Microsoft will end support for Windows XP Service Pack 1 and SP 1a on 10 October, leaving users no option but to upgrade to SP2 if they wish to continue to receive support for crucial components, including security software. The move to drop support for SP1 is in line with Microsoft’s stated strategy for support. According to its guidelines, Microsoft guarantees to provide ‘mainstream support’ for a full product for five years, but will only guarantee to support a Service Pack for 12 months after the launch of the next version of that pack.
One more reason to move to Linux
No, one more reason to install SP2.
What are the other reasons? (except from being able to install IE 7 and WMP11, which are both in beta, and are horrible).
Increased security, better firewall, IE with pop-up blocker, some performance upgrades, updated drivers on a slipstreamed CD, a codebase equivalent to that of Server 2003 SP1, and so forth …
more nag screens than before
it’s a way to force everyone to install Windows Genuine Advantage
Bzzt.
Uh… I run SP2 and don’t run WGA.. kthx
SP2 does not include WGA, try again. There is NO reason in the world for anyone to still be running SP1, it’s just stupid. All the excuses are nonsense too.
Well, if SP2 won’t install for some reason and you can’t find the damn restore disk that came with the machine so you can’t do a clean install without buying another copy of the software you already own, I think you have a good reason.
BTW, the error message that pops up when trying to install SP2 is “Access Denied” I love descriptive errors that let you easily figure out the problem and fix it.
Why was this voted 5? This is a ridiculous comment.
Why was this voted 5? This is a ridiculous comment.
Because this site is frequented with idiot geeks with no life. The rating system is for them, not for you.
Because this site is frequented with idiot geeks with no life.
So as someone who is a registered member on said site, what does that make you?
Because this site is frequented with idiot geeks with no life.
So as someone who is a registered member on said site, what does that make you?
I said ‘frequented’ not ‘only viewed by’. Thanks for proving my point though, I see the population I was referring to has modded you up.
Why is it a ridiculous comment? SP2 does not come with WGA, that’s a fact. WGA came along much later, so no they aren’t using this as an excuse to force genuine advantage on people. As for reasons to run SP1 over SP2 I honestly can’t think of any other than paranoia. Perhaps you can enlighten me as to why someone would refuse to update their operating system. To me that makes absolutely no sense. More importantly why should Microsoft be expected to support customers that refuse to update?
Edited 2006-10-10 03:40
It’s a ridiculous comment because that person said it’s a way to force WGA, which it isn’t.
I thought you were saying my comment was ridiculous, my apology if I misunderstood. Yeah agree that comment was ridiculous.
This is a double edged sword. From a security standpoint it’s a no brainer to upgrade to SP2, but from a compatibility point for certain applications it’s not possible to upgrade.
There’s good and bad in this.
What applications at this point could possibly still be incompatible with SP2? Definitely not a program I’d want to use, considering that SP2 is just a security center, firewall, wireless networking enhancements, and USB 2.0 bug fixes.
I know at my workplace there was only one called BPCS Session Manager. Here’s a wikipedia article on just BPCS… I don’t thin it mentions the Session Manager in there though: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BPCS
I’ll completely agree it’s an old system that should be replaced (and has been where I work now), but the point remains that for SP2 to go ahead this software had to be abandoned.
Microsoft does support their OSes much longer than does Apple.
Apple generally supports only the last two 0.1 versions of OSX, and those versions are released so frequently that you basically get about two years of support and that’s it. Right now, Apple only supports OSX 10.3.9 and 10.4.x, having terminated 10.2.x support when 10.4 was released. Apple issues no bug fixes or security updates for versions of OSX earlier than 10.3.9. And according to Apple’s history, support for 10.3 will terminate when 10.5 is released.
And why was this voted down to 0? This is actually informative. I’ve never seen such skewed comment voting until this article.
Anyway, thanks for that tidbit.
Remember that Microsoft is exceedingly generous with support compared to Linux.
And even better if you use XP Pro:
“Mainstream support will end two years after the next version of this product is released. Extended support will end five years after mainstream support ends.”
Translation: XP Pro will get security patches for 7 years after Vista is released.
This means 12 years of security support for XP Pro compared to ususally 12-18 months for Linux.
This is an amazing bargain for any business. No wonder desktop Linux is the choice of .4% of the population.
Amazing support?
From Microsoft???
Ummm yeah, right. Lemme remember how this one goes….Windows SP5? Nah they canceled it. You have to buy Windows XP for the latest support.
Oh wait! There’s a rollup! Cool…
Huh? They didn’t bother to test the rollup and it hosed alot of systems? You should really just go with Windows XP any way. Why? It has amazing support….
—bornagainpenguin (humming The Who’s “Won’t Get Fooled Again”)
Edited 2006-10-09 23:28
Windows SP5? Nah they canceled it. You have to buy Windows XP for the latest support.
Only slightly true. Windows 2000 Pro and Server will get security fixes until July 2010. Very good considering that it RTM’d in Dec 1999.
The enhanced security added to XP SP2 and Windows 2003 SP1 make them a better choice.
Linux tends to force you to upgrade versions after 12-18 months which is a lot of work for businesses with 1000’s of desktops.
The option leaving XP on deployed PC’s for another 7 years (or Win2K for another 4 years) is real , measurable value for businesses and leads to a much lower TCO than Linux.
Edited 2006-10-10 00:32
Well there is Ubuntu Dapper that give three years of support and upgrades on the desktop and five years on servers. OpenSUSE is supported for two years after it’s release. I believe RHEL and SLED are supported for seven years.
Well there is Ubuntu Dapper that give three years of support and upgrades on the desktop and five years on servers.
Wait until they do a RedHat and terminate the free version make you pay.
No. Canonical has pledged to keep Ubuntu free. Those 3-5 years of updates and support are provided by the community. However there are payed support services.
Dapper is a “LTS” release and only will happen once every few releases. Normally Ubuntu is supported for only 18 months.
Every openSUSE release has two years of security/bug fix updates and unlimited community help via forum, mailing lists and chatrooms plus all the rich online resources.
“Wait until they do a RedHat and terminate the free version make you pay.”
You don’t have to pay for “RedHat”. You pay for support from RedHat, if you want it.
If you just want the RHEL software, get it for free from here:
http://www.centos.org/
or from here:
http://www.whiteboxlinux.org/
Maybe one day you will understand – open source code under the GPL is free to distribute.
“Well, you do get updates as long as you pay for the support. 1500 a year? Wow.”
No. You are mistaken. You can get that code for free as well. You would pay for the support only if you wanted support. The software itself is available for download from the inetrnet at no cost (in source code form from RedHat itself, or from other parties as compiled binaries).
Edited 2006-10-10 04:45
———-Linux tends to force you to upgrade versions after 12-18 months which is a lot of work for businesses with 1000’s of desktops.
The option leaving XP on deployed PC’s for another 7 years (or Win2K for another 4 years) is real , measurable value for businesses and leads to a much lower TCO than Linux.————–
They do? Boy, I hope Red Hat lets their customers know that before they buy into RHEL……………………
*sarcasm*
They do? Boy, I hope Red Hat lets their customers know that before they buy into RHEL……………………
Well, you do get updates as long as you pay for the support. 1500 a year? Wow.
“Linux tends to force you to upgrade versions after 12-18 months which is a lot of work for businesses with 1000’s of desktops.”
Rubbish.
If I had Linux installed on 1000’s of identical machines, I could upgrade them all overnight for no cost from one server, if I wanted to. Most such upgrades would not even require a reboot.
If all the machines were different, then why would I bother upgrading them at all? I would host a local repository, download source code for any applications I wanted to update, compile it against the version of libraries and kernel that the machines all had, and put the resulting binary .rpm or .deb on my local server, and again upgrade all of the 1000’s of machines overnight from there.
Linux doesn’t force you to update or upgrade at all. You can keep the machines running indefinitely on the one version.
First can anyone tell me how to install SP2 without WGA, without breaking any law, and without having to install an obscure third party app. If SP2 is nothing but a firewall and the like, support for SP1 and SP2 should be the same.
Second, if you only release an OS every three year, sure “generous” support is needed. For any linux distro (coming with a new release every 6 months) you just upgrade to the next version, like, for, free. Especially the debian systems are great in working like this, or you can go the gentoo way, no releases, just upgrading. But well if WGA isn’t needed to install SP2 it’s not that bad either, but I don’t think it’s possible.
when you uncheck wga, simply check “don’t ask me about dechecked updates”, or whatever http://www.medi-vet.com/frontlinefleacontrol.html
“Remember that Microsoft is exceedingly generous with support compared to Linux.”
This of course is only because it needs to be. The Windows paradign is “application binaries”. If a new Windows version failed to support older application binaries, users would be up in arms that their paid-for older application no longer works.
On Linux, applications available in binary-only are quite rare. On Linux, you can still run almost every application from way back in any event.
Most importantly, on Linux old versions are supportable forever, because you have got the source code for that version of Linux available to you.
You’re making an apples to oranges comparison.
————–Translation: XP Pro will get security patches for 7 years after Vista is released.
This means 12 years of security support for XP Pro compared to ususally 12-18 months for Linux.————
Which linux?
I’ve noticed that a distro like fedora or maybe suse will only support for 12-18 months, but keep in mind this is a free product to begin with.
How long will Red Hat or Novell support you if you buy RHEL or Suse enterprise desktop?
If microsoft all of a sudden started giving away a chopped up version of windows for free don’t expect that version to also get updates for 7 years as well.
//If microsoft all of a sudden started giving away a chopped up version of windows for free don’t expect that version to also get updates for 7 years as well.//
Windows-think.
Linux doesn’t depend on binary backwards compatibility. Hence all versions of Linux have been continually updated (to the next version) since it started.
It’s not windows think. It’s common sense think.
A company or community who gives their product away for free isn’t going to support it for very long. They most likely just don’t have the resources for that. There’s no resource/revenue stream coming from their product.
With MS, it’ll come down more to not wanting to support it for monitary reasons than anything.(as they *do* have the resources)
To my knowledge, RHEL comes with 5 years of updates/support. That’s alot closer to being along the lines of what MS offers. Of course, MS’s product costs more, does it not?
//It’s not windows think. It’s common sense think.
A company or community who gives their product away for free isn’t going to support it for very long. They most likely just don’t have the resources for that. There’s no resource/revenue stream coming from their product. //
Sigh!
It is Windows think. You have got it wrong again.
RedHat’s business model is quite different to Microsoft’s. RedHat don’t charge for software, they charge for support.
So, quite the contrary to your statement, RedHat’s ONLY resource/revenue stream coming from their product IS support!
Similarly for Ubuntu. Get the software for free here:
http://www.ubuntu.com/download
… but if you want support, arrange it and pay for it here:
http://www.ubuntu.com/support
What is so hard to understand about that?
As long as they provide support, these companies have revenue. Drop the support, drop the revenue stream.
… but even then, if (say) Ubuntu are running out of people who can support an older version, and they suggest updating, then “customer” companies can at a later time get the new updated version for no cost here:
http://www.ubuntu.com/download
Ubuntu even make this offer: “If you cannot download CDs, or would simply like more attractive official CDs, we can send them to you free of charge. Linux User Groups and others interested in handing out extra CDs to friends and others are welcome to order a few extra to share.”
Free CDs even.
So it is a matter of chosing:
(a) carry on with our existing version, for which we have trained staff and the source code but no ongoing support (other than in-house), or (b) setup a local mirror with the new version and run an overnight script on all our machines to roll out the updated version.
Or you can get help from Ubuntu on how to do a large deployment. From the Ubuntu support page:
“Expert advice & large deployments
Ubuntu has been deployed on home computers and in government deployments of over 100,000 machines.
Our global services team’s mission is to ensure that you achieve yours. For expert advice on complex configurations, our installation professionals can guide you to secure, productive and a cost-effective computing environment. “
Nowhere near as much pain in that decision for a Linux shop than an “end-of-support must update to a later version and pay for it all over again” decision for a Windows shop.
Edited 2006-10-10 14:28
[i]Ubuntu has been deployed on home computers and in government deployments of over 100,000 machines.[/]
That would be grand total. All time. Not at once.
Or else most users of Ubuntu wiped it clean and replaced it with a pirated copy of Windows.
//Ubuntu has been deployed on home computers and in government deployments of over 100,000 machines.
That would be grand total. All time. Not at once. //
A “deployment” is indeed all at once. The phrase “government deployments of over 100,000 machines” says that “deployments of over 100,000 machines at the one time” have been done more than once by Ubuntu for governments or government departments.
The phrase “Ubuntu has been deployed on home computers and in government deployments of over 100,000 machines.” is just an indication of the range of scale that Ubuntu installation supports. Single home computers at one end of the scale, “government deployments of over 100,000 machines” at the other end of the scale.
Seriously NotParker, you need help. You are taking “head in the sand” to a whole new level here.
“Remember that Microsoft is exceedingly generous with support compared to Linux.”
Uh, these two are not comparable. “Linux” is not a company and thus does not give *any* support.
Maybe you ment the different Linux vendors but I seriously doubt you have actually investigated all of their support options and as such this is a highly suspect statement.
“This means 12 years of security support for XP Pro compared to ususally 12-18 months for Linux.”
That’s one way of looking at it but there’s also another way. Most Linux vendors are offering upgrades (a new version) at least every 12 month and this could be considered a “service pack” since these are generally not very big changes, at least not compared to the changes between Windows version.
If you look at it this way “Linux” offers support for the foreseeable future.
Edited 2006-10-10 04:05
Actually on Linux you can create a customized automatic network installation. Not that Windows can not do that, it does, but on Linux this includes also the applications, not only the basic system. So, I guess, yours 1000 desktops are a lot easier to upgrade on Linux. Still, for more then regular use some of we still need Autodesk/MSOffice/Adobe stuff. Watching Wine and virtualization advances with extreme interest.
Fact: Microsoft owns the consumers of its operating systems.
Fact: Consumers will yield to Microsoft’s whims or else.
Fact: When a company treats its customers like the enemy, the smart customers go elsewhere. (The dumb ones continue being manipulated, blissfully unaware it’s even being done to them in the first place.)
Choice is good. Choose open source.
Argh! Damn small grammar mistake, Never mind.
Isn’t this a bit like saying “Apple drops support for 10.4.7”?
You know, cos there’s a 10.4.8 and it’s free so upgrade to it, so do that.
Seems Microsoft were pretty generous to support a superseded service pack at all.