Microsoft to End Support For Windows 2000, XP

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Microsoft says it is finally ending support for Windows 2000 and Windows XP SP2. Don’t panic just yet, you are not completely out of luck come July 13th, Microsoft says that its FAQs, online Knowledge Base articles and other resources will be available for at least another year.

Microsoft offers support for its products for five years and extended support for another five years. That time will soon be up for Windows 2000 (desktop and server) and Windows XP SP2: July 13 is the last day that extended support will be available.
Click to expand...
 
So this is what, the 4th death of XP now? I'll believe it when it's actually "official" official OFFICIAL which means another year or so...
 
Does this mean i'll have to slipstream all the updates into a disk now, or will windows update still be available for XP?
 
Bahamut said:
So this is what, the 4th death of XP now? I'll believe it when it's actually "official" official OFFICIAL which means another year or so...
Click to expand...

I believe they were forced to keep XP alive in the past because of netbooks. Vista was a great OS but it performed poorly on netbooks.

Now that we have Windows 7, there's no reason to keep XP around anymore besides businesses, but even then Windows 7's XP mode can handle a lot of XP business apps quite well. Sure, XP mode is slow, but we're talking business apps, not games.
 
I am fairly sure updates will still be available but new ones may not come out????
 
Astronomica said:
Does this mean i'll have to slipstream all the updates into a disk now, or will windows update still be available for XP?
Click to expand...

Should still be available. It just won't be added to - at least not as frequently.
 
The coverage here of the article is a bit misleading. Microsoft is NOT ending "extended support" of Windows XP completely. They are ending Extended Support for Windows 2000 and Windows XP Service Pack 2 on July 13th. Windows XP Service Pack 3, the current service pack, will continue to be covered under Extended Support through August 4, 2014.

Extended Support is the type of support XP has been on for a while already. It means you continue to get Security Updates, but no functionality hotfixes or patches.
 
Microsoft explains the differences between the different support phases on their FAQ here:
http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifepolicy

Basically, Extended Support means you get Security Hotfixes and the Product Knowledgebase is still updated with information relevant to the OS. If you want non-security hotfixes, you would have had to sign up and pay for the program a long while ago (which you can't afford unless you are a big corporation).

Once Extended Support ends, then there is effectively no support for the OS. No patches of any kind, security or otherwise, and they may stop keeping the KB up-to-date for that OS as well. The only option for continued support is to pay Microsoft to custom-develop patches for you, which you REALLY can't afford.

So, this means that Windows 2000 is effectively dead, as of July 13. Windows XP is NOT. They are just making you update to the current service pack, which happens regularly.

I'm not sure why this article exists. None of this is "new" (this has been long-scheduled), and July 13th isn't all-that-close that we should be seeing "Windows 2000 support ending this week" articles yet. Microsoft did fairly recently (3 weeks ago or so) change some things with their service pack policy for extended support, but that didn't change any of these timeframes.
 
Azhar said:
I believe they were forced to keep XP alive in the past because of netbooks. Vista was a great OS but it performed poorly on netbooks.
Click to expand...
Vista was a horrible OS. Calling it a great OS is like calling Windows Millennium Edition a great OS. Even Microsoft knows it was horrible, that's why they renamed Vista to Windows 7. :p
Now that we have Windows 7, there's no reason to keep XP around anymore besides businesses, but even then Windows 7's XP mode can handle a lot of XP business apps quite well. Sure, XP mode is slow, but we're talking business apps, not games.
Click to expand...

#1 End users continue to use XP because there's no need to upgarde.
#2 Upgrading to Windows 7 can leave behind older hardware due to drivers, such as capture cards.
#3 No business is upgrade happy. Some don't upgrade at all, and others will wait for service pack 1 or even 2.
#4 Why use Windows 7's XP mode, when you only need XP? Windows 7 would be a waste of hard disk space.

Homogenization is a beautiful thing for an OS. Sure, Windows 7 is better but not enough for people to go out and dropped ~ $100. The only other way a person would switch to Windows 7 is if it came with their brand new PC. Especially with this recession.

How many end users actually know what OS they're using? Ask them "what Windows OS are you using" and they'll reply "I don't know". If it's that indistinguishable, then it wasn't valuable enough for the end user to upgrade.

Windows, Mac OS X, or even Linux, nobody cares so long as it works and has the applications they need. Without anything tangible in Windows 7, then I don't see people rushing away from XP. The fact that ATI and Nvidia still supply Windows XP drivers for their DX11 cards, would mean XP isn't going to die easily. Especially when you consider that XP doesn't even support DX10, let alone DX11.
 
Ashbringer said:
Vista was a horrible OS. Calling it a great OS is like calling Windows Millennium Edition a great OS. Even Microsoft knows it was horrible, that's why they renamed Vista to Windows 7. :p
Click to expand...

You win the award for most ignorant thing I've read today.
 
XP can't die fast enough. I can understand the hold out's when Vista was the next OS. Hell, can't blame anyone for not wanting to upgrade to Vista.

But Win7 is a different story. It's time to let go...
 
Ashbringer said:
Vista was a horrible OS. Calling it a great OS is like calling Windows Millennium Edition a great OS. Even Microsoft knows it was horrible, that's why they renamed Vista to Windows 7. :p
Click to expand...

I'll wager you've never actually used Vista in your life. Fully patched up, it's pretty on par with Win7 despite UI differences.
 
techrat said:
I'll wager you've never actually used Vista in your life. Fully patched up, it's pretty on par with Win7 despite UI differences.
Click to expand...

I've yet to have this question answered... "What did Windows 7 change that made it so much better an OS?"

Nobody can provide me an answer to that.
Yea, UI updates were nice...
Speed increases were nice (That's probably the greatest single thing, but it's hardly enough to categorize Vista as "crap" unless you use a netbook)
And ???????????
 
niconx said:
Windows XP? Wow I haven't used that in over 4 years...
Click to expand...

What's kindof funny is Windows 7 to must of us is already old news by the time the public starts using it... We've been using 7 almost two years :D
 
TexUs said:
I've yet to have this question answered... "What did Windows 7 change that made it so much better an OS?"

Nobody can provide me an answer to that.
Yea, UI updates were nice...
Speed increases were nice (That's probably the greatest single thing, but it's hardly enough to categorize Vista as "crap" unless you use a netbook)
And ???????????
Click to expand...

That was the whole point of my post. People are still so quick to bash Vista as a 1.0 product... and label it a complete failure when Win 7 is essentially a 1.1 version. The guts are pretty much the same. Vista provides near equal performance once it is fully patched up. The biggest change was system requirements and how it uses resources. So anyone still bothering to go on about BLAH BLAH BLAH VISTA SUX LOLZ! Is just a stupid slackjaw without a clue of what they're talking about.
 
We have a Windows 2000 Server running doing nothing other then print spooler stuff, why, Xerox stopped updating the drivers to the plotter in 2002. I have tried to run the print driver in other OS environments, no go, mangled prints, wrong paper, solid sheets of black etc.

Sure we could get a new large format printer/scanner but we don't exactly have $40k+ in the budget to replace stuff that still works.


All of our computers run Win XP SP3, most of the computers are 3 years old and we run a 5 year replacement cycle. Vista got completely skipped and W7 will likely be on SP2 by the time we even think of getting new computers.

Come next cycle we have been talking about going with lean desktop terminals with no local storage, why have 30 hard drives with the same info when a server can terminal/emulate out everything? The CAD computers will still be stand alone rings but mostly because AutoCAD doesn't play well with terminals.
 
My laptop begs to differ.

Windows 7 has even slightly better runtime than than WinXP. Windows Vista - with all defaults - would have the battery cut out about 50 minutes earlier than the other two.

I still use XP for my main gaming rig. There is no need to go with anything else.

When Adobe releases Flash 10.1 for 64-bit, I might try again.
 
Ashbringer said:
Vista was a horrible OS. Calling it a great OS is like calling Windows Millennium Edition a great OS. Even Microsoft knows it was horrible, that's why they renamed Vista to Windows 7. :p
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: Alrighty then.
 
TexUs said:
I've yet to have this question answered... "What did Windows 7 change that made it so much better an OS?"

Nobody can provide me an answer to that.
Yea, UI updates were nice...
Speed increases were nice (That's probably the greatest single thing, but it's hardly enough to categorize Vista as "crap" unless you use a netbook)
And ???????????
Click to expand...

I'll answer it, pen and and touch. Yes I know niche but I use this stuff CONSTANTLY now. Outlook 2010 on my tm2 with soild touch support, its just sweet and doesn't work that way with any other version of Windows.
 
I agree with Ashbringer. Vista was horrible. Window 7 is ok, but what is the deal with forcing you to create the 100 mb hidden partition? If someone doesn't want that, they shouldn't be forced to create it. Same goes for not being able to make a user a full admin, I've resorted to using the built in admin acct. for everything.
 
heatlesssun said:
I'll answer it, pen and and touch. Yes I know niche but I use this stuff CONSTANTLY now. Outlook 2010 on my tm2 with soild touch support, its just sweet and doesn't work that way with any other version of Windows.
Click to expand...
Yup: niche.
LOL


Jarod888 said:
I agree with Ashbringer. Vista was horrible. Window 7 is ok, but what is the deal with forcing you to create the 100 mb hidden partition? If someone doesn't want that, they shouldn't be forced to create it. Same goes for not being able to make a user a full admin, I've resorted to using the built in admin acct. for everything.
Click to expand...

Oh noooos....
We must be back in teh 1980s where 100mb is a huge deal!!!!

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:


The admin thing is due to people like you that think you need to run under Admin.
 
Just in case you legitimately don't know what the 100mb is for... It's for BitLocker, if you chose to use it. It'd be kindof a PITA to re-partition everything if you decided to turn it on, no???
 
People still on XP should have been on SP3 by now anyways, ending SP2 support is no big deal.

Vista RTM with early drivers sucked.
Vista SP2 with current drivers isn't so bad.
Win7 is win.

Nothing wrong with XP SP3, just old.
 
I had fantastic stability on vista on my thinkpad, it was seriously solid...crashed once, that was due to a bad sodimm.

I upgraded to 7 for the hell of it, mostly.
 
Can you make 7 look like this if not better? (in concern to streamlining, necessities, logic, and flow)

hf_explorer1.png


hf_startmenu.png
 
Jarod888 said:
Same goes for not being able to make a user a full admin, I've resorted to using the built in admin acct. for everything.
Click to expand...
Why? Running as an administrator is pretty much necessary in XP (you can't even access the date and time properties to look at the calendar, for Christ's sake), but that's no longer the case in Vista and 7. You can elevate user credentials to perform a specific action without leaving the entire system wide open.

Microsoft's approach to security pre-Vista was abysmal. It's been addressed adequately now, however, assuming you don't errantly run as an administrator at all times.
 
TexUs said:
Yup: niche.
LOL
Click to expand...

But a niche in the Windows market is often bigger than other entire OS markets. And because it's niche in Windows terms still doesn't negate that this is indeed something that's improved in Windows. Plus don't you think touch screen computing is a growth market?

And I can walk into any Best Buy or Staples Walmart or wherever and buy a Windows 7 touch screen desktop. If it's sold at Walmart it's only so niche.
 
Kaos said:
I upgraded to 7 for the hell of it, mostly.
Click to expand...
:D You ARE an enthusiast, most people around here did that I'd say.

If you upgrade only out of need: look at business. There isn't a whole lot of reason for them to leave XP (It has so many levels of band-aids on it that it's pretty well solid), and most of the times there's enough reasons NOT to change (just a PITA) to outweigh any good anyways. There's still businesses running NT and 2000. Granted, since security is much harder on those old setups: your network and border security must be extra beefy.

Cerulean said:
Can you make 7 look like this if not better? (in concern to streamlining, necessities, logic, and flow)
Click to expand...
It's time to stop thinking about folder level structures and menus.
In the time you moused your way through that menu I could've launched it with a few key presses.
 
heatlesssun said:
But a niche in the Windows market is often bigger than other entire OS markets. And because it's niche in Windows terms still doesn't negate that this is indeed something that's improved in Windows. Plus don't you think touch screen computing is a growth market?

And I can walk into any Best Buy or Staples Walmart or wherever and buy a Windows 7 touch screen desktop. If it's sold at Walmart it's only so niche.
Click to expand...

While that's true, I don't think the whole touchscreen/tablet thing has taken off.
Tablets are big and bulky, and usually suck on battery life. Just a fact of life right now. The HP Slate might change all that though.

I also don't think there's MILLIONS of tablets out there... I could be wrong. But I've never actually seen someone using one in the wild.

I think touch screen computing has "potential" but only limited potential.
If you think about it, from an input standpoint, it sucks. On devices you can work with one hand (phones) that's one thing. But from a business/getting-stuff-done perspective, touch screens aren't that appealing.
Sure, they are more natural to browse around. But typing? Forget it. Even if you used a keyboard along with the screen, where do you situate it? The screen be above the keyboard? I don't want to hold my hands in the air and reach out to touch-control something. I have to move my hands a couple inches off the keyboard for a mouse: much more efficient.
That's just why I think,even though Apple is "oooo Touch Screens!!", for the masses, I don't think they'll take off. I have yet to see a productive touch screen setup.

Kiosks, terminals, etc they're great. But we've been using them there successfully for ages.
 
weebling1 said:
What about install/activation? On my kid's comps it'll be XP for several more years
Click to expand...

Xp's activation feature defaults to activated if it is unable to connect to the activation servers.
So, you have no worry there, you will be able to install /activate xp long after the activation servers have shut down.
 
It's time to stop thinking about folder level structures and menus.
In the time you moused your way through that menu I could've launched it with a few key presses.
Click to expand...
FYI:

hf_quickstart.png


Your argument is defeated.
 
Just like cerulean said, you can't beat the folder look of xp. It was one if the first hacks I implemented on the laptop running 7.
 
EDIT: Forgot to add...

1) Apologies for the dimensions of the picture
2) I prefer organization; what I have going, to me, IS organized and logical (another fyi: logic is relative -- "what I have going, to me, is logical to ME")

I can open up any one of those items in my quickstart in at most a second of time; quicker if not about the same time it takes for you to open a program with hotkeys. Hell, we might aswell hotkey every damn living program in existence to CTRL+SHIFT+ALT+<some key>, memorize that, and use that as an argument for ridding of proper, logical workflows and structures.
 
Cerulean said:
Can you make 7 look like this if not better? (in concern to streamlining, necessities, logic, and flow)

hf_explorer1.png


hf_startmenu.png
Click to expand...

Depends what you want to do. The taskbar is certainly cleaner. And the start menu doesnt really require a hierarchy the way it's designed - especially with instant search. You can customize this though.

You can arrange common stuff in your "library" which is effectively a symlink.

Or use something like launchy and be done with it.
 
Defeated?
No it's not. What happens if you fill that up with ALL your apps, docs, photos, music, videos, etc like you'd have to do in order to compete with my instant-search example? Yea, it becomes a big freaking mess.

You still have to take your hand off the keyboard to get your mouse and click twice to launch anything there. With three keystrokes (in less time it'd take to move your hand to the mouse) I could've launched it.

Sorry, but instant-search is loads more efficient.

And if you still like stuff in quick launch, jump-lists are still there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top