What is Digg?Sponsored by HTC
You and You and You. view!
youtube.com - You don't need to get a phone. You need a phone that gets you.
221 Comments
- Onion575, on 09/15/2009, -5/+135If they still sell netbooks that come with Windows XP; I don't think they have any excuses to not provide updates for it.
- doomestic, on 09/15/2009, -11/+78Huh, XP was released in 1999?
- jrm125, on 09/15/2009, -13/+59I think we all saw this coming. XP is pretty old at this point and MS wants to push people to Windows 7 (a worthy successor).
- loconet, on 09/15/2009, -16/+61"Punishment for not upgrading"
That's ridiculous. Neither Vista nor Windows 7 (the latter to a lesser extend?) provide a substantial reason for most people to upgrade. And no, "ooOh shiny!" isn't a reason.
All Microsoft is doing here is artificially creating those reasons to upgrade. Business as usual for them. - PhillAholic, on 09/15/2009, -7/+48Considering the bad press for Vista, and the fact that 7 hasn't been out long enough for most corporate systems to be updated, this is still a big deal. Microsoft needs to keep XP secure until 7 Market share gets higher. Come 2010, it's slightly a better idea, but right now, regular people can't even do much about it.
- igyigyigy, on 09/15/2009, -1/+41ten....ish..... years old ;)
- DarkShroud, on 09/15/2009, -64/+102Eventually you have to update. XP is ten years old, expecting MS to spend time & resources to continute fixing everything just isn't feesable. Especially when you take into account that MS has already given XP multipe repreaves.
- master69better, on 09/15/2009, -10/+471. Its 'reprieve'
2. MS screwed the pooch on Vista. Its the users/admins that gave them a reprieve and waited for Win 7
3. Win XP is an actively sold OS on most netbooks TODAY - why? - because Microsoft got blindsided by the Atom/netbook boom and didn't have an appropriate Vista version (despite having so many) that didn't choke on a netbook
4. Most companies would like pride in 10 year old products that work better today than they did when they came out. Microsoft's forced obsolescence scheme has fallen flat on its face for the last 2 years, they should atleast milk XP for all its worth - smacksaw, on 09/15/2009, -15/+51Things like this remind me of hoarding and squatting.
If software becomes abandonware, is there anything wrong with the public picking up the slack? What's the point of maintaining control over a product that you no longer sell or support? Either XP has value or it doesn't.
Amazingly, if they still sold XP, it could fund it's maintenance. But they are pushing different products, in effect robbing XP users of fixes. I'm not saying that you deserve unlimited free support - you don't. But the development dollars that would have come from an XP sale now come from Vista. And if you own something and you use it, the company no longer supporting it should not stop you from maintaining it.
Release the XP source code. No? Exactly. - siger, on 09/15/2009, -2/+34Of course, any patch made for Windows Server 2003 will work for Windows XP automatically, no questions asked. You must be part of the Windows XP team at MS to know structure of the code so well!
Please don't accuse someone of looking 'like a dumbass' when you make bold statements like that. - inactive, on 09/15/2009, -7/+38Great - XP is all we run at work and I'm the computer guy. :(
- damack, on 09/15/2009, -25/+54XP is 7 years old it will be 8 at the tail end of October.
You further make yourself look like a dumbass by trying to excuse this stupid move. You do know Windows Server 2003 is based off the source code for Windows XP so the same patch that was released for Windows Server 2003 could be applied to Windows XP? - InvincibleQ, on 09/15/2009, -4/+30Exactly, they continue to sell the product yet refuse to support it? Not to mention I could have swore the end date for support was 2014...
- uruururr, on 09/15/2009, -1/+25wow when did people on digg get stupid and not understand jokes? darkshroud misspelled feasible... and smacksaw laughed at the unintentional but relevant "fees-able" spelling pun.
please digg smacksaw and bury howeltankerbell and everything in the world will be righted. - dankers, on 09/15/2009, -5/+29They don't really need to provide a patch for this anyways.
It is not an issue in SP2, SP3 and 2003 since they disable the part that is affected.
Some people are demanding they patch Vanilla XP; if you have SP2/SP3 you are perfectly fine - PhillAholic, on 09/15/2009, -2/+21Anything that could be considered better then anything in GNU would be instantly taken apart, made better and integrated into Linux. That's first. Second, Open Source software will by design have more found security vulnerabilities because naturally more people have the chance to look and experiment with the code. Microsoft's code has never been looked at by the number of people that the linux kernel has. So, we could see a lot of security vulnerabilities found.
- Vandon, on 09/15/2009, -12/+31And yet, not a single comment on Apple not patching older versions of OS X and charging you for additional functionality upgrades that MS gives you for free.
Digg-tard hypocrisy at its best. - tnoy, on 09/15/2009, -1/+17Microsoft has extended Extended Support for XP until 4/8/2014, which includes security updates. They should honor that.
Even though Windows 2000's extended support ends next year, people should really start moving away from that. - wisiwyg, on 09/15/2009, -2/+17Given that Microsoft is still supporting XP as the "latest" operating system on new netbooks, they should be giving free Win7 upgrades to folks in that situation.
- duewydo, on 09/15/2009, -0/+15My argument is that they still are selling xp. You can still obtain legal OEM through certain channels and as well you can still buy computers with XP, IE netbooks. So if they still sell a product, I argue they must continue to support it. Even if they stopped selling it in July, does that seem fair? It would be something like an auto manufacturer selling a car and saying when you bought it, that the car came with a 10 yr 100k mile warranty, but then two months later discontinued that model and replaced with another model and said your warranty is now void.
- lorddazzer, on 09/15/2009, -2/+17I wish you could say the same about IE6
- m4csrgh3yk3v, on 09/15/2009, -3/+17Will windows 7 run at the same speed on the same old hardware? I understand obsolescence when you want to keep up, but why should one be expected to throw out perfectly adequate hardware?
Nothing is defective, only the wrong zero's and one's have been switched on by somebody who didn't know what they were doing and wants to wash their hands of their mistake. Update is the wrong word. Fix is the word. People expect correctly functioning software for their money, they are selling a defective product. It's a breach of contract and trust, and sheer incompetence if they still can't get it right 10 years later. - MorpheousMarty, on 09/15/2009, -0/+13Windows 7 isn't out yet. Official release date to the public is Oct 22.
- Myztry, on 09/15/2009, -1/+14It's different with Ubuntu because their is a contiguous upgrade path. There isn't the issue as with Windows where clean install is the only option. And Ubuntu don't charge you to upgrade to get past one of their bugs.
- martinrs, on 09/15/2009, -3/+15Ubuntu upgrade is free, so the update is theoretically perpetual.
- Megor, on 09/15/2009, -7/+19This bug is not a serious problem, it allows someone to DOS attack your computer if they keep sending data to you and this only affects people with their firewall off.
- AgeofMastery, on 09/15/2009, -1/+13You can also update Ubuntu for free, unlike Windows
- mbraynard, on 09/15/2009, -3/+14If you read the article, you will see that the OS isn't actually vulnerable because it was, essentially, patched with XP SP3.
""By default, Windows XP SP2, Windows XP SP3 and Windows XP Professional x64 Edition SP2 do not have a listening service configured in the client firewall and are therefore not affected by this vulnerability." - dsfjvhbd, on 09/15/2009, -7/+18That would force a lot of people to update their hardware and replace computer parts that are still perfectly working, which is not nice to our environment.
- clbw, on 09/15/2009, -4/+15October 25, 2001
http://www.pcworld.com/article/49606/windows_xp_to ...
its 8 yrs. old but I agree let move on. - SummerofGeorge, on 09/15/2009, -7/+18Right - now let's see if Microsoft is on a registered list of charities
- Thuktun, on 09/15/2009, -1/+12I wouldn't call Windows XP SP2 "loved". Maybe "finally acceptable".
- CraigNobbs, on 09/15/2009, -1/+11Just because you don't use an application where there is a listening service doesn't mean that the bug "barely" affects Windows XP. The Professional version includes Remote Desktop which a lot of people and corporations use. That's not to mention all of those people who are running small servers off of various versions of Windows XP. So for you to decide that just because you don't use any programs that act as servers, doesn't mean that other don't use them.
- legendxx, on 09/15/2009, -18/+28Microsoft hasn't offered anything close to a substantial functional feature in Vista. I'm not going to pay $400, or any amount of money, for a new theme and a bunch of powertools I could download for free from sourceforge. Get MS to rewrite their storage engine like they promised or fix the buggy as hell networking protocol they invented for Vista or something else that truly revolutionizes the way I work.
@DarkShroud, what about the millions of business computers that still run XP? Hell Intel, THE biggest hardware proponent of Vista, even said they weren't going to upgrade. That alone should tell you all you need to know about Vista as a consumer, technologist, and overall geek. - Rogem002, on 09/15/2009, -5/+15I think they just want more people to use Windows 7. Having said that, most people on Netbooks running XP should really consider a Linux Distro,
- Langford, on 09/15/2009, -0/+10True, this won't effect home users. It won't even effect most corporate users, but it will give corporations something they always have to think about now, and it will scare the hell out of government organizations because panicking is what they do.
- nonymous666, on 09/15/2009, -3/+13Windows Server 2003 is NOT based off the source code for Windows XP. Both are based off of Windows 2000, but their code was developed separately from there.
A caveat to that statement, though, is that the kernel for the x64 version of WinXP is based off of Windows Server 2003's kernel code. - wolfing, on 09/15/2009, -0/+9you can. Or did you mean like an actual upgrade? lol, even if it was possible, it's really not adviceable. Do yourself a favor and install W7 from scratch.
- UselessTrivia, on 09/15/2009, -0/+9You act like this has been a known issue for the last 10 years. This vulnerability was just discovered recently. What company can afford to go back and patch every vulnerability on every product they've ever made for all eternity? At some point you have to abandon your old products and focus on supporting your new ones.
This isn't much of a vulnerability anyway. It won't cause remote code execution, it just causes performance degradation while there is a flood of certain TCP/IP packets. It's a good way to initiate a DDOS attack, but not something anyone would really target at an end user system. - nextekcarl, on 09/15/2009, -0/+9Right. 10 years from when we started making that model, not 10 years from when the first person bought it. If car companies started doing that (especially after 8 years!) there would be lawsuits.
- mason092, on 09/15/2009, -4/+122 frames per second or so isn't the end of the world. Why don't you just run Windows 98?
- paulsmith288, on 09/15/2009, -2/+10ubuntu drops support - yes but that doesn't that a fix will never come out. Someone else may do the fix.
MS said they would support win xp til 2014. MS are still selling win xp. - TheSwashbuckler, on 09/15/2009, -0/+8That's nothing.
25 years to find bugs forchrissake.....in seekdir......
http://www.vnode.ch/fixing_seekdir - ProjectGSX, on 09/15/2009, -30/+38They have no reason to update XP. Its obsolete software. Vista is fine at the moment. Sure, it was borked at launch, but its fine now. Windows 7 is even better. Its time to move on people.
- Myztry, on 09/15/2009, -0/+8People often quote Microsoft as being charitable when they are actually talking about an ex-employee and his foundation...
- explodingzebras, on 09/15/2009, -3/+10really, ever tried to transfer a large bunch of files over SMB on Vista? It's slower than an arthritic tortoise!
- venom8599, on 09/15/2009, -0/+7That's the end of extended support. Mainstream support for Windows XP ended in April of this year. They're probably considering this patch more as a design change (or they'd have to do a design change to implement the patch correctly), so it's a no-go. The same things happened with Windows 2000 when it reached the end of mainstream support.
- DarkStar3333, on 09/15/2009, -1/+8W7 runs just fine on old hardware. If you have a 7+ year old machine then you typically aren't on the cutting edge of ensuring your computer is secure and performs well.
With the price of computers where they are today most cheap dell machines get upgraded every few years anyway. - GrumpyOldMan, on 09/15/2009, -3/+10Sun reworked 25+ year old TCP/IP code several yeasrs back - and saw a 25% throughput improvement!
Is IS possible to clean up old shizzle - M$ just don't believe in supporting customers, only in counting profits... - explodingzebras, on 09/15/2009, -1/+8They've only just stopped supporting Win2000, home users may be switching top Vista or Win 7 but businesses need more time, and are happy with XP.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 222 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is