4 ms·
XP has been out of support for 5 years. I get it, IT is hard and expensive, but you've had 5 years (and multiple years leading up to it) to find a solution. At
by ducttape12 7y ago
XP has been out of support for 5 years. I get it, IT is hard and expensive, but you've had 5 years (and multiple years leading up to it) to find a solution. At this point it's your fault, not Microsoft's or your software vendor's.
- Sohcahtoa82 7y agoI look at it another way. XP is almost 18 years old. If you were running an 18 year old operating system in 2010, you'd have been running Windows 3.11 while everyone else is on Windows 7. Running XP now is like running Linux Kernel 2.4 today. If the computer in question is connected to any network, to keep it so out-of-date is simply irresponsible.
- ahje 7y agoBetter comparison: You'd have been using a Commodore 64 or Apple II when XP was launched.
- cgarden 7y agoNot particularly. Most large enterprise networks rely upon many more layers than the OS to protect and secure their infrastructure. The cost and logistics involved in replacing legacy systems trumps the need/inability of highly skilled engineers to protect an old OS.
- closeparen 7y agoAnd yet attackers routinely make it onto “secure” networks and stay ahead of attack signature databases. Other layers might save you, you hope, sometimes. It is still irresponsible. Most actively developed and diligently patched software is bad enough; after EOL it is beyond the pale. The cost needs to be properly internalized so that getting owned really is more expensive than migrating legacy; today I’d have to agree with you that it isn’t.