReActOS". If Microsoft inability to creating a new Windows NT core, at least can be NT 5.x core re-updating, re-modernizing. Can be releasing like a "Retro Edition" (NT 5.3?). Thus, many XP users exultingly upgrade it.

I'm really sorry my bad English. I hope, main idea clearly unterstood.

Just tick the box Don't show this message again. Problem solved. Just like smashing a hammer on the red idiot light on your car's dashboard.

I just wish they would give people the choice of upgrading to Win7 or Win8. I suspect it would be much easier to convince them to use 7, and it wouldn't be that much of an adjustment for them. However if you force them to upgrade to 8, then you should expect a complete disaster as these people will be so lost, and won't have a clue how to find or use the new OS. Personally I've recommended 7 over 8 for all people comping out of XP, and most fare well. The people I have seen go from XP to 8 have come back and demanded 8 be taken off, and usually 7 being put on. Something to think about anyway.

Oh joy, I expect to get a ton of calls from customers about this. /facepalm

I have sooo many customers with a XP box that they refuse to get off of/upgrade, they will use XP until the machine literally dies/explodes/melts down. LOL

I think it is a good virus Microsoft is sending to Windows XP users called End of support pop-ups, they should remove a checkbox called "Don't show this message again", because XP users will be reinforced to stick with their operating system. For MSFT to restructure towards iconic web company, Windows XP needs to end right now........ Car's are different because you do not need to replace your car until it breaks, but computers needs to use new O.S. for enhanced cybersecurity. Most recent versions of Windows is fastest and strongest available period.... If you do not want XP in your house and you are not willing to accept these Microsoft Created good pop-ups which are not computer viruses, disconnect your internet and stop paying for smartphones and tablets right now. You can buy a basic cellphone and get rid of iPads and androids and all connected devices asap. Inter-next computing requires Windows NT 6.x, and new desktop computing standards are necessary to ensure we go modern at all times. Re-organization of Microsoft needs to ensure they cut costs like providing fake extended xp support to their own customers. City of Brampton got rid of XP because of my help with one of my really good friends or good and safe bestfriends. Real friends who make me have manners will help other organizations get rid of XP. Our computer is like a car, if My computer breaks, I will go with haswell with same/similar specs of my old computer. I had moved to windows 8 and my laptop worked for one year and almost 5 months.

It was so thoughtful of Microsoft to give users the choice of OS to upgrade--Windows-7 or Windows-8. Contrast that with Microsoft's arrogance in Windows-8 where every user on every device was forced to use the touch-centric UI--regardless of its suitability or lack thereof. Has Microsoft learned a valuable lesson?

Wish people would stop equating "out of the box" with "forced." If you were forced to use it there wouldn't be a good number of ways to use the old style if that's your thing. I've used an alternative menu on every version of Windows starting with XP, never cared for the out of the box start menu. (XP's especially.) XP "forced" a craptastic file manager on people, replaced that too. Wasn't "forced" then, and not "forced" now. They've never locked it down to where you couldn't change components if you wanted to, even replace the shell entirely if that's what you want. Take ownership of your system if it bugs you, jeez.

Max Norris said,
Wish people would stop equating "out of the box" with "forced." If you were forced to use it there wouldn't be a good number of ways to use the old style if that's your thing. I've used an alternative menu on every version of Windows starting with XP, never cared for the out of the box start menu. (XP's especially.) XP "forced" a craptastic file manager on people, replaced that too. Wasn't "forced" then, and not "forced" now. They've never locked it down to where you couldn't change components if you wanted to, even replace the shell entirely if that's what you want. Take ownership of your system if it bugs you, jeez.

Care to elaborate on why you think XP's file manager was craptastic? I actually think that it is rather nice.

Ian William said,
Care to elaborate on why you think XP's file manager was craptastic? I actually think that it is rather nice.

That's the point, what some people find nice other people can't stand. For me, I couldn't stand the bugs, it's ability to crash on a whim, inability even to remember the most basic of things like setting a default window size or even remembering where you just were in another directory. But I was just as much forced to use it as I'm forced by the out-of-the-box start menu or any other number of components. Not even unique to Windows, I tend to rip apart various Linux DE's too because I can't stand what's given by default. Forced? No.

Max Norris said,

That's the point, what some people find nice other people can't stand. For me, I couldn't stand the bugs, it's ability to crash on a whim, inability even to remember the most basic of things like setting a default window size or even remembering where you just were in another directory. But I was just as much forced to use it as I'm forced by the out-of-the-box start menu or any other number of components. Not even unique to Windows, I tend to rip apart various Linux DE's too because I can't stand what's given by default. Forced? No.

Thank you for responding, Sir Norris.

Well it helps to know what craptastic features you were speaking of. Unfortunately, your response is pretty vague, which is not something that I've come to expect from you. Which bugs are you referring to? I've like to know those sort of things.

The only reason I am so curious is because I hardly hear or see anyone complain about XP's Explorer.

Ian William said,
Unfortunately, your response is pretty vague, which is not something that I've come to expect from you.

Sorry to disappoint, but it's intentionally vague as this isn't about my list of 1001 things I hate about XP. It doesn't matter. It's about some people not liking the defaults and crying "I'm forced to use it" when all the options available to you say otherwise, be it the start menu, the file manager, image viewer, media player, browser, etc etc.. it's all replaceable, including the shell itself. I disliked XP's file manager, so I replaced it. Same goes for XP's start menu. Vista's and 7's too. I'm hit or miss with 8's start menu (like the "front", hate the "back"), so I replaced that too. Touch-centric doesn't enter into it. You're only forced if you're that apathetic and can't be bothered to take ownership. I'll be more than happy to PM the list to you if you're that interested, but this isn't the place.

Something that should have been added long ago, zero reason not to, long as there's that checkbox to suppress the warning. Not everyone bothers to look up their OS's life cycle.

It's Microsoft's fault we are in this position so they should be offering big incentives to upgrade.. They also need to remember that a lot of people wont have a clue how to upgrade so some easy upgrade process should be implemented, right from within Windows XP... not sure if thats the best method or if it's even possible but something along those lines..

Either way, as a web developer, i am happy.. I still have users visiting client websites in older browsers, or even clients themselves using older browsers, this will help put an end to it.

TBH these XP users will be either people in the know who just prefer XP to the current flavors of Windows or users with older computers who are far from being in the know. The later will be using an old computer that's possibly not capable of running any newer Windows OS.
MS should just let the OS die off. They did it with every other OS before XP so why the need to spam users now?

SK[ said,]TBH these XP users will be either people in the know who just prefer XP to the current flavors of Windows or users with older computers who are far from being in the know. The later will be using an old computer that's possibly not capable of running any newer Windows OS.
MS should just let the OS die off. They did it with every other OS before XP so why the need to spam users now?

Because any bad news on Xp (like security attack..or Target theft)...is bad news for Microsoft. And yet, they can't distance themselves from these attacks far enough.

UnclePritchard said,
my parents still use XP if you can believe that... but hey... it's their own risk... i could not care less

I recently had to install Windows Xp on a friend's old Dell Inspiron laptop. I emphasize on "old" computer.. like Pentium M 1.6 Ghz..with 512Mb of RAM.. Something that Windows 8.1 will cry foul if I force such brutal upgrade on such an old box

UnclePritchard said,
my parents still use XP if you can believe that... but hey... it's their own risk... i could not care less

Until their credit card/bank/ social security info is taken.

UnclePritchard said,
my parents still use XP if you can believe that... but hey... it's their own risk... i could not care less

I know tons of people that still use it, they have no other choice as most are people on low budgets and just can't afford a new OS/computer or both. People refuse to accept the fact that not everyone has the funds to just play the keep up game when the OS still works fine even if it does have flaws. If you feel people should upgrade then by all means go around tossing $$ at people's feet that have XP and help them.

yes indeed the configuration plays a part in the whole story... but you could use windows 7 with classic or aero basic theme still.. and you would worry much less in the security department.

Sadelwo said,
But those flaws may cost them way more than a new pc/ upgrade would.

A second hand PC capable of running Windows 8 barely cost anything. Of course there will be exceptions. But 40% of the internet browsing users....

They can go with Dell Inspiron 15R laptop with Windows 7 or Windows 8.1 to stay safe on the net. If they get pop-ups from Microsoft, they are good pop-ups and no antivirus companies should protect computers from these good messages Microsoft is sending.

Sadelwo said,
But those flaws may cost them way more than a new pc/ upgrade would.

You try to explain that to people that live day to day, pay check to pay check, meal to meal. I'm serious most people have a personal computer but got it during the time when money was flowing, its not doing that now in this time of economic down turn. You won't convince people to get a new one unless the old one just breaks AND they have the funds.

I'm not sure that this is the best approach as I believe it will scare users. Also, it was never done with previous versions, so why add the nag now?

because we're living in a different age.. the age where you can and will be hacked if left unprotected. Scaring users into an upgrade of any kind is the point

dingl_ said,
because we're living in a different age.. the age where you can and will be hacked if left unprotected. Scaring users into an upgrade of any kind is the point

You could still get hacked back in the day. Plus, the average XP user probably only browses a few set websites anyway, so the chances are slim. Also, another thing to remember is that, it's unlikely that an average user would pay $199 for an OS upgrade. In fact, they would probably use the computer with XP until the hardware fails. Scaring them isn't going to work.

Edited by LimeMaster, Mar 3 2014, 3:27pm :

LimeMaster92 said,

You could still get hacked back in the day. Plus, the average XP user probably only browses a few set websites anyway, so the chances are slim. Also, another thing to remember is that, it's unlikely that an average user would pay $199 for an OS upgrade. In fact, they would probably use the computer with XP until the hardware fails. Scaring them isn't going to work.

Scare tactics aren't the best way indeed to get users to switch. Instead, give them a valid reason and offer to help, possibly with the cost.

Hello,

Is there any screen shots about the nag?

I for one totally agree with the nag. They shouldn't let them even use the PC if a internet connection is detected. If it isn't, let them use it all they want.

Hello,

CJEric said,

They would probably get sued for that.

Based on what? Shouldnt let them use the PC for intenet purposes. Worded incorrectly, sorry.

riahc3 said,
Hello,

Based on what? Shouldnt let them use the PC for intenet purposes. Worded incorrectly, sorry.

They cannot just neuter software that people have paid for and rightfully own just because support is ending. The nag is the best thing they could do (so long as it is suppressible as the article image would suggest).

CJEric said,

They would probably get sued for that.

I'm not sure to the situation world wide, but in many EU countries its normal to disconnect people from the internet at ISP level if people spread spam, malware or are part of a botnet.
Why would Microsoft not be allowed to do the same? Internet in an OS could be seen as a service, IE is a service product. Not an OS function.

No doubt some malware will eventually do that anyway, and Microsoft won't do a blind thing about abouit it because "End of Life"

Shadowzz said,

I'm not sure to the situation world wide, but in many EU countries its normal to disconnect people from the internet at ISP level if people spread spam, malware or are part of a botnet.
Why would Microsoft not be allowed to do the same? Internet in an OS could be seen as a service, IE is a service product. Not an OS function.

You do realize there is a difference between

"ISP disconnecting people if they *actually* spread spam, malware or are part of a botnet"

and

"Disabling software because it *may or may not* be spreading spam, malware or be part of a botnet"?

My XP PC has never had a virus, malware. I'm using a pro-audio sound card that is most likely not supported properly in Windows 8. I'm not going to take that risk and upgrade, reinstall everything just to find out that I have to upgrade my hardware as well.

I do have a copy of Windows 8 (purchased a year ago) that is sitting and waiting in case it turns out that my hardware is supported. But I do not have time to run those experiments NOW.

Testing out whether Windows 8 works or not takes 30minutes, an hour tops on ancient hardware.

Anywho, if your going to be using Windows XP in some form connected to the public World Wide Web, you will get infected. And its not only "Sooner or later". It will be sooner rather than later.

You can stick to XP and be somewhat safe. But it requires maintenance. Either pay for it or do it yourself. It still costs. There still is no real excuse to stick to XP. Exceptions sure, but those machines shouldnt be used for casual browsing.

Keep in mind that you can even get hacked through neowin if you use an OS/browser with the right zero-days.

Shadowzz said,
Testing out whether Windows 8 works or not takes 30minutes, an hour tops on ancient hardware.

I sincerely doubt you have the knowledge to judge how much time I need to test my workflow thoroughly. FYI it takes a whole lot more than just installing the OS and drivers. Not to mention the need of a spare HDD to install the OS on.

[QUOTE] There still is no real excuse to stick to XP[/QUOTE]

OMG. There is a real excuse. It's called "unsupported hardware".

Shadowzz said,
Testing out whether Windows 8 works or not takes 30minutes, an hour tops on ancient hardware.

Testing will take way longer than 30mins. Depending on the user/workflow it could take either a week/month or longer. Users who don't depend on anything special can do what you say.

good good.. time to ditch the dinosaur OS. no, the OS does not 'still work' it does not have the MANY security enhancements and mitigation tech built-in to Windows7-8-8.x and from April 8 on it will be a perpetually insecure OS. be it Malware or Remote exploit XP is dead

It had a good run!

I agree that XP is in use far too long, but I'm not sure I would appreciate these nags either. The person did legally license the software so if they want to use it beyond its EOL date they shouldn't be nagged about it.

Yea, dont quite agree with the nags myself either. Would get annoying real quick. As long a you can mark it to never see it again...eh.

Well, to be honest, there is that "do not show this message again" checkbox... So you'll only see it once in theory, I believe...

Ok you prefer Microsoft just leave its users in the dark... sounds like something Apple would do tho. no, there are many dumb users out there who don't quite grasp the concept of Security

Problem is, the average user, once they see that not only is the upgrade not free, but they they're likely going to need a new computer as well, will either complain to MS, or ignore the warning.

LogicalApex said,
I agree that XP is in use far too long, but I'm not sure I would appreciate these nags either. The person did legally license the software so if they want to use it beyond its EOL date they shouldn't be nagged about it.

I see this "nagging" same as the "Service due" light in my car. Don't you agree? I legally purchased and own my car.
In any case, they have "Don't show this message again" if someone really wants to stick with XP.

BajiRav said,

I see this "nagging" same as the "Service due" light in my car. Don't you agree?

Except that the service light doesn't nag you to replace your car.

LogicalApex said,
I agree that XP is in use far too long, but I'm not sure I would appreciate these nags either. The person did legally license the software so if they want to use it beyond its EOL date they shouldn't be nagged about it.

I agree it is annoying, but I'm also not surprised... I've been getting similar and visually uglier naggings on RT 8.0 about to upgrade to 8.1. Least with the XP one you can tell it to not display again...

IMO, nag popups are not the best way to approach this. Many will just get annoyed and then ticked off. Pissing off your user base is not the way to sell anything successfully.

i_was_here said,
Except that the service light doesn't nag you to replace your car.
Except it could very well point to a serious problem that would require something to be replaced. You're just nitpicking, I think the analogy is apt. Any intelligent user can just click the checkbox, so a message like this showing up once is not a big deal and will disseminate the message far and wide to those who don't follow tech sites/news like we do. As for complaining to MS as someone said above, how ridiculous.

Well. the service light is telling you something needs replacing/maintaining. So in the end of the day, that light Isn't "forcing" you to buy a new part. its just telling you that something needs checking/replacing. if you ignore it, then your going to have a bad time.

I honestly don't see the bad thing about XP being supported so long. I would not mind if it was supported even longer. Sadly, that is not the case.
1) New computers will ship with new windows versions anyway so XP will disappear on its own.
2) Old computers running XP will eventually die (computers don't last forever) and be replaced with computers running newer versions of Windows.
This crusade against XP is just silly from a user's point of view. Even in terms of security, not much has changed in the "operating system" model in the last 10 years.
(I haven't used XP since 2004 but this is my opinion anyway)

From a developer's point of view, it's horrible. XP should have died 7 or 8 years ago. Who wants to support old operating systems in their applications? No operating system should live more than 3 years!

Edited by Hussam Al-tayeb, Mar 3 2014, 11:54pm :

LogicalApex said,
I agree that XP is in use far too long, but I'm not sure I would appreciate these nags either. The person did legally license the software so if they want to use it beyond its EOL date they shouldn't be nagged about it.

well its not nagging it simply says after that date if you get malware or virus don't blame us. people should know that don't they?

LogicalApex said,
The person did legally license the software so if they want to use it beyond its EOL date they shouldn't be nagged about it.

Microsoft never mention an EOL when they sell you the product, its the height of hypocrisy to attempt to scare you down the track, to fork out more money to line their pockets.

BajiRav said,

I see this "nagging" same as the "Service due" light in my car.

Not at all, when you buy a car you know it needs to be services regularly. When you buy a computer or O/S, no one tells you it is "artificially timebombed" so Microsoft can extract some more money from you.

Its been supported for like ten years. They have supported the OS longer then any other i know of. Even Linux distros don't support old revisions as long as they have. The kernel is old, and just needs to be put to bed.

They have XP ,vista, 7 and 8 being supported at the moment. And with 9 coming around the corner, I don't blame them for wanting to move staff away from working on it, to work on other more pressing projects.

XP support is now being treated as a niche need, and are offering a pay support plan for people who still need more time to update.

Hussam Al-tayeb said,
Even in terms of security, not much has changed in the "operating system" model in the last 10 years.
(I haven't used XP since 2004 but this is my opinion anyway)
If you think there's no difference at all in terms of security between XP and Win7 or 8 you're sadly mistaken. Have you used any other version of Windows after dropping XP in 2004? If not your knowledge of Windows is seriously outdated.

dvb2000 said,
When you buy a computer or O/S, no one tells you it is "artificially timebombed" so Microsoft can extract some more money from you.
The support lifecycle of Windows is well known and in the past year or so pretty much everyone should have read an article somewhere either online or in the paper about XP's end of support coming up. There are still people though who have no idea what an OS is or that they're using XP (if you ask them at most they may say Windows), forget about security. All this message does is let these people know something's up, so they can then at least look it up online or ask someone knowledgeable about what to do. Once they're told they need to buy a new version of Windows and perhaps also upgrade their hardware they can then decide whether this is an expenditure they can and want to make, else hopefully they'll ask how to stay safe while sticking to XP. I see no downside to this, so stop with the exaggeration already.