Organized Effort to Kill XP


Recommended Posts

So I've noticed an organized effort to kill Windows XP.  I found one of my old XP discs and decided to install it in a VM, and I'm setting up a really old computer that a friend brought me saying he wanted Windows XP on it (Only 512 MB of RAM, and to try and familiarize them with Linux and some minimalist desktop would be tons of hassle) and upon doing so, I've found that even some anti-virus companies are refusing to support it any more.  Avira anti-virus will execute, and then tell you that it doesn't support XP, and I tried one or two other ones last night that I don't remember and got similar results.

 

I even made a video on YouTube the other day about how any user could execute a built-in Windows command and effectively make the computer un-usable without any sort of authentication or verification.  I was trying to make the case for UAC, and convince people that it's time to move on to SOMETHING other than XP, whether that be Vista, 7, 8, Mac OSX, or a Linux distribution.  People need to move on to something that will continue receiving security updates and that implements some modern safety measures such as UAC.

 

Hopefully more security companies will stop support for XP since the very creator of the product (Microsoft) isn't even issuing patches any more.  It will force people to move on to things that are better suited to today's world.

 

post-125978-0-70558600-1399405907.png

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just recorded a video to share on FB and G+ to help my friends move on to bigger and better things.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hopefully more security companies will stop support for XP since the very creator of the product (Microsoft) isn't even issuing patches any more.  It will force people to move on to things that are better suited to today's world.

I keep hearing this but it just sounds like Rhetoric to me. So what if Microsoft doesn't issue any more patches. There'll always be vulnerabilities no matter if you're using XP or Windows 8. This frenzy over support is exactly the kind of propaganda MS is pushing to get people to waste money on new machines. Don't believe it for a second.

 

Ditching IE alone is better than a thousand Microsoft patches. Create a user profile instead of the default admin. Disable non-essential and potentially dangerous services like remote registry, remote access, network printer and file sharing, etc. Those things will protect a user better than any missed patches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have heard this millions times and it seems you are the immature one. Obessed with what others use and pushing them to change. People can use whatever they like. Infact they can decide how they want to spend their money on.

 

You are asking me to spend my hard-earned money to buy a new machine and windows every time a new version of windows comes out?

 

Besides as it has been said millions times before, it is not simple to just slap win 8 on and call it a day. There are procedures in place so as not to disrupt the flow of business.
 

If I have a business, I will want to keep whatever actually works. Changing software can cause issues which cause downtime and waste of time causing loss of income/profit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ditching IE alone is better than a thousand Microsoft patches. Create a user profile instead of the default admin. Disable non-essential and potentially dangerous services like remote registry, remote access, network printer and file sharing, etc. Those things will protect a user better than any missed patches.

And how many home users do you know who do that, or even know how to do it?  Plenty of home users use the administrator account to install software, and don't want to be bothered with having to switch between accounts to do so.  In the corporate world I have personally demonstrated how 15,000+ computers can all be attacked at one time, between VLANs, using standard, built-in Windows XP commands.

 

If I have a business, I will want to keep whatever actually works. Changing software can cause issues which cause downtime and waste of time causing loss of income/profit.

And recovering from a security incident doesn't cost time/money?  If your company isn't paying for extended support from Microsoft, then what you have is what you have.  That means any security vulnerabilities discovered after April 8th will perpetually apply to all of your XP machines unless you manually create and distribute a patch for all of them.  I think most companies, at least the ones I have worked for, would rather arrange to pay upgrade costs than have to deal with loss of data, legal fees depending on what kind of data is stolen, paying for credit monitoring if it's personal information, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bosses where I work want to keep using unpatched XP for your social security and HIPPA information in addition to credit card processing. Windows 7 looks too funny to change and they do not want to pay to update software. Vice presidents are calling the shots saying no to Windows 7 and fighting IT.

 

If I can't make XP secure without patches from hacking then I must suck as a IT guy etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you install Service Pack 3? I'm running Avira on XP without a problem.

Yeah I did SP3.  It's weird because like a week and half ago it worked fine on an XP machine I put it on.  I've got two in here right now though, freshly updated to SP3 from a clean format and install from an official Microsoft disc (Not some pirated nonsense) with no other software installed, and one gives me the "Not supported" message, and the other one just asks me to submit an error report.  I figured they just pulled support for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have heard this millions times and it seems you are the immature one. Obessed with what others use and pushing them to change. People can use whatever they like. Infact they can decide how they want to spend their money on.

 

You are asking me to spend my hard-earned money to buy a new machine and windows every time a new version of windows comes out?

 

Besides as it has been said millions times before, it is not simple to just slap win 8 on and call it a day. There are procedures in place so as not to disrupt the flow of business.

 

If I have a business, I will want to keep whatever actually works. Changing software can cause issues which cause downtime and waste of time causing loss of income/profit.

 

 

Tons of workplaces buy new computers all the time, fully capable of running Windows 7 or 8. These machines even come with licenses for Windows 7 or 8. Instead of doing their job to the fullest, they do what they need to do to get by...that's why I hate IT departments, they all suck. Every place I've been to has the same kind of configuration. They get new computers, and then they #### it all up by network booting Windows XP. The worst part was back in high school when we needed to use Visual Studio in first period class, the toolbox needed to initialize first, which seems like something ordinary and wouldn't take longer than a few seconds, but our computers because they were network booted, they would hang for 5 minutes so we had to take a precautionary measure to load the toolbox first as soon as we logged on. And if we had a two hour delay because of weather conditions, the computers couldn't even boot.

 

Eventually I just brought an external HDD to school and booted Windows 7 off it, then everyone was amazed at how fast my computer was, how much better my Visual Studio was because they had 2008 and I had 2010 and my toolbox took half a second to load and that was even off a USB 2.0 connection to the external HDD. I eventually got yelled at by the district's administration in person in front of class one day, but it was because their network sucked because it was old and slow and I knew the computers could perform much better than that running new stuff that made me bring a external HDD to school to boot Windows 7 off of.

 

It is very sad that businesses do not see the point in creating a budget for developing new modern apps for replacing 90's applications that they need XP to run. I know someone who also works somewhere that has XP network booted, and it is most likely because their main program they use was made in the 90's, probably a 16bit application. It is either they are too lazy to run a modern operating system for modern hardware, or they are too cheap to put out money to redevelop old applications.

 

I have no sympathy at all for businesses like these. No we do not expect you to buy new computers with new Windows on them every year, but after it has been about 10 years, it is time to move on. You are using a dinosaur on the Internet using XP...

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cancers spread. XP isn't.

 

Speak again.

 

When one company makes an IE 6 app and requires suppliers, vendors, and others to use they then force their vendors to downgrade. Before you know it the new standard is IE 6  and XP. Not W3C and modern standards. Then these companies will refuse to do business with you unless you downgrade your app to suck so it can work like everything else.

Old apps are made for Xp because Xp is requires for old apps which means everyone must run Xp for apps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speak again.

More than happy to.

 

XP share is decreasing, not by as much as people had hoped, but it's decreasing.

 

To try and link a piece of software to a medical condition is preposterous, to say the least.

 

People are waking up the fact that XP is very dated and it is time to stop the excuses and upgrade.

If suppliers don't want to update their software, they get left behind. They'll come around when they find their clients are going elsewhere - and it will happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More than happy to.

 

XP share is decreasing, not by as much as people had hoped, but it's decreasing.

 

To try and link a piece of software to a medical condition is preposterous, to say the least.

 

People are waking up the fact that XP is very dated and it is time to stop the excuses and upgrade.

If suppliers don't want to update their software, they get left behind. They'll come around when they find their clients are going elsewhere - and it will happen.

 

I am more worried about my identity stolen ala Target style. Hospitals do not upgrade nor care. I consulted for one and mentioned they were out of support. They need FDA certification for even a freaking service pack for XP so it never gets done.

 

Many at work are moving along slowly many are fighting and forcing use to make everyone an admin because some jerk Vice President doesn't want to use certified apps because the new one has a ribbon UI instead of a menu. Grrr. If it is just as insecure as XP with sandboxing disabled and local admin everywhere why upgrade? That is his thought exactly as he hates change and views IT as a cost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I keep hearing this but it just sounds like Rhetoric to me. So what if Microsoft doesn't issue any more patches. There'll always be vulnerabilities no matter if you're using XP or Windows 8. This frenzy over support is exactly the kind of propaganda MS is pushing to get people to waste money on new machines. Don't believe it for a second.

 

Ditching IE alone is better than a thousand Microsoft patches. Create a user profile instead of the default admin. Disable non-essential and potentially dangerous services like remote registry, remote access, network printer and file sharing, etc. Those things will protect a user better than any missed patches.

 

 

This post..

 

biggest facepalm EVER!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know what is supposed to be 'bigger and better' than Windows XP, but it sure isn't Windows 8.x.

 

In the end, I do not do anything much better with Windows 7 than I do with XP, and there sure is no reason to upgrade to an aggravating Windows version.

 

I guarantee that if Windows 9 turns out to be some subscription OS, I will not even consider a new machine to run Microsoft products.

 

No one should be forced to use the latest technology, simply for the sake of change, or company profits.

 

If you are a fanboy of every little thing 'new' -- that's fine.

 

But leave others alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I keep hearing this but it just sounds like Rhetoric to me. So what if Microsoft doesn't issue any more patches. There'll always be vulnerabilities no matter if you're using XP or Windows 8. This frenzy over support is exactly the kind of propaganda MS is pushing to get people to waste money on new machines. Don't believe it for a second.

Seriously?  Of course there'll always be vulnerabilities no matter what OS you're on... but "so what if they don't get patched?"  Brilliant.  Set up an old version of Debian or Ubuntu with the OpenSSH bug.  Don't bother updating OpenSSL or GnuTLS.  Throw on a vulnerable version of Flash or Java for giggles.  Use a version of the kernel with the critical perf root exploit. Then hand that over to a non-tech oriented user, let us know how that turns out.  *facepalm*

 

I guarantee that if Windows 9 turns out to be some subscription OS, I will not even consider a new machine to run Microsoft products.

That'll just be an option, not a requirement. Just like Office.. subscribe or buy, you got your choice depending on your needs. Certainly not attractive to me personally, but perhaps in an enterprise environemnt, etc.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every company has the right to support whatever they want. If they want to discontinue support then that is also up to them. I'm left with the idea that if you want to continue using XP - and it does still have a reason to be used - that is up to you. But you can't complain when software isn't compatible with something that is no longer being supported.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the computer does not have unfettered access to the internet (Behind a proxy, and using a good browser such as chrome or firefox), Windows XP can still be safely used.

 

But I'm more worried about normal home computers. Some people seem to have forgotten the Sasser scare of 20xx....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have heard this millions times and it seems you are the immature one. Obessed with what others use and pushing them to change. People can use whatever they like. Infact they can decide how they want to spend their money on.

 

You are asking me to spend my hard-earned money to buy a new machine and windows every time a new version of windows comes out?

 

Besides as it has been said millions times before, it is not simple to just slap win 8 on and call it a day. There are procedures in place so as not to disrupt the flow of business.

 

If I have a business, I will want to keep whatever actually works. Changing software can cause issues which cause downtime and waste of time causing loss of income/profit.

 

As someone who actually supports small businesses that think like you do, the time you lose on a slow, outdated machine is far outweighed by the cost of a new one. I can't even count the amount of times people tell me after they've finally made the switch 'we should have done this earlier!'. If you lose even 5-6 minutes a day on a reboot or just general slowness, thats a half hour a week of employee time that you are paying for them to basically stare at the screen. When you're talking $600-$800 for new hardware cost, it doesn't take that long to recoup that. 

 

Now, software incompatibility is another thing. If theres older software thats not compatible with Win 7 (I don't install 8 on business machines mostly due to the employees inability to adapt) thats another issue, but theres always XP Mode if thats the case, and running it through the embedded window isn't that difficult.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was a one-off to fix an IE exploit. Don't expect any further patches for XP to be released to the general non-paying public.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the computer does not have unfettered access to the internet (Behind a proxy, and using a good browser such as chrome or firefox), Windows XP can still be safely used.

 

But I'm more worried about normal home computers. Some people seem to have forgotten the Sasser scare of 20xx....

 

Windows XP is just as vulnerable from a local network as from the Internet. The difference being that the attack vector would be coming from inside the company (e.g. another user).

The only way Windows XP will be moderately safe is if it is a stand-alone machine, not connected to any networks (or an isolated network) with strict controls on who can use it and what you can plug into it.

For example, a Windows XP machine connected to an industrial machine to control it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you install Service Pack 3? I'm running Avira on XP without a problem.

Yeah, I've got friends and family running XP SP3 and Avira runs fine. I maintain 3 of these via remote. Could it be the VM Avira doesn't like?

I don't know what is supposed to be 'bigger and better' than Windows XP, but it sure isn't Windows 8.x.

 

In the end, I do not do anything much better with Windows 7 than I do with XP, and there sure is no reason to upgrade to an aggravating Windows version.

 

I guarantee that if Windows 9 turns out to be some subscription OS, I will not even consider a new machine to run Microsoft products.

 

No one should be forced to use the latest technology, simply for the sake of change, or company profits.

 

If you are a fanboy of every little thing 'new' -- that's fine.

 

But leave others alone.

If that subscription crap takes hold I may migrate to Linux permanently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More than happy to.

 

XP share is decreasing, not by as much as people had hoped, but it's decreasing.

 

To try and link a piece of software to a medical condition is preposterous, to say the least.

 

People are waking up the fact that XP is very dated and it is time to stop the excuses and upgrade.

If suppliers don't want to update their software, they get left behind. They'll come around when they find their clients are going elsewhere - and it will happen.

 

Never learned what hyperbole is?

I don't know what is supposed to be 'bigger and better' than Windows XP, but it sure isn't Windows 8.x.

 

In the end, I do not do anything much better with Windows 7 than I do with XP, and there sure is no reason to upgrade to an aggravating Windows version.

 

I guarantee that if Windows 9 turns out to be some subscription OS, I will not even consider a new machine to run Microsoft products.

 

No one should be forced to use the latest technology, simply for the sake of change, or company profits.

 

If you are a fanboy of every little thing 'new' -- that's fine.

 

But leave others alone.

 

There is literally nothing better about XP than Windows 8.x. Nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.