Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 1st May 2014 16:45 UTC
Internet Explorer

Despite XP's end of support, Microsoft is still going to release the fix for the recent Internet Explorer vulnerability for the ageing operating system.

Even though Windows XP is no longer supported by Microsoft and is past the time we normally provide security updates, we've decided to provide an update for all versions of Windows XP (including embedded), today. We made this exception based on the proximity to the end of support for Windows XP. The reality is there have been a very small number of attacks based on this particular vulnerability and concerns were, frankly, overblown. Unfortunately this is a sign of the times and this is not to say we don’t take these reports seriously. We absolutely do.

If you're still on Windows XP, you deserve to be insecure. Get a modern operating system - Windows 7/8, OS X, Linux, anything. XP is outdated crap, and it's time to move on.

Thread beginning with comment 587912
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Honestly...
by TemporalBeing on Thu 1st May 2014 17:17 UTC
TemporalBeing
Member since:
2007-08-22

It's funny to see how Microsoft is spinning this as "we did it because of proximity to the end of support" when the true reason is the liability of having 30% of Windows users with this bug.

That said, so long as I have to pay to upgrade I won't.

No, I don't use WinXP. The only Windows system in my house is my wife's Vista system which won't get a new version of Windows ever; it'll become a Linux system once she gets a new system...some day.

In the meantime that is exactly the sentiment that XP users have; they'd probably upgrade to Win7 if it was free, easy, and reliable to do so - but Microsoft made that really hard by not providing an XP to Win7 upgrade path (even when Win7 was brand new - you had to go to Vista first).

So now it's biting them back.

Reply Score: 10

RE: Honestly...
by BlueofRainbow on Thu 1st May 2014 18:14 in reply to "Honestly..."
BlueofRainbow Member since:
2009-01-06

Large corporations have many word spinners.

With Windows XP still used by around 30% of all web surfers, the potential liability around a bug which came into existence well before the EOL, and became publicized just after the EOL, was likely felt too large to just ignore it.

Also, as far as I understand, a number of other Windows products (Embedded and Server) still in active service with full support will be updated to deal with the bug. Thus, there would be minimal additional expenditures involved with delivering an update for Windows XP.

With respect to the apparent refusal to upgrade of this 30% of all web surfers, it likely that they are not willing to go through the financial pain of purchasing a full Win7 product and the aggravations of migrating applications and data post-upgrade.

Furthermore, they probably got Windows XP when they purchased their current systems and will upgrade only when they need to replace it - if they are replacing it with a Windows based desktop. Some may have already migrated to a tablet for a lot of the web related tasks they do and have kept the Windows XP dinosaur only for the apps not yet existing on their tablets.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE: Honestly...
by bassbeast on Sun 4th May 2014 18:41 in reply to "Honestly..."
bassbeast Member since:
2007-11-11

Bullshit, they did the same thing with WinNT in 2006 and WinNT wasn't anywhere close to 30% back in 2006. the reason why is obvious to anybody that is thinking rationally, MSFT knows that script kiddies wait for EOL to get some free jabs in, just as they wanted with WinNT, so by giving a 3-4 month grace period they are able to smacj down the script kiddies before walking away which i would argue is not only smart but shows they know how the malware writers work.

And don't even start preaching Linux, until you can show a system that passes the Hairyfeet Challenge its gonna stay a 1% OS that is unsuitable for 99% of the population as nobody is gonna deal with "open up bash and type" or having their wireless crapped on every year when the upgrade death march rolls around because some "genius" dev decided to move a pointer.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Honestly...
by TemporalBeing on Mon 5th May 2014 13:54 in reply to "RE: Honestly..."
TemporalBeing Member since:
2007-08-22

Bullshit, they did the same thing with WinNT in 2006 and WinNT wasn't anywhere close to 30% back in 2006. the reason why is obvious to anybody that is thinking rationally, MSFT knows that script kiddies wait for EOL to get some free jabs in, just as they wanted with WinNT, so by giving a 3-4 month grace period they are able to smacj down the script kiddies before walking away which i would argue is not only smart but shows they know how the malware writers work.


Except those same script kiddies would just wait the extra 6 months or year...sorry but that's just BS.

And don't even start preaching Linux, until you can show a system that passes the Hairyfeet Challenge its gonna stay a 1% OS that is unsuitable for 99% of the population as nobody is gonna deal with "open up bash and type" or having their wireless crapped on every year when the upgrade death march rolls around because some "genius" dev decided to move a pointer.



So the Linux User's Group I've been part of has set up linux systems for groups and not had any issues with those groups needing to use CLI - they typically use a Ubuntu derivative.

I've also setup Linux for people and had the same experience.

Ultimately, CLI is not required on any modern, main-stream Linux distro (take your choice) any more than it is on Windows. And yes, there are still quite a few tasks on Windows that require CLI access. For instance, there was a major bug in the Windows Vista Windows Update functionality that required CLI access to change permissions on files in order get Windows Update to work again - same bug also occurred in Win7.

Reply Parent Score: 2