Nobody knows for sure, but I have to say, I don't think MS just gave it up on a whim. If MS is not going to fix a problem with XP, I believe they have a good reason, personally. A LOT of people are going to remember this and use it against MS for a LONG time, I don't think MS would risk that unless there was an excellent reason. It's not like Win 7 is getting bad reviews and MS is desperate, but maybe they are, I just doubt it, at this point all we can do is make baseless idle speculation out of it.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.
Microsoft chooses to leave Windows 2000 out in the open...
- Thread starter Joe Average
- Start date
Nobody knows for sure, but I have to say, I don't think MS just gave it up on a whim. If MS is not going to fix a problem with XP, I believe they have a good reason, personally. A LOT of people are going to remember this and use it against MS for a LONG time, I don't think MS would risk that unless there was an excellent reason. It's not like Win 7 is getting bad reviews and MS is desperate, but maybe they are, I just doubt it, at this point all we can do is make baseless idle speculation out of it.
Satyrist
Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2001
- Messages
- 724
Sure thing, grandpa.
'Twas a point of view, nothing more. As you stated above, nobody's really sure of Microsoft's (HAPPY??!?!?!) true reasons behind this move.
+1
Software can't be supported forever, even if you are a business who uses said software.
I honestly didnt know this software was even still being used or even on peoples minds today with windows 7's release just around the corner and the fact that XP and Vista have already been released since Windows 2000... To me in my opinion this is like still using windows 95... I mean why would someone still use it unless they absolutely have too and this late in the game why would you still want to use it.. again just my opinion...
I know everyone's on the Vista/7 bandwagon at 150 mph....obviously people need to get with the program and ditch old OS's eventually.
But I still don't like Microsoft's answer (and agree with Joe Average).
Soooo...... You'll support it like you are supposed to, unless it's too much trouble or costs a bit too much money/effort.......then screw you??
Bad answer.
Take a look at the support from other companies. MS is better than most. Oracle's support period for some (all?) of there products are much shorter. We're using a product where support drops dramatically after 2 years. The cost for support goes up, while the ability to get updates diminishes. In short, they make it too expensive for you not to upgrade.
MS is no angel, but support for 2000 disappears in less than a year. If fixing an issue means a rearchitecting a major part of the OS, it may take them longer than that to release it, which IMO, makes it not worth upgrading. What's more, if you have any integrator customizations, there's no guarantee that the customization will break when you perform the upgrades, which means you, the buyer, must either fix code you didn't write or pay the integrator to fix the code for you.....you know, kinda like what may happen if you upgrade from 2000 to a recent windows OS.
Welcome to the world of enterprise software.
The bottom line is that any company that uses 2000 should have a plan to migrate in place. 2000 is almost 10 years old, it's time to move on.
sdotbrucato
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2005
- Messages
- 1,722
This about sums up my point of view on the subject. Support ends in a year, by the time this patch goes public and gets ironed out, that year would be up and now you're running unsupported software in a production enviroment. There should be an upgrade path for all but the most arcaic app servers.
Posted via [H] Mobile Device
Windows 2000 is not a fully supported product, Mainstream support ended in 2005. Design changes in the core OS are made only during the mainstream support phase.
Please go read the Microsoft support guidelines for their products. The timeline for Windows 2000, and the phases of support and limitations of such have been publically published since 2002.
Its not like its any sort of mystery.
http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?p1=7274
http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifepolicy
XP ended its mainstream support 6/2008. I'm just SHOCKED they aren't going to make a fix requiring a design change. I mean really, a company following its own publicly published guidelines for software support for 7 and 9 year old products! I mean, the nerve of those poeple...
Last edited:
Eva_Unit_0
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2005
- Messages
- 1,991
I've stopped defending win2k since I can buy the thought that it is pretty much over with. Office, Itunes and IE7/8 don't support it either so it's essentially a dead end now anyway. But yes, I am shocked they don't do the fix to XP because despite being "outdated and unsupported" it still accounts for 60-70% of the total windows install base (according to wikipedia) compared to the 20-25% for vista. I'm sorry, but I just feel like leaving a vulnerability open on 60-70% of all windows machines (which in turn account for >90% of all computers total) is irresponsible. You can't just say "oh well they can all upgrade to vista or 7," you know its not that simple.
On a side note, I find it strange that XP64 is still in mainstream support but regular XP is in extended. I guess because XP64 is really more closely related to server 2003.
Uberbob102000
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2006
- Messages
- 2,243
Eva_Unit_0 I think your missing the point here, it's the same thing as the DirectX 10 on XP. It's a fundamental issue with the OS. OS take a tremendous amount of work to design and test, and putting the new network stack in XP would require them to redo that entire portion of the OS which is absolutely ridiculous to assume any company would do for free and not to mention it would bring about all sorts of issues.
Eva_Unit_0
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2005
- Messages
- 1,991
DirectX is not a security issue. It is an extra functionality that no one is expecting microsoft to bring to windows xp. I don't see how they're the same.
How do you justify the fact that 60-70% of windows computers have an unpatchable security hole now?
I see this thread gettin locked down soon cause now its turning in to who thinks whats better in his or her own opinion..not staying on point with the thread going this route..
That's a ridiculous contention!
Microsoft, in relation to this, haven't 'broken' something. They've identified that the 'something' was already broken, and have determined that it's too broken to be worth fixing.
Sure, that's an inconvenience for a helluva lot of people, but then a helluva lot of people are still using a product which is, by today's standards of internet security concerns, a quite shoddy and outdated one. The comment above is a kinda similar thing to Eva_Unit_0's wrongful comment earlier:
"How do you justify the fact that 60-70% of windows computers have an unpatchable security hole now?"
Again, ridiculous comment. Windows 2000 and Windows XP have ALWAYS had this secirity 'hole'! It's only just been discovered/exploited. It hasn't only just been created. 2000 and XP users have been operating in harmony with this security hole since day dot. Now that it's been identified it turns out that it's too difficult to simply patch, and requires replacement with later developed components, which are included in later versions of the OS. Sobeit.
The OS is a commercial product, and like pretty much all commercial products new and improved models have new and improved features. You can't expect each and every one of them to be forever after bolted on to every model in the back catalogue. Some of you people sound like spoiled little brats who are never satisfied no matter what they're provided with!
Time to upgrade. Eva, the OS is ancient. I doubt Sun is patching Solaris from 2001. They certainly aren't doing it for free.
If you want that change, talk to MS. I'm sure they'll do it if you pay them enough money....the same is true for Sun, Oracle or most other companies.
At some point, people have to upgrade. That time is long past for consumers and time has run out for businesses too.
FYI, when mainstream support ended for 2000, 65-70% of businesses were running 2000. If MS were to keep patching and rearchtecting XP for 30 years, businesses would stick with XP for 30 years, because a lot of people in IT dislike change. And support groups HATE change, because it's more work for them.
KillaChaos
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2008
- Messages
- 351
This is Windows. You have to admit they are right. It doesn't make sense to pay X amount of developers for a technically free patch, that won't add any more money into their pocket, since everyone and their windows-loving mother runs XP.
If this was Vista/7 it would be different because they are still trying to sell those. Fixing XP now, would be like trying to fix the holes in 95 when XP was released.
heatlesssun
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 44,154
Even if this were Linux, who would actually go back to an eight year old version of Linux?
bigbadgreen
Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2003
- Messages
- 680
I guess I'm cinical but all this bad pub is going to do is make MS not want to support their OS's for as long. They are supporting these ancient OS's for much longer than what is required and all they get for it is crap. The answer is to shorten the support period.
Let's say they do decide to release an end patch and say it's final. What happens when the final patch breaks a companies system leaving them unable to function. They will of course blame MS. If MS doesn't patch they will blame MS for leaving them in the open. It's a catch 22. It sucks but it sounds like it's time for an upgrade for a whole lot of companies. Maybe this will be a lesson to some to start budgeting more into technology upgrades. Even if they don't upgrade in the next 3-5 years the money will be there for when they need to upgrade.
Let's say they do decide to release an end patch and say it's final. What happens when the final patch breaks a companies system leaving them unable to function. They will of course blame MS. If MS doesn't patch they will blame MS for leaving them in the open. It's a catch 22. It sucks but it sounds like it's time for an upgrade for a whole lot of companies. Maybe this will be a lesson to some to start budgeting more into technology upgrades. Even if they don't upgrade in the next 3-5 years the money will be there for when they need to upgrade.
I could be wrong, but I think that mainstream support for MS OS's typically ends around 3.5 to 4 years after it's successor was released.
Yes, XP is 8 years old, but Vista effectively came out in January or February of 2007. XP came out mid to late 2001. As i recall, mainstream support for 2000 ended sometime in 2005.
I don' think MS has any obligation to do a major revamp of an 8 year old OS that's been succeeded by Vista in 07 and 7 in October of this year, but I think it's very unlikely that MS will decrease the mainstream support period for old OS's.