art22gg
Premium Member
join:2005-02-16
Courtenay, BC
kudos:6 |
art22gg
Premium Member
2014-Mar-22 9:25 am
Avast Blasts Microsoft..Re:Win XPArticle from Redmond magazine... Link..» redmondmag.com/articles/ ··· ort.aspx |
|
 BlackbirdBuilt for Speed
Premium Member
join:2005-01-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:4 ·Frontier Communi..
|
Blackbird
Premium Member
2014-Mar-22 10:20 am
It could be a golden opportunity for a business to build up a mass of "goodwill" from a lot of XP users if the business is willing to set up a "cottage industry" for anti-malware support specifically of XP for at least several more years. In any case, that seems to be AVAST's thinking. quote:
... "AVAST is devoted to protecting the PC ecosystem by not only supporting Windows XP for at least the next three years, but also by creating protection modules and detections specifically designed to cover Windows XP vulnerabilities and other security problems," wrote Vlcek.
It would be a diminishing product line over time as remaining XP users gradually migrate to new systems, but who knows what it might do to enhance a company's reputation, especially amongst the XP users when they migrate eventually? Perhaps we'll see. --
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money. -- A. de Tocqueville |
|
 HA Nut
Premium Member
join:2004-05-13
USA |
to art22gg
In the coming days, there will be countless discussions of the end of XP support. This is certainly an interesting one. Thanks for posting it!
IMO, at some point, Microsoft has to cut the cord. Is April 8, 2014 too soon? Maybe a bit but it's my opinion that it's as good a time as any. It went on sale to the general public in October 2001. Even a semi-Luddite like me has to admit that's a good run. LOL!
My thoughts on the end of support... How dangerous is it to continue to use XP machines?
I'm sure many may disagree but my feeling is if proper precautions are used, XP can live on in some form. After all, there are still Win 95 and 98 machines running and have survived without support for a very long time.
Knowledgeable users can use things like software restriction policies, limited user accounts and more to remain safe.
Less sophisticated users can still take steps but may require very narrow usage conditions. Used in a safe physical location. Restricting connected portable media is a must (arguably a good idea anyway, right?) Either keeping XP PCs totally off the web or at least only allowing them to connect (outbound only! inbound blocked) to known, safe specific sites for specific tasks should leave them secure.
The big problem is the home user that's not security savvy. They are running as admin and solely relying on antivirus. While it's worked fairly well in the past, I have my doubts it will continue to. That said, it's nice to see Avast is planning to give their customers their own transition period.
Anyway, my 2 cents... |
|
| |
to art22gg
What, so they want Microsoft to continue supporting a 13 year old operating system? What's next? Criticize Microsoft for not supporting Windows 95? It's about time Microsoft cut support for Windows XP. There have been 3 newer versions of Windows that have been released since. Cutting support will mean users will finally upgrade their OS or hardware, and if they don't, they'll be infested with malware and other security threats. |
|
 DownTheShoreTrump-The new face of fascism
Premium Member
join:2003-12-02
Beautiful NJ
kudos:14 |
to Blackbird
said by Blackbird:It would be a diminishing product line over time as remaining XP users gradually migrate to new systems, but who knows what it might do to enhance a company's reputation, especially amongst the XP users when they migrate eventually? Perhaps we'll see.
But that will only last, as it always does with any security product, until an update borks the computer, and then it's adios!  Avast happens to be riding high at the moment and they are popular because they offer a free version of their AV in addition to having good test scores lately. Take away that free product and then see if product loyalty remains the same. --
Patriotism is not waving a flag, it is living the ideals
I want to retire to the Isle of Sodor and ride the trains.
Life is just better when Jeter is in the lineup.
|
|
3 edits |
to art22gg
If it's supposedly easy to reverse-engineer a patch to Win7 (or whatever) in order to find the same un-patched vulnerability in WinXP and then exploit it, then it should also be fairly easy for a knowledgeable and trusted source to engineer a non-Microsoft binary patch in order to help close that vulnerability in WinXP, at least to some extent. (Access to the WinXP source code would probably make this easier, of course, but I don't know how much source code access Microsoft provides.) I could see where such patches might become very valuable from a monetary perspective, as opposed to the free patches currently provided by Microsoft. It wouldn't surprise me at all if some for-profit company or non-profit organization takes this task on, or if maybe some cottage industry springs up here. It might even be an excellent opportunity for black-hat types who might otherwise exploit these vulnerabilities to turn white-hat and make some honest money for a change.
As far as people "dragging their feet" when it comes to upgrading, keep in mind that Vista got itself a very big black eye, and Win8 has gotten an even bigger black eye. Win7 is the obvious upgrade right now, and Microsoft hasn't necessarily made this upgrade easy for XP users (requiring a clean install), preferring instead for them to just buy whole new hardware, which they might need to do anyway just to handle Win7 by itself. Much of the existing hardware may still be relatively new, or at least still fully capable of running the necessary applications under WinXP, but not necessarily Win7. Much of the existing hardware may have actually shipped with Vista or later, too, only to be downgraded to WinXP upon arrival in order to ensure compatibility with existing applications and a consistent footprint across the entire organization.
In short, what is generally being asked here is for these organizations to either go to the time and expense of doing a clean install of Win7 across practically their entire hardware base in relatively short order, or to replace all or most of their hardware with new hardware running Win7 - neither of which is particularly friendly to the bottom line, especially given the negative business climate over the past five years or so. And while many organizations will no doubt end up doing this very thing (whether they really want to or not), some of them which start looking at alternatives instead, and ALL of them will start looking at the expense of doing this and the wisdom of ever having to do something like this again in the future. This could easily end up being a very bad thing for Microsoft and the entire "just buy a new PC" industry in general. |
|
 Ian
Premium Member
join:2002-06-18
ON
kudos:4 |
Ian
Premium Member
2014-Mar-26 3:51 pm
said by scross:In short, what is generally being asked here is for these organizations to either go to the time and expense of doing a clean install of Win7 across practically their entire hardware base in relatively short order, or to replace all or most of their hardware with new hardware running Win7 - neither of which is particularly friendly to the bottom line, especially given the negative business climate over the past five years or so. Not only unfriendly to the bottom-line but viewed as largely unnecessary. Most computers capable of running XP are still plenty capable of running basic office applications like e-mail, spreadsheets, databases, and Word processing. So it's not only a painful expense, but a fairly useless one. So the secretary's Facebook pages load faster now? Woo-hoo!  --
“Any claim that the root of a problem is simple should be treated the same as a claim that the root of a problem is Bigfoot. Simplicity and Bigfoot are found in the real world with about the same frequency.” – David Wong |
|
 therube
join:2004-11-11
Randallstown, MD |
to HA Nut
> How dangerous is it to continue to use XP machines? dslreports: The Risk of Running Windows XP After Support Ends... |
|
| |
to Tornado15550
said by Tornado15550:There have been 3 newer versions of Windows that have been released since. Yes, and two of the three, Vista and Win8, have been disasters for MS. I don't blame them for cutting support but they've really only released one decent OS since XP...just sayin', that might be the problem with PC sales, etc. especially with the Win8 train wreck. |
|
Ian
Premium Member
join:2002-06-18
ON
kudos:4 |
Ian
Premium Member
2014-Mar-26 8:54 pm
said by Finger2208:I don't blame them for cutting support but they've really only released one decent OS since XP. I disagree on the 8/8.1 (and actually Vista worked well for me too), but none of that is improved by them spending resources supporting a legacy OS. --
“Any claim that the root of a problem is simple should be treated the same as a claim that the root of a problem is Bigfoot. Simplicity and Bigfoot are found in the real world with about the same frequency.” – David Wong |
|
|
DownTheShoreTrump-The new face of fascism
Premium Member
join:2003-12-02
Beautiful NJ
kudos:14 |
to Finger2208
Neither Vista nor Win 8 are disasters, that's just FUD. I have both and they each have their strengths and weaknesses, just like every single other Win OS - including the sainted Win XP and Win 7.  |
|
 antdudeA Ninja Ant
VIP
join:2001-03-25
United State
kudos:5 ·Time Warner Cable
|
to art22gg
Just let MS end its support on its XP SP3 OS. Have other companies keep supporting it. XP will have to die anyways one day. Nothing lasts forever. All XP SP3 users should already gotten the messages of no support from MS and future. Keep using XP SP3 = $$$ and consquences. --
Ant @ AQFL.net and AntFarm.ma.cx. Please do not IM/e-mail me for technical support. Use this forum or better, »community.norton.com ! Disclaimer: The views expressed in this posting are mine, and do not necessarily reflect the views of my employer. |
|
| antdude |
to DownTheShore
said by DownTheShore:Neither Vista nor Win 8 are disasters, that's just FUD. I have both and they each have their strengths and weaknesses, just like every single other Win OS - including the sainted Win XP and Win 7.
I'd rather use Vista over W8 for non-touch screen machines. W8 is fine if there was a touchscreen. :P --
Ant @ AQFL.net and AntFarm.ma.cx. Please do not IM/e-mail me for technical support. Use this forum or better, »community.norton.com ! Disclaimer: The views expressed in this posting are mine, and do not necessarily reflect the views of my employer. |
|
DownTheShoreTrump-The new face of fascism
Premium Member
join:2003-12-02
Beautiful NJ
kudos:14 |
I'd have to disagree. I have 8.1 on one laptop and Vista on another. I operate the 8.1 one on the desktop side, not Metro, and it's not a touchscreen. I like 8.1 better than Vista - it's faster and less quirky. I like the hot corners and the Charms bar, and I prefer the pop-up thumbnails in the taskbar as opposed to crowded unreadable tabs. |
|
HarryH3
Premium Member
join:2005-02-21
kudos:3 |
to DownTheShore
said by DownTheShore:Neither Vista nor Win 8 are disasters, that's just FUD. I have both and they each have their strengths and weaknesses, just like every single other Win OS - including the sainted Win XP and Win 7.
Your singular experience doesn't outweigh the fact that the majority of people hated Vista and are not enthusiastic about Win 8. Microsoft chose to ignore feedback from users during the Win 8 beta and are now paying the price for their hubris. Perhaps they'll finally get there with Win 8.2? |
|
DownTheShoreTrump-The new face of fascism
Premium Member
join:2003-12-02
Beautiful NJ
kudos:14 |
You can't really generalize that a "majority" hates this or that, because there are too many variables. Are we talking business users or personal users, computer-savvy users or computer ignorant users, people who participate in computer forums whose opinions can be "counted" or people who don't, etc.? And then that's not even taking into account the local and national economies which determine whether or not people can actually afford to buy or upgrade their computer during any particular OSes period of sale. Not to mention the speed with which software manufacturers update their software to actually work on the new OSes.
I've got a 64-bit computer now and I am amazed at how much of my software is still geared for 32-bit machines. Should I say that 64-bit is a failure because of the software manufacturers' foot-dragging?
--
Patriotism is not waving a flag, it is living the ideals
I want to retire to the Isle of Sodor and ride the trains.
Life is just better when Jeter is in the lineup.
|
|
HarryH3
Premium Member
join:2005-02-21
kudos:3 |
HarryH3
Premium Member
2014-Mar-29 12:45 pm
said by DownTheShore:You can't really generalize that a "majority" hates this or that, because there are too many variables. Are we talking business users or personal users, computer-savvy users or computer ignorant users, people who participate in computer forums whose opinions can be "counted" or people who don't, etc.? And then that's not even taking into account the local and national economies which determine whether or not people can actually afford to buy or upgrade their computer during any particular OSes period of sale. Not to mention the speed with which software manufacturers update their software to actually work on the new OSes.
I've got a 64-bit computer now and I am amazed at how much of my software is still geared for 32-bit machines. Should I say that 64-bit is a failure because of the software manufacturers' foot-dragging?
You quite obviously have not been paying attention.  Just keep your head in the sand. |
|
 DavesnothereOK, Steve has been Heaved - NOW What ?
Premium Member
join:2009-06-15
Canada
kudos:8 |
to DownTheShore
said by DownTheShore:You can't really generalize that a "majority" hates this or that, because there are too many variables. Are we talking business users or personal users, computer-savvy users or computer ignorant users, people who participate in computer forums whose opinions can be "counted" or people who don't, etc.? ....
Vista is the newest version which I regularly use (XP and Win2K being the others), and once I turned off the UAC in Vista (the general public's largest gripe with Vista, BTW), set everything to Classic which I could, added the 2 service packs, smaller other updates, IE8 but not IE9, and bumped the RAM from 512MB to 2GB, Vista has been robust and golden ever since on that PC. --
We have only 2 things about which to worry :
(1) That things may never get back to normal
(2) That they already HAVE ! |
|
DownTheShoreTrump-The new face of fascism
Premium Member
join:2003-12-02
Beautiful NJ
kudos:14 |
to HarryH3
Contrary to your snide comment, I have been paying attention. I'm just not agreeing with the non-business arguments presented because my actual experience has been much more positive than the naysayers would have one believe. |
|
 ·Verizon FiOS
|
to Tornado15550
said by Tornado15550:What, so they want Microsoft to continue supporting a 13 year old operating system? The problem is my wife works for a company that has many offices around the country that still run XP.. The problem being that after XP you have to buy a new computer to run anything else because XP is on older computers, it would cost close to 1,000,000 million to switch not counting the new software and training that goes with it.. Her company said if XP support is stopped and they have problems the cost of these problems are going to be passed on to the consumer.. I know when I switched to Windows 7 I had to buy a new machine, the old one wouldn't support 7.. |
|
| |
scross
Member
2014-Mar-30 12:57 pm
I fully expect that one of the outcomes of this situation will be that large organizations such as the one your wife works for will seriously question the wisdom of ever having a full-blown, physical PC on every desktop. (It was never a particularly good idea for corporate-level IT to go whole-hog in this direction, anyway, for a variety of reasons.) Organizations like this may eventually suffer through this round of upgrades because they feel they have to, but I doubt that they will be willing to do such a thing again in the future, if they can avoid it. |
|
antdudeA Ninja Ant
VIP
join:2001-03-25
United State
kudos:5 ·Time Warner Cable
|
to DownTheShore
said by DownTheShore:I'd have to disagree. I have 8.1 on one laptop and Vista on another. I operate the 8.1 one on the desktop side, not Metro, and it's not a touchscreen. I like 8.1 better than Vista - it's faster and less quirky. I like the hot corners and the Charms bar, and I prefer the pop-up thumbnails in the taskbar as opposed to crowded unreadable tabs.
W8.1 faster than Vista? Not that much. I hate the hot corners and charms bar feature. I do like the pop-up thumbnails. Crowded tabs in task bar? I use grouping and hover to see which one I want to see. --
Ant @ AQFL.net and AntFarm.ma.cx. Please do not IM/e-mail me for technical support. Use this forum or better, »community.norton.com ! Disclaimer: The views expressed in this posting are mine, and do not necessarily reflect the views of my employer. |
|
DavesnothereOK, Steve has been Heaved - NOW What ?
Premium Member
join:2009-06-15
Canada
kudos:8 |
to art22gg
The linked thread further links to an article about which security app providers have said that they will still support XP and for how long. » These Anti-Virus Software Products Will Continue to Protect XP after the End |
|
·
·
Just keep your head in the sand. 
·