Microsoft Plans to Stop Updating Anti-Virus Software on Windows XP

[janedoe]

I could run Windows XP RTM (no patches) and still avoid infection, just to prove this point.

There will always be unpatched exploits in every version of Windows (aka zero-day). It's not a huge concern if one practices safe browsing habits.

I agree 100% with Lacius. If there's a zero-day exploit spread by a trustworthy website that's been hacked (or by an infected embedded component that's not an ad or something you'd normally block), your PC will obviously get infected. Safe browsing is just the first line of defense and even if you can consistently stick to your guns and implement it well it is not the be all and end all of security.

mikr0$0ft....fail.

Ultimate fail M$ will fail forever !

So you want Microsoft to support XP and associated software for the ageing OS forever? I'm guessing you have never run businesses of your own. 12 years in software terms is forever, and no other company has supported an OS version for so long.

Ultimately to all the whiners, no-one's snatching away your precious favorite OS away from your grubby fingers. Continue using it all you want, who's stopping you? It's not going to magically stop working come April. But why do you expect the developer (which is a business with profit as its motive after all) to provide support for it to infinity and beyond? You don't like their newer offerings like Windows 8, fine. That is entirely your choice and you have every right to excercise it by rejecting the OS. If you eventually get tired of XP there are plenty of good alternatives, including free ones. Choose one and enjoy. I just fail to see what all the moaning is about... :huh:

Edited November 1, 2013 by janedoe

[anakin206]

just grab a FREE "pirated" copy of your favorite linux distro and you can keep using your old computer as always and not have to worry about all the doom and gloom microsoft is preaching to force you to buy new hardware...problem solved!

Thanks Linux troll :lol:

[banned]

or by an infected embedded component that's not an ad or something you'd normally block), your PC will obviously get infected.

The chances of that are so ridiculously small, I'm not worried about it. The day Microsoft can provide something better than XP (and without having to worry about backdoors), I'll gladly consider upgrading.

[smallhagrid]

I guess this is a challenge for some folks' understanding:

So you want Microsoft to support XP and associated software for the ageing OS forever? I'm guessing you have never run businesses of your own. 12 years in software terms is forever, and no other company has supported an OS version for so long.

NO - many here including myself are saying that 'SUPPORT' is not needed - irrelevant - useless and that we DO NOT give a sh*t what mikr0$0ft says we MUST do (or else - hahahaha) - they have FAILED to scare us - sorry.

As to the subject of business - best avoid trying to teach your elders here=>

I've been in business for myself for well over 20 years, and use only XP and Linux.

I am not alone in my choices either (as clearly shown in this active thread) but if that is not enough for you=>

One of my friends only just switched his highly profitable & successful business of many years away from it's win2000 server; another still has his win2k server and is the most successful lawyer in his area with desktops ALL running XP in his office building.

As I've said in earlier posts - if you LIKE liver & lima beans - that is great - but I'll pass and you can have it all with my best wishes !!!

[Lacius]

The chances of that are so ridiculously small, I'm not worried about it. The day Microsoft can provide something better than XP (and without having to worry about backdoors), I'll gladly consider upgrading.

I'm not sure how you can assess the chances as "ridiculously small" when a widely used OS having perpetually and widely used exploits is without precedent. Those "ridiculously small" chances go up and up as unpatched exploits become more and more of an "industry standard." You're basing these alleged chances off a world where exploits don't, for all intents and purposes, become standards, and the ones that do are patched by the OS. It's a war on two fronts: Attacks become more focused on specific vulnerabilities, and those vulnerabilities go unpatched.

You're also looking at third-party software dropping XP support not long after XP's end of support. Unlike MSE, other antivirus programs are likely to continue providing automatic definition updates after XP's end of support. However, it is unlikely that third-party software like antivirus programs will continue supporting actual program updates long after XP's end. I also don't expect web browsers to support XP terribly long after its demise. Historically speaking, an XP user might get another ~3 years out of something like Firefox, and that still doesn't solve the problem of unpatched XP exploits. As fast-paced as Mozilla has gotten with their releases recently, I think 3 years might be overshooting it too.

There's really no reason not to update to Windows 7, Windows 8.1, or Linux, depending on hardware requirements and money. I actually don't see how 7/8.1 aren't better than XP in almost every way. It would be stupid to remain on Windows XP after April 8, 2014.

[smallhagrid]

Lacius - you are calling a great many folks who are very experienced 'stupid' for their own personal choices.

As I said before any mikr0$0ft OS newer than XP - to me (and many others) ATM - is like liver & lima beans.

You want that - great, and I wish you well at it; but also urge you not to criticize those of us who do not want it.

[banned]

There's really no reason not to update to Windows 7, Windows 8.1, or Linux, depending on hardware requirements and money.

I think you should get a job at Microsoft marketing department.

[Lacius]

Lacius - you are calling a great many folks who are very experienced 'stupid' for their own personal choices.

As I said before any mikr0$0ft OS newer than XP - to me (and many others) ATM - is like liver & lima beans.

You want that - great, and I wish you well at it; but also urge you not to criticize those of us who do not want it.

I'm not calling anyone stupid. I'm saying that, for security reasons, it is objectively stupid to stay on Windows XP after April. It's with poor judgement that a person would stay on a vulnerable operating system. There is a difference between calling someone stupid and calling a particular action stupid. There are plenty of "personal choices" out there are are certainly stupid, and plenty of smart people make poor decisions.

There's really no reason not to update to Windows 7, Windows 8.1, or Linux, depending on hardware requirements and money.

I think you should get a job at Microsoft marketing department.

That's weird. I wasn't aware that Linux was something being promoted by the Microsoft marketing department.

[janedoe]

The chances of that are so ridiculously small, I'm not worried about it. The day Microsoft can provide something better than XP (and without having to worry about backdoors), I'll gladly consider upgrading.

The thing is, not only is safe browsing not a magic pill to make a PC invulnerable to all malware, not all that many average computer users are capable of it in the first place. You seem to be one so good for you but let me tell you, people like you are an exception. When it comes to most average users with old hardware stuck with XP, they need to be protected from themselves and their own tendency to open any odd attachment, click on any link, browse to any site and so on. I know first hand because I am the de facto IT support for so many friends and relatives, and let me tell you I am amazed at the junk and malware they manage to somehow load their systems with in no time at all is simply amazing. I don't think I could manage it even if I tried! Such people who have no concept of security are far better off moving to a newer supported version of Windows (or Linux if they can handle it which is extremely doubtful). Of late I have updated many such PCs to Windows 7 (and 8 when requested), and they are better of for it. Ultimately, it's entirely your choice if you choose to stay with an old unsupported OS. However you have to know what you're doing so you can stay on top of things and that definition excludes most average computer users.

I've been in business for myself for well over 20 years, and use only XP and Linux.

If your cryptic "mikr0$0ft....fail" comment referred to the fact that Microsoft had failed to scare you into upgrading to a newer version of Windows, then that's absolutely fine. I have already stated that people are free to continue using XP or switch to something better like a modern Linux distro come April, and I don't care two hoots what you or your friends are using or will be using.

However it wasn't clear what you meant and I read it as a comment on Microsoft's failure to support XP and MSE users after April 2014. This sort of attitude is what I am against and find so puzzling, which is why I made that observation about being in business. Anyone who's ever been in the business of creating and selling products for any length of time knows that you cannot sell someone one copy that will last forever and that you will support forever. If you want to make a profit as a business then you need to persuade people to buy from you repeatedly, and that should be obvious but sadly isn't to many people. That's purely what Microsoft as a company is doing, for like any similar entity their profits are contingent on repeat business. So when I find people calling Microsoft names for ending support for an OS after more than a decade has passed (way more than expected), I'm like, really? Do people honestly expect a company to support an outdated product for the rest of their lives?

Edited November 1, 2013 by janedoe

[MidnightDistortions]

Microsoft stopped caring about updating XP since Vista came out. The same is happening to W7. Microsoft could continue to patch up XP but they would rather see everyone move to W8. That is their goal, they don't care what XP users want. So why continue to give XP users features so people wouldn't buy any of the new OS's. That is the only reason why XP is getting the boot. If you don't want to spend any more money but care about security then move to Linux. You can even use Xp along with Linux if you want.

There shouldn't be a reason not to upgrade but Microsoft is making it hard for people to even want to spend the money on a new OS.

[CPowell46]

I'm not "whining". I don't want or need Microsoft's "support". I'm just irritated by the incessant scare stories about the flood of malware that will sweep over XP users the moment Micrpsoft's "support" ends. I"ve been using XP since it came out, I haven't installed a single update since SP3, and I've had no malware problems whatsoever. I won't speculate about the motives of those pushing the scare stories...but they're talking nonsense.

[Lacius]

I'm not "whining". I don't want or need Microsoft's "support". I'm just irritated by the incessant scare stories about the flood of malware that will sweep over XP users the moment Micrpsoft's "support" ends. I"ve been using XP since it came out, I haven't installed a single update since SP3, and I've had no malware problems whatsoever. I won't speculate about the motives of those pushing the scare stories...but they're talking nonsense.

No one said there is going to be a flood of malware that will sweep over XP users "the moment" support ends; it is going to be a gradual process as exploits are slowly uncovered. Likewise, your alleged evidence of not having had any problems despite not installing any updates since SP3 is useless when attackers have no incentive to make these exploits (that have long since been patched by most XP users) standards. It's both anecdotal and based on an environment dissimilar to this one where XP exploits are still being patched. That's like predicting your physical health in 2014 based on 2013 when everyone around you got a flu shot when next year, no one is getting a flu shot.

[smallhagrid]

Earlier in this and other threads - I believe that it was made quite clear=>

If your cryptic "mikr0$0ft....fail" comment referred to the fact that Microsoft had failed to scare you into upgrading to a newer version of Windows, then that's absolutely fine. I have already stated that people are free to continue using XP or switch to something better like a modern Linux distro come April, and I don't care two hoots what you or your friends are using or will be using.

That there's lots of happy XP users here who don't give 'two hoots' whether there is any 'support' for it anymore.

Given that wildly successful businesses as well as folks whose offices easily reap clear 6-figure (and higher) incomes are using nothing newer than XP, and are having exactly zero trouble in doing so - I believe this is highly relevant to the topic under discussion here whether you give 'two hoots', or not.

And I do thank you on behalf of myself and others for your gracious permission to continue using XP;

That really means alot to me and I was really holding my breath waiting for your blessing !! :wub: :lol:

Edited November 2, 2013 by smallhagrid

[janedoe]

Given that wildly successful businesses as well as folks whose offices easily reap clear 6-figure (and higher) incomes are using nothing newer than XP, and are having exactly zero trouble in doing so - I believe this is highly relevant to the topic under discussion here whether you give 'two hoots', or not.

No, it's not relevant, unless you're trying to deliberately misinterpret what I said above. Let me restate it in simple terms - while I personally feel clueless users should be moved away from an unsupported outdated OS they don't have the technical know-how to keep secure, I don't really care what knowledgable users do after April 2014. You were the one posting anecdotes about your friend and his business, whereas it was amply clear that when I was referring to the business aspect I was talking about how for Microsoft it makes pure business sense to stop supporting XP after 12 years. Anyone who knows about running a business would know why they're doing it, and people complaining about it and expecting perpetual support are simply being idiotic. If you persist in thinking that I was advocating business users be forced to switch from XP or whatever, I can't really help it. If they know how to handle any malware or other issues that may crop up after April, that's great and all power to them.

And I do thank you on behalf of myself and others for your gracious permission to continue using XP;

That really means alot to me and I was really holding my breath waiting for your blessing !! :wub: :lol:

I gave my "permission" to the same extent you asked for it, but sure if you want to put it that way it's no skin off my nose. If you want my "permission" again for anything in life feel free to ask, I'll be right here! ;) :lol:

Edited November 2, 2013 by janedoe

[CPowell46]

I'm anything but ignorant, if I do say so myself. And I have no intention of ditching XP, or even installing another update. Nor do I expect any problems, malware or otherwise, in the foreseeable future. It's nothing to me if Microsoft go broke...I've gotten everything I want from them.

Edited November 2, 2013 by CPowell46

[CPowell46]

By the way, Lacius, how am I protected from new "exploits" by Microsoft's patches when I don't install the patches? If you think hackers give up on an "exploit" because Microsoft releases a patch, you don't know much about hackers.

And my experience isn't "alleged"...it happens to be real. I suppose it's "anecdotal" because it's my individual experience. It's still real, and, all by itself, it gives the lie to the scare-mongers.

Edited November 2, 2013 by CPowell46

[smallhagrid]

It always strongly amazes me to see m$ apologists and/or fanboys (fangirls too ?!?) hanging out at places that clearly exist to disregard the well-being of greedmongers.

There are the 2 extremes=>

One in which every emission from m$ is viewed almost as a biblical/holy proclamation;

VS.

The other which views such malodorous emissions as just that.

(Not so differently than the satire of the below video...)

And of course there are also all the less extreme views in-between such polar opposites.

All opinions are equally valuable depending upon one's chosen POV.

This thread was started on the topic of the ending of the so-called m$ AV updates.

Here are it's extremes, once again=>

Those with similar perspective to my own see this as rather amusing - mostly because the idea of trusting m$ to PROTECT anything or anyone OTHER than satisfying it's own abso-fricken-lutely amazingly huge greed - is hilarious.

Those who insist upon forcing OS 'upgrades' down other folks' throats are clearly in favour of some sort of fear-driven forced consumerism, rather akin to any form of zealotry - like naziism, for example.

As for the actions and presentations of m$ - I greatly enjoy poking fun at anything like this that is so blinded by it's own ego that it acts as if it is ENTITLED to the obeisance of all and sundry - really, seriously, OPENLY demanding to be worshipped rather than allowing that people have other, equally valid choices they can make.

As a last little snipe related to the types of extreme dominance explained above - enjoy !!!:

[CPowell46]

I wonder whether the Microsoft cheerleaders honestly believe the silly things they say.

[janedoe]

I wonder whether the Microsoft <insert company name here> cheerleaders honestly believe the silly things they say.

This is a symptom of all fanboys/girls of any company and you don't have to look far to identify them, whereas those with brains know it is pointless to have religious debates/arguments.

[banned]

I wouldn't mind upgrading if every operating system Microsoft released since Windows XP didn't feel like just another Vista refresh.. Note this is just my opinion and not meant to be a personal insult (except to Microsoft perhaps).

[Lacius]

By the way, Lacius, how am I protected from new "exploits" by Microsoft's patches when I don't install the patches?

You're not protected, but vulnerabilities that are patched are less likely to be abused in the wild than vulnerabilities that are known but unpatched, particularly when they're known for an extended period of time, as will be the case with XP after support ends. I believe this will be the third or fourth time I've explained how this works, so I'm not going to bother expounding.

If you think hackers give up on an "exploit" because Microsoft releases a patch, you don't know much about hackers.

I never said anyone gives up on anything. I suggest you reread what I've said multiple times about the quantity of specific attacks.

And my experience isn't "alleged"...it happens to be real. I suppose it's "anecdotal" because it's my individual experience. It's still real, and, all by itself, it gives the lie to the scare-mongers.

The "ridiculously small chances" were indeed alleged. Reread my previous posts about how your alleged "ridiculously small chances" are not true of the future environment we're talking about. I didn't say your experience was what was alleged, although even if I had, you saying it and that being the only evidence I have of it is the definition of "alleged." I suggest you learn how words work so I don't have to repeat myself again without any new content.

[CPowell46]

Lacius' assertions that I misunderstood his statements are simply false, as anyone who re-reads those statements will see. But it's clear that he will, for whatever reason, continue to push the Microsoft party line, no matter what, so I'll waste no more time bandying words with him.

[jackieo]

That sony video was funny as hell. :pos:

[ricktendo]

EXTENDED until 2015