13 ms·
I don't understand why they would do this. If I was a microsoft manager I would be glad something like this happened because it would force people off of old OS
by baroffoos 7y ago
I don't understand why they would do this. If I was a microsoft manager I would be glad something like this happened because it would force people off of old OSs without having the bad rep of doing it through nag popups.
Now everyone on XP will feel safe because its still getting updates.
- jafingi 7y agoMany institutions and hospitals still use XP. And they pay Microsoft a lot to support it.
- kbumsik 7y agoDo they really still pay for XP? I thought it went completely EOL some years ago.
- DKnoll 7y agoYep, NHS for example.
- andygates 7y agoWe had extended support for a couple of years but now it's dead dead deadski. Like any other large industrial org, there's some bits of million-pound kit with integrated, essential XP. Likewise old essential software where the support has literally retired, running on 2003. We've got roadmaps for replacing it, but they're not instant. We manage it as best we can. But broadly we're just about to go to 10 on desktops, so we're not as bad as the police!
- DKnoll 7y agoGlad to hear it. When I worked for a NHS software vendor a couple years ago there were still XP workstations about. I guess it probably varies by the trust as well.
- ollie87 7y agoNHS Employee here, not seen XP on a NHS machine in a very long time - including in hospital environments. It's Windows 7 now, I'm now seeing some staff get Windows 10 machines deployed to them.
- baroffoos 7y agoThose still using XP should have networking and USB features disabled.
- Carpetsmoker 7y agoIn the real world, there understaffed IT departments, insufficient budgets, time-consuming logistics, and complex systems which are not easily upgraded. Microsoft's options here are either "to hell with it, not my problem, just let the world burn" or taking responsibility and fixing problems which will affect people.
- baroffoos 7y agoBudgets will find room for an update when an out of date OS starts causing damage to the business. Patching an ancient OS is enabling the delay of updates with the excuse "Whats the point, it still works"
- vkou 7y agoI've worked at a company where the build server was full of viruses, because devs kept spinning up unpatched XP VMs, who would inevitably get Conficker, and whatever other shit was hanging around on our intranet. Nobody gave a shit about it. And this wasn't some crazy seat-of-the pants startup. It was a mature software company, employing >40 engineers (in that division alone), that had been building, and selling software for many, many years.
- egorfine 7y agoI have had a VM server like that. About a dozen Windows images each launched from a known good snapshot for the test suite to run. Afterwards VM is killed and reverted back to the snapshot. Viruses? Couldn't care less. The whole lifecycle of the VM was like 40 minutes.
- vkou 7y ago40 minutes of an unpatched computer on that network was 35 minutes too long. We'd also develop inside VMs. That is, we'd install Visual Studio, our product, Seapine source control...
- Carpetsmoker 7y ago
- sagebird 7y agoI would not be shocked if Windows XP had less vulnerabilities than Windows 10. Also, who cares? How would your behavior change if you learned one was more or less vulnerable than the other?
- baroffoos 7y agoIf I was managing systems that were EOL many years ago and an active risk of being exploited my behavior change would be either to update them or disconnect them from the outside world.
- sagebird 7y agoWhat if you managed a non-EOL OS, like Windows 10, but you had inside information that there were multiple active ongoing exploits? You might say you would disconnect them from the internet. But I think it comes down to blame. No one would blame you if Win10 computers were connected to the internet and were exploited. But people _would_ blame you if they were XP. I think this pretty much explains how people think about these choices.
- m_mueller 7y agoMicrosofts rather friendly attitude to downwards compatibility & longterm support, is IMO one of their strongest competitive advantages for Windows and Office. Not following this philosophy for their mobile platforms has also lead to their downfall there.
- pjc50 7y agoAt this stage, anyone still using XP is doing so because they have no other choice: either it's intrinsically tied to low-end hardware, or to some piece of critical software, and it's too expensive or time-consuming to replace. Often this includes "embedded" PCs in scientific equipment and the like.