backtop


Print 86 comment(s) - last by Dorkyman.. on Apr 27 at 11:59 PM

China is looking at home grown patch solutions now

For many people in the corporate world, there is no real reason or need to upgrade from the 14-year-old Windows XP to a more modern version like Windows 7 or Windows 8. Some cite costs as a reason for not upgrading, while others point to the fact that their “mature” integrated systems simply don’t need anything new or fancy to operate properly.
 
One of the largest organizations that has no desire to move away from Windows XP is the Chinese government. China instead plans to patch XP on its own rather than upgrade to Windows 8, because upgrading would be too expensive (Windows 8 sells for 888 yuan in China, or roughly $142).

Just a little bit of Windows XP nostalgia... 

Chinese firms have reportedly released special protection patches to shore up XP’s defenses and the Chinese government says that it is now assessing those patches for its own use.
 
Estimates peg the number of Chinese computers using XP at nearly 70% compared to 18% in the U.S. As of early April, 25% of all PCs on the market were still running Windows XP.
 
Despite the reluctance for many to leave XP behind, Microsoft finally ended official support for Windows XP earlier this month. So many people weren't keen to move from XP in the business world that Microsoft offered to extend support for some companies for a hefty price. 

Source: Sky



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Not for anyone
By retrospooty on 4/23/2014 10:13:05 AM , Rating: 3
"Newer versions of Windows provide nothing that the *vast* majority of PC users in the world actually need. Virtually no one outside of a tiny percentage, statistically speaking, is going to find anything in a later OS that's going to make their lives easier or better. And if you think that's not the case...you're wrong."

I would add that XP is incredibly insecure and easily corruptible both through security holes (malware) or misconfiguration (user error)... That alone is reason to upgrade, but if XP is working fine and the user is careful, you are right, there is no compelling reason for most users to upgrade.


RE: Not for anyone
By Motoman on 4/23/14, Rating: 0
RE: Not for anyone
By Labotomizer on 4/23/2014 12:19:53 PM , Rating: 4
Wrong. XP runs everything at the user's access level. So if you're an admin ALL software you run is also an admin. UAC makes Vista and later substantially more secure. Add in things like SmartScreen at an OS level in Windows 8 and numerous other security technologies over the years and there is no question that modern versions of Windows are vastly more secure than XP.


RE: Not for anyone
By Motoman on 4/23/14, Rating: -1
RE: Not for anyone
By Labotomizer on 4/23/2014 12:40:33 PM , Rating: 5
Lots of people had issues with AV and fully patches machines. The TCO for SMB is FAR lower with Windows 7 than it was with Windows XP. That's a fact.

In a properly run corporate environment with security policies, GPOs, users not running with elevated permissions, AV, corporate firewalls, IDS and IPS systems then sure, XP is fine. But even in the right environment rarely is it run correctly. And at that point, with a layered security approach like you should have, Windows 7 is STILL more secure than XP because it is still a piece of the overall picture. It's just not nearly as big of a factor.

For a home user running with admin rights on their PC browsing FB and using email? Windows 7 is VASTLY more secure than XP. It's not even comparable. You saying "Well, then why did it work once upon a time?" is such an ignorant statement it makes me wonder why you're even posting. You clearly have NO idea how any of this works anyway.


RE: Not for anyone
By Motoman on 4/23/14, Rating: -1
RE: Not for anyone
By Labotomizer on 4/23/2014 12:48:30 PM , Rating: 4
Sure... I'm sure you've been doing this "since before I was born".

Not once I have I made an argument that XP doesn't work. Not once have I even made an argument that it won't run most software. I simply called out your complete and total fallacy that it is AS SECURE as Windows Vista and later. It is absolutely NOT. If you have a hint of the experience you claim to then you can't argue against that statement. At all.


RE: Not for anyone
By Motoman on 4/23/14, Rating: 0
RE: Not for anyone
By jimbo2779 on 4/23/2014 1:51:37 PM , Rating: 3
No you were arguing against it being less secure by saying that it is as usable. Nobody else is saying that XP is less usable, they are saying it is less secure which it absolutely is.

You do not win the argument by arguing a completely different point to everyone else.


RE: Not for anyone
By Motoman on 4/23/14, Rating: 0
RE: Not for anyone
By retrospooty on 4/23/2014 4:07:02 PM , Rating: 2
I am not arguing what you guys are arguing above, but Sorry Moto, it's not the same.

When you said "If you stay current with patches and antivirus/antimalware, you're fine." you may be correct, assuming the user is careful and diligent. The other 1/2 isn't even close to that...

Above you said (about it being insecure) "Not any more so than other OS's" which is completely incorrect. Win7 has alot of security features and 8 even more on top of that. Are they bulletproof? Hell no, but alot more so than XP ever was.


RE: Not for anyone
By Motoman on 4/23/2014 5:44:29 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Not any more so than other OSs, to be honest. And if you've been keeping current with patches and antivirus/antimalware, it's fine.


Don't try to cherry pick out of the rest of the statement. Does Win7/8 have more built-in security features? Sure. But if you stay current on XP, it's fine.

That is *all* I am saying.


RE: Not for anyone
By retrospooty on 4/24/2014 11:45:11 AM , Rating: 2
Ya, that can be said, but you have to give credence to the other point that most users aren't careful or educated enough to stay clean on XP and will eventually get infected and corrupt it if they are using the internet.

For the normal user, there are good reasons to upgrade. Come on, its 13 years old this Oct.


RE: Not for anyone
By compuser2010 on 4/25/2014 4:03:10 AM , Rating: 3
Thanks for posting. Vista was slow (pre-SP1) and a RAM-guzzler, but it indeed had massive improvements to security over XP. It brought Windows' security up-to-date in so many ways.

I believe the following is a useful article on the subject:

http://blogs.technet.com/b/security/archive/2013/0...

I have a friend who has been using a computer with Windows Vista on it since at least 2010. He has never had any complaints about slowdown, viruses or any other problems on it.

In December, 2012, I installed Windows 8 on a relative's computer. She's on the internet all the time, without anti-virus software, and regularly has long sessions at her computer (4-8 hours, daily). It still is just as fast and responsive as when I first installed it.

On her old computer with Windows XP (after fresh install, security updates, etc.), it would slow down after 3 months.

There's nothing wrong with XP. It's just a different operating system from a different era in computing. Windows Vista was truly a new operating system (NT 6.0 to XP's NT 5.1) and brought Windows into the 21st century with security and areas beyond the subject of security.


RE: Not for anyone
By NellyFromMA on 4/23/2014 1:22:12 PM , Rating: 2
Just for the sake of being a contrarian, what makes the debate any more relevant now than it was when 2000 was EOL'ed, or 98 before it (we'll ignore ME)?

It's the same argument, just further back in time. It was working, but tech has moved forward and so have OS native feature sets. 3rd parties can, and perhaps will for a time, augment those missing features and bring them to the older platform, but inevitably, the older software will degrade into minority usage state.

What can you do in XP that you just CAN'T do in 2000? When you sort that out, then ask yourself if you can apply that analogy to this discussion. It's just old news when you think about it really. You may as well be arguing this case for 2000 and its practically just as applicable, just as a couple years of history.

Microsoft isn't taking XP away from you any more than it has taken any software away from anyone, which is to directly state it has taken NO software from any paying consumer.

You can still use XP just as much as you can still use 95 if that's what you insist on. But, the majority of general-wishy-washy users are moving on. That's how its been and that's how it will be. Unless there's a crucial detail I'm missing here...

Make no mistake, you get WAY more value for your money in the licensing pricing model than you ever will on the subscription based model. Why do you think software vendors are going that route instead?

Nickel-and-diming works in America. See every single one of your bills for proof.

Netflix will raise their fees. MS will raise their fees. Everyone will, because nickel-and-diming works. You will pay more, but your perception will be that you get more, when you really won't because that's not what these guys are in the business for.

We all received a VERY steady stream of updates, both feature-wise and security-wise for a pretty small monthly price when divided over 10 years and then divided by 12 months. There's your XP subscription. You probably pay more for nearly ever other bill in your life.

/Contrarian


RE: Not for anyone
By Motoman on 4/23/2014 2:01:07 PM , Rating: 2
The biggest difference between XP and 2000 may be the market that happened concurrently with the OS.

The Win2k installed base at the time that XP came out was a tiny fraction of what the XP installed base was when Vista came out - or even now, for that matter. In the Win2k era, it was kind of seen as the "professional and server OS" wheras regular consumers were using 98 and Me.

Win2k was pretty stable, having been built on the NT kernel...and that enhanced stability moved into XP with it.

At any rate, the biggest difference is probably that not many regular consumers were using Win2k, and the market grew to dizzying heights during the reign of XP. The sheer force of the "weight" of the XP installed base is a differential of biblical proportions.


RE: Not for anyone
By sorry dog on 4/24/2014 9:15:37 AM , Rating: 2
When I look at from a basic sales point of view it seems to tie into what is going on.

If I'm trying to sell a 98 customer on XP then it's not too hard to find benefits that the customer will understand.

For an XP to Win8 transition, that sell is much harder to make.


RE: Not for anyone
By NellyFromMA on 4/24/2014 1:43:34 PM , Rating: 2
It's the same sell. The old platform is EOL and the successor platform has more native featuresets and is now the focus of the vendor. It's the same.


RE: Not for anyone
By NellyFromMA on 4/24/2014 1:46:02 PM , Rating: 2
That hardly creates an obligation on MS part to keep supporting it. Especially since there are 3 newer OSes since.

That's essentially saying because that product was so successful starting 10 years ago or more that they now must be punished for retiring it altogether when they make no money doing so.

Further, the upgrade cost to the latest OS is rather inexpensive. They give people the option to stay on XP or move up to the latest. They force no one to do anything in this situation as far as I can tell.


"Well, there may be a reason why they call them 'Mac' trucks! Windows machines will not be trucks." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki