Windows XP: Not dead yet!

[Batu69]

Some businesses have legitimate reasons to keep using Microsoft's obsolete operating system. But for most, the reasons that companies hold on to Windows XP boil down to not wanting to spend the money to upgrade. That's not a good long-term plan.

 

For better or worse, Microsoft’s Windows XP is still in use. Indeed, recently you may have been startled to read that the United Kingdom’s newest aircraft carrier, the Queen Elizabeth, runs Windows XP. That particular story wasn’t true, as it turns out, but some of the warship’s construction contractors did use the old operating system.

 

You likely were willing to accept the QE story because so many businesses are still running Windows XP. Some hold on to the out-of-date OS from pure laziness and cheapness, but others have genuine reasons for sticking with it.

 

It’s been three years since April 8, 2014, the end of mainstream Windows XP support. But that hasn’t stopped these companies from relying on the software.

Windows XP lives

We all know that the OS is still in use, if for no other reason than discovering a family tech-support emergency in which we are asked to fix a relative’s old computer. However, the exact number of systems that still run Windows XP is a bit hard to pin down; the percentages vary depending on the reports you read.

 

As of June 2017, Windows XP still has an amazing 7 percent market share, according to U.S.-based analytics vendor Net Applications. This percentage is derived from “data from the browsers of site visitors to our exclusive on-demand network of HitsLink Analytics and SharePost clients,” Net Applications explains, based on its worldwide network of over 40,000 websites.

 

Irish analytics company StatCounter doesn’t have Windows XP usage quite that high, but at 5 percent market share, Windows XP shows amazing life.

Windows XP remains particularly strong in the People’s Republic of China, where it’s the second most popular desktop operating system (after Windows 7) with 20 percent using the OS. Of these, approximately 90 percent are pirated copies, according to StatCounter. StatCounter’s numbers come from its web analytics service; the company’s tracking code is installed on over 2.5 million sites globally, where it records billions of page views.

 

In the United States, Windows XP’s use as a desktop OS has been declining. According to the Federal Digital Analytics Program's (DAP) analytics page, in the past three months Windows XP was used by only 0.6 percent of users. That’s far less than Net Applications and Statcounter’s global numbers. That may reflect the nature of the sites from which DAP collects web traffic: more than 300 executive branch government domains across 3,800 websites. Most, 81 percent, of site visitors are U.S. citizens.

 

Even in the U.S., those numbers may disguise the presence of Windows XP systems in business. According to a study, 2017 OS Adoption Trends, conducted by Spiceworks, a Windows help desk company and network of IT professionals, 52 percent of businesses are running at least one Windows XP instance, and the OS is still installed on 14 percent of business computers.

 

How many computers is that altogether? Some rough calculations put the number over 100 million Windows XP users. Not all of those computers have an Internet connection, but we know that quite a few do.

If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it, and other reasons

Why are there still so many users? One major reason that Windows XP lives on is that it was so popular. The OS had a supported life of almost 13 years—far longer than any other desktop operating system.

 

“It was one of the first Microsoft operating systems people latched onto,” says Peter Tsai, a Spiceworks senior technology analyst. Even on the eve of its end-of-support death in March 2014, Tsai says, Windows XP still ran “on approximately 30 percent of the more than 1.6 billion PCs in the world.” Do the math: that’s 500 million computers. In addition, he says, “The five-year gap between Windows XP and its unpopular successor, Windows Vista, resulted in an uncommonly large installed base.”

 

Another reason for Windows XP’s sturdy tenure is the lack of a direct migration path to Windows 10. Windows XP users who are motivated to upgrade must first move to Windows 7, then upgrade to Windows 10. For practical purposes, that means it makes more sense to trash the old hardware and buy PCs with pre-installed Windows 10. If your company has the money, that is.

 

But that was years ago. Why are people still using it on desktops? Several IT people confided in me, usually privately. (Who wants to advertise his company’s vulnerabilities, after all? Many are simply embarrassed.)

 

A system administrator from a midsize industrial company told me, “Management just doesn’t want to pay to replace our systems. It’s that simple.” He’s not alone. Another sysadmin, who works for a real estate company, says, “If it’s not broke, they don’t want to fix it.”

 

According to the Spiceworks study, the reasons IT professionals stick with the current OS are no immediate need, lack of time, and budget constraints.

Another reason businesses hold onto Windows XP is custom software. A sysadmin at a different real estate firm confides, “We have a property inventory program we use in-house, and no one has a clue what’s inside it. There’s just no money to hire someone to rewrite it.”

 

A building engineer reports that his company relies on software that runs on Windows XP to keep the building’s HVAC systems running, as well as lighting management and other controls. His employer has no interest in updating the operating system; they don’t see any problem.

 

The software may not be custom; it might be an old third-party application. A jeweler who uses a vertical design program explains, “The last good version only runs on Windows XP.”

 

In some cases, it’s possible (or necessary) to run a Windows XP application in a virtual machine. For example, Microsoft no longer supports Windows XP with Windows Server Update Services. As one annoyed user expressed on a Spiceworks discussion thread, “I had to install an XP VM on my home network last year to run an XP-specific mapping program.”

 

A related reason is computer-controlled hardware. Many industrial, medical, and scientific hardware used desktop Windows XP as a poor man’s embedded controller. Their users view the computer as a tool and give little attention to the underlying OS.

Why spend money upgrading? This works fine

For these companies, upgrading the entire system for a new operating system simply costs too much money. As a light-manufacturing company CIO told me, “This equipment cost us hundreds of thousands, and we use it every day. It just isn’t cost-effective to replace it, especially since these systems don’t connect with the Internet.”

 

Even when the equipment doesn’t cost a mint, some hardware is just too old to be supported by newer operating systems. For example, a really old but special-purpose printer has drivers on Windows XP, but as one sysadmin reports, “Windows 7 and up are not supported for the spooler manager and job queue client.”

 

And “Windows XP also runs our older-than-dirt handheld bar-code scanner terminal app.” You’re not asking management to replace a desktop computer; you’re asking them to buy a whole new piece of business equipment.

 

That may be even more of an expense when vertical hardware and software intersect. One ophthalmology practice uses a small LAN of connected Windows XP clients, reports another admin. “We’re still on Windows XP due to the specialist apps that connect to the various eye scanning devices.”

 

IT pros know this is asking for trouble. In the Spiceworks survey of more than 450 IT professionals, 68 percent were concerned about the end of security patches and bug fixes. But IT concerns don’t always translate into corporate priorities.

Embedded XP: The hidden Windows

That’s especially true when it comes to hardware that uses Windows XP Embedded. Numerous computer numerical control (CNC) controllers from companies such as Siemens, Mitsubishi, and ProtoTraks still run this specialized version of the operating system. The controllers generally are expensive ($50,000 to $150,000) and are installed on even more expensive hardware, which often starts at half a million dollars. No one wants to mess with machinery that costs so much and that works perfectly well.

 

Besides, as a manufacturing professional, Garegin Khachiyan explains, “With just over 15 years of experience in the manufacturing field, neither I nor anyone I personally know ever experienced any security issue with CNC controllers that ran on Windows.”

 

Windows XP Embedded also lives on in bank automated teller machines (ATMs). “A majority of ATMs still use that OS," says security expert Bruce Schneier. "And once Microsoft stops issuing security updates to Windows XP, those machines will become increasingly vulnerable. Although I have to ask the question: How many of those ATMs have been keeping up with their patches so far?”

 

That’s a good question. “Newer ATMs can be patch-managed remotely," says security writer Kimberly Crawley in a recent Hackernoon blog. "But older ATMs, including a large percentage of the machines still in use in the U.S., can only be patched manually. That means a bank’s IT professionals have to visit the machines, branch by branch, one by one, to apply Microsoft’s Windows XP for Embedded Systems’ security patches. The IT professionals who have the specialized knowledge necessary to manually patch ATMs are expensive.”

 

However, apparently they are not as expensive as replacing them. So Windows XP Embedded-powered ATMs will keep dispensing cash in banks around the country.

Supporting and securing Windows XP

Microsoft appears to still be renewing Windows XP “Custom Support” contracts, though the company doesn’t publicly describe the terms. In response to all questions about Windows XP Custom Support contracts, a Microsoft spokesperson said, the company was “unable to accommodate your request at this time.” He added, “As always, we recommend customers stay current with the latest updates to Windows. The best protection is to be on a modern, up-to-date system that incorporates the latest innovations including the latest security features and advancements.”

 

A Custom Support contract is not intended to last forever. Generally speaking, these contracts require customers to submit a migration plan to a supported edition of a product, along with goals and dates, and Microsoft must approve the plan. Contract milestones are expressed as percentages of the covered systems. If a company doesn’t meet the migration milestones, Microsoft can refuse to renew the deal or cut off support. A Custom Support contract is not intended to last forever.

 

That said, some contracts are still in place. The United States Navy purchased Windows XP support until 2017, which also included Office 2003 and Exchange 2003 support. According to the contracting announcement, “Across the United States Navy, approximately 100,000 workstations currently use these applications.”

In 2016, the Australian government reported it had paid $3.4 million for 15 months’ worth of Windows XP support to cover agencies to July 2017.

 

Other government agencies probably wish they had made the investment. In 2015, a hospital system in the United Kingdom’s National Health Service (NHS) revealed it was still running 1,260 Windows XP systems (with no extended support). In 2016, NHS hospitals were still running the OS. Then, in 2017, the hammer of WannaCry ransomware came down, which knocked out multiple NHS facilities.

 

WannaCry used Windows XP’s insecure version of Windows’ Server Message Block (SMB) networking protocol to spread in local-area networks. It needed only a single vulnerable PC to attack multiple systems.

 

Microsoft considered the problem serious enough that, for the first time ever, it released a security patch for an out of support program. Clearly, the number of Windows XP systems justified such a radical step.

What does it take to migrate?

The moral of the story? Yes, there may be financial reasons and inertia that keep businesses using Windows XP, but in the long run they’re not convincing. WannaCry was not a one-time event. There will be more attacks. The OS is both too popular and too easy to attack for hackers to ignore.

 

If your business continues to use the OS, at the very least, ensure that your systems have no ties to the Internet. It’s like leaving the door to your home not only unlocked but wide open.

 

Windows XP Embedded, which tends to be used in stand-alone systems, is practically speaking safer, but it’s still vulnerable.

Whether the recent ransomware attacks are enough of a motivation for the “if it works don’t fix it” decision-makers to make a change is yet to be determined. I hope so. The time has come to kiss Windows XP good-bye and upgrade your systems.

 

Article source

[luisam]

My Windows XP is well, alive and 100% updated!  As many Windows XP users, I need it for hardware compatibility reasons, mainly for my scanner which has no Windows 7 driver available and a strange bug in my USB 3 card, which refuses to recognize its original Windows 7 driver. It works fine for XP. Looks updating the firmware would solve the problem but the card is not from the same manufacturer offering the freeware update. Acually, there is no identificacion of the card or the box about the origin of it, so I presume it is a pirated Chinese product. So, manipulating the firmware might ·"brick" the card and I don't want to risk it. Could I buy a new card? Yes, but why if it works. So I use Windows 7 and XP with dual boot. Normally I work with windows 7 so all this time my external hard drive which uses USB 3, with my backups is disconnected and safe.

As for the updates, I have the registry patched to simulate it is Windows Embedded and I'm getting periodic MS updates, hopefully until 2019.

[banned]

I hated XP when it first released (very unstable). I stayed on Windows 2000 Pro for a long as I could. Ultimately needed XP for multi-core support (stable now). Besides games, there is hardly anything I boot into Windows 7/8/10 for.

 

 

[SPECTRUM]

1 hour ago, banned said:

Ultimately needed XP for multi-core support (stable now).

 

but XP is not really good with multi-core performance, for best multi-core performance better is use Windows 7 or above, and for CMT CPUs (for example AMD Bulldozer related CPUs/APUs) better is use Windows 8 or above (or well Windows 7 too with the optional updates for CMT CPUs/APUs).

[steven36]

only way too take advantage of multi cores is if the program support it .For years browser never had it and then Chrome got it now Firefox is adopting  it . . It's over hyped because 80% software devs  are stuck in the past and still build apps like they did on xp just now devs are starting too kill support for it and this still don't mean they will add multi core support

 

Quote

 Multiple Core Processors  Is Having More Processor Cores Always Better?

 

Multiple core processors have been available in personal computers for over a decade now. The reason is that the processors were hitting physical limitations in terms of their clock speeds and how effectively they could be cooled and still maintain accuracy. By moving to extra cores on the single processor chip, manufacturers avoided the issues with the clock speeds by effectively multiplying the amount of data that could be handled by the CPU.

When they originally were released, it was just two cores in a single CPU but now there are options for four, six and even eight. In addition to this, there is Intel's Hyper-Threading technology that virtually doubles the cores that the operating system sees. Having two cores in a single processor has always had tangible benefits thanks to the multitasking nature of modern operating systems. After all, you may be browsing the web or typing up a report while an anti-virus program runs in the background. The real question for many people may be if having more than two is really beneficial and if so, how many?
Threading

Before going into the benefits and drawbacks of multiple processor cores, is important to understand the concept of threading. A thread is simply a single stream of data from a program through the processor on the PC. Each application generates its own or multiple threads depending upon how it is running.

With multitasking, a single core processor can only handle a single thread at a time, so the system rapidly switches between the threads to process the data in a seemingly concurrent manner.

The benefit of having multiple cores is that the system can handle more than one thread. Each core can handle a separate stream of data.

This greatly increases the performance of a system that is running concurrent applications. Since servers tend to be running mutiple applications at a given time, it was originally developed there but as personal computers got more complex and multitasking increased, they too benefited from having extra cores.
Software Dependent

While the concept of multiple core processors sounds very appealing, there is a major caveat to this ability. In order for the true benefits of the multiple processors to be seen, the software that is running on the computer must be written to support multithreading. Without the software supporting such a feature, threads will be primarily run through a single core thus degrading the efficiency. After all, if it can only run on a single core in a quad core processor, it may actually be faster to run it on a dual core processor with higher base clock speeds.

Thankfully, all of the major current operating systems have multithreading capability. But the multithreading must also be written into the application software. Thankfully the support for multithreading in consumer software has greatly improved but for many simple programs, multithreading support is still not implemented due to the complexity.

For instance, a mail program or web browser is not likely to see huge benefits to multithreading as say a graphics or video editing program where complex calculations are being done by the computer.

A good example to explain this is to look at a typical PC game. Most games require some form of rendering engine to display what is happening in the game. In addition to this, there is some sort of artificial intelligence to control events and characters in the game. With a single core, both of these must function by switching between the two. This is not necessarily efficient. If the system had multiple processors, the rendering and AI could each run on a separate core.

This looks like an ideal situation for a multiple core processor.

This is an excellent example of how multiple threads can benefit a program. But in that same example, is four processor cores going to be better than two? This is a very difficult question to answer as it is highly dependent upon the software. For instance, many games still have very little performance difference between two and four cores. There are essentially no games that see tangible benefits from beyond four processor cores. Going back to the email or web browsing examples, even quad core will so no real benefit. On the other hand, a video encoding program that is transcoding video will likely see huge benefits as individual frame rendering can be passed to different cores and then coallated into a single stream by the software. Thus having eight cores will be even more beneficial than having four.
Clock Speeds

One thing that was briefly mentioned is clock speeds. Most people are still familiar with the fact that the higher the clock speed, the faster the processor will be. Clock speeds become more nebulous when you are also dealing with multiple cores. This has to do with the fact that the processor can now process multiple data threads due to the extra cores but each of those cores will be running at lower speeds because of the thermal restrictions.

For instance, a dual core processor may have base clock speeds of 3.5 GHz for each processor while a quad core processor may only run at 3.0GHz. Just looking at a single core on each of them, the dual core processor will be able to about fourteen percent faster than on the quad core. Thus, if you have a program that is only single threaded, the dual core processor is actually better. Then again, if you have something that can use all four processors such as video transcoding, then the quad core processor will actually be about seventy percent faster than that dual core processor.

So what does this all mean? Well, you have to take a close look at the processor and also the software to get a good idea of how it will perform overall. In general, a multiple core processor is a better choice but that does not necessarily mean that you will have better overall performance.
Conclusions

For the most part, having a higher core count processor is generally a good thing but it is a very complicated matter. For the most part, a dual core or quad core processor is going to be more than enough power for a basic computer user. The majority of consumers will see no tangible benefits from going beyond four processor cores currently as there is so little software that can take advantage of it. The only people that should consider such high core count processors are those going tasks such as desktop video editing or complicated science and math programs.

https://www.lifewire.com/multiple-core-processors-832453

 

[viggen66]

Regarding to this topic, can anyone post a link to an update windows XP edition?

[JimmySvert]

14 hours ago, banned said:

I hated XP when it first released (very unstable). I stayed on Windows 2000 Pro for a long as I could. Ultimately needed XP for multi-core support (stable now). Besides games, there is hardly anything I boot into Windows 7/8/10 for.

 

 

 

12 hours ago, SPECTRUM said:

 

but XP is not really good with multi-core performance, for best multi-core performance better is use Windows 7 or above, and for CMT CPUs (for example AMD Bulldozer related CPUs/APUs) better is use Windows 8 or above (or well Windows 7 too with the optional updates for CMT CPUs/APUs).

it's true that XP ain't that good for multi-core performance, but seems like multi-core cpu affects XP performance in a good way or it can be the higher single core cpu clock speed.

[pc71520]

In terms of Security,

is running Windows XP

wise?

[pc71520]

20 minutes ago, 0bin said:

Inside a VM I think is useful to do experiments.

Oh, yes.

Inside a VM, a lot of experimentation takes place...

[LeeSmithG]

Seventeen and a couple of years later XP was excellent, but like us, we age and need new surroundings.

 

I am sure I have written this before, but some A.T.M.'s I have used in the past year, run NT4.

 

I adored XP and as I have said many times, Seven (7) is like XP on steroids.

 

I think M$ allowed business's in China and some other parts of the world updates for a fee as they still run XP.

 

Upgrading your system as a business and new computers can be claimed as a tax break, so no need to run XP still.

[funkyy]

"It's alive, it's alive, alive I tell you!!!!!!!"

Copyright Baron Frankenstein.

[nIGHT]

On 8/2/2017 at 6:53 PM, Batu69 said:

Windows XP Embedded also lives on in bank automated teller machines (ATMs). “A majority of ATMs still use that OS," says security expert Bruce Schneier. "

In asia, a lot of it still use Windows 98 SE in bank automated teller machines (ATMs).

I never saw one that use Windows XP or later versions in ATMs.

I found out about this, usually in malls, were ATMs being rebooted by the banks technicians.

You can see that it's not only the OS that is obsolete but also the hardware.