Microsoft Warns XP Users Against Registry Hack

[CommanderFrank]

After years of cajoling, threatening and warning XP users to migrate away from XP to Windows 7 or 8.1, along comes a simple registry hack that will allow users to continue receiving updates. For some strange reason, Microsoft is against the whole thing.

“The best way for Windows XP customers to protect their systems is to upgrade to a more modern operating system, like Windows 7 or Windows 8.1.”

 

[Red Squirrel]

Hahaha XP just wont die. lol

Seriously though people really need to look at getting off XP, and if they don't want to upgrade their computers they could at least go with Linux.

 

[Bigbacon]

depending on how old the system is you could run windows 8 on older computers. hell it runs fine on my single core atom EEE with 2gb of ram. runs better than XP did.

 

[coolpurplefan]

I have some old motherboards that aren't compatible with Windows 7 so I can see why there's interest.

 

[Cudenver]

sounds like a bad idea to me, just upgrade.

 

[Insula Gilliganis]

What irks people is that Microsoft still makes security patches for XP.. it just doesn't want to give them out free or even make it cheaply available for consumers. If Microsoft just cut off everything about XP, people wouldn't react as badly but they see MS talking out of both sides of their mouth.. they still make the patches.. but none of us regular people can get them.. unless you use this hack.

I agree best to be using a more modern operating system.. just spend $200 for a Chromebook if surfing the web & email is all you need to do and use your XP offline. But there was about an eight year period of people just buying XP machines or downgrading from Vista so there are a ton of XP machines out there. If you ever listen to the "Technology Bytes" radio show/podcast, every episode has old people calling up with XP questions. Lots of people can't or won't upgrade until their machines are completely dead.

 

[P4B]

I still have a drive with Win94 on it. I should hook it up

 

[Tak Ne]

So Windows XP is fine for embedded systems like ATM machines but not users?? OK

"Windows XP customers also run a significant risk of functionality issues with their machines if they install these updates, as they are not tested against Windows XP."

Translation: We will release a patch that bricks these systems.

 

[k1pp3r]

Translation: We will release a patch that bricks these systems.

Translation: The patches released are for the slimed own XP Embedded and not tested on full windows XP.

Not sure how much MS would save by stopping QA testing on XP full versions.

 

[GotNoRice]

So Windows XP is fine for embedded systems like ATM machines but not users?? OK

ATMs don't run Windows XP, they run embedded operating systems like "Windows Embedded for Point of Service V1" and "Windows Embedded POSReady 2009" which might share a common core with XP but they are NOT the same OS, despite any bad journalism that might have lead you to believe the contrary. Most importantly, support for these operating systems doesn't end until 2016-2019 depending on the version.

"Windows XP customers also run a significant risk of functionality issues with their machines if they install these updates, as they are not tested against Windows XP."

Translation: We will release a patch that bricks these systems.

I don't understand why it's so difficult for some people to understand why tricking windows update into thinking you are running a different OS, and then installing updates meant for that different OS is a bad idea... If you could trick it into thinking you were running Vista, would you want to install those updates too?

 

[Ashbringer]

So Microsoft is telling people to not use Windows XP with this update trick cause the whole OS is bad. Instead, they should upgrade to a newer OS with better updates, that is not bad.

Being a monopoly must suck when it comes to the point where you compete against your own product.

 

[GotNoRice]

So Microsoft is telling people to not use Windows XP with this update trick cause the whole OS is bad.

No, Microsoft is telling XP users not to use this "update trick" because the updates aren't for XP.

 

[WaltC]

Anyone who still runs XP must be a glutton for punishment...either that, or they hardly use a computer at all. Going back to XP has all the allure of going back to DOS for me. As difficult as it is for me to believe, Vista was launched 7 years ago, then Win7 and then Win8. XP shipped all of 13+ years ago...! It predates 64-bit computing.

 

[GotNoRice]

As difficult as it is for me to believe, Vista was launched 7 years ago, then Win7 and then Win8. XP shipped all of 13+ years ago...! It predates 64-bit computing.

While talking about "13+ years" sounds impressive, the reality is that XP was the main OS that people used up until 2009 when Windows 7 was released, only 5 years ago. There was also very significant differences during that time. Going from stock XP to XP SP3 is like going from Vista to Windows 7, or from Windows 2000 to XP.

 

[CaptNumbNutz]

Kind of hard to receive updates when there are none left. MS stopped updating XP. Anything showing up as an update isn't for XP.

 

[Krolik]

Kind of hard to receive updates when there are none left. MS stopped updating XP. Anything showing up as an update isn't for XP.

This is exactly what I was wondering about. Is some random stranger going to be writing updates for it? I wouldn't be ok with that. "Sure random kind stranger, you can have full access to my pc; thanks to an update you sent out".

 

[Ashbringer]

No, Microsoft is telling XP users not to use this "update trick" because the updates aren't for XP.

What are they for? Vista? Windows 7? I've heard of tricks like installing more up to date DirectX for Windows 2000 and other things, but if it's from Vista and it works then it brings more questions than answers.

 

[MrGuvernment]

What irks people is that Microsoft still makes security patches for XP.. it just doesn't want to give them out free or even make it cheaply available for consumers. If Microsoft just cut off everything about XP, people wouldn't react as badly but they see MS talking out of both sides of their mouth.. they still make the patches.. but none of us regular people can get them.. unless you use this hack.

I agree best to be using a more modern operating system.. just spend $200 for a Chromebook if surfing the web & email is all you need to do and use your XP offline. But there was about an eight year period of people just buying XP machines or downgrading from Vista so there are a ton of XP machines out there. If you ever listen to the "Technology Bytes" radio show/podcast, every episode has old people calling up with XP questions. Lots of people can't or won't upgrade until their machines are completely dead.

Why should they support it,It is a dead OS for the general public. They are making the patches for companies that have paid thousands / millions of dollars to keep using XP.

If i paid MS $50k to keep my XP support going, dam right i would get pissed if every joe blow still gets it for free because of my $50k....

 

[Ryokurin]

So Windows XP is fine for embedded systems like ATM machines but not users?? OK

It's already been noted that it's not really XP, but for the few systems that actually do run full XP, there's nothing wrong with it as ATMs should be on their own private network, not on the open internet. Besides that, most of the companies that sold systems with full XP like diebold setup pools so that the costs of getting updates to small banks and such that couldn't afford a new ATM aren't as bad.

 

[GotNoRice]

What are they for?

"Windows Embedded for Point of Service V1" (supported until April 2016)
"Windows Embedded POSReady 2009" (supported until April 2019)

 

[punisher]

Just got back from setting up Outlook Express with Gmail.......on an XP machine owned by a really cool 89 year old client.

XP is all some want or need and they are apprehensive about change.

 

[Ashbringer]

"Windows Embedded for Point of Service V1" (supported until April 2016)
"Windows Embedded POSReady 2009" (supported until April 2019)

From Microsofts own website.

What is the difference between POSReady 2009 and Windows XP Professional?

Windows Embedded POSReady 2009 contains the following Embedded Enabling Features:
File-Based Write Filter (FBWF), which redirects writes to disk to RAM and helps protect the underlying OS image.
USB Boot, which allows installation from a USB key.
Office productivity applications are not licensed to be run on POSReady.
POS for .NET is included with POSReady.
POSReady does not contain Help files, which reduces its footprint.
Both products use the same management software.

And Wikipedia.

Windows Embedded for Point of Service V1
This was a specially designed subversion of Windows XP Embedded designed for use in Point of Service Situations. Mainstream support for version 1.1 SP3 ended in April 2011 and extended support will end in April 2016.

I believe these are XP OS's with additional crap removed and included. So the updates make sense.

 

[Unknown-One]

What irks people is that Microsoft still makes security patches for XP.. it just doesn't want to give them out free or even make it cheaply available for consumers. If Microsoft just cut off everything about XP, people wouldn't react as badly but they see MS talking out of both sides of their mouth.. they still make the patches.. but none of us regular people can get them.. unless you use this hack.

They make the patches for Windows XP Embedded.

These patches only patch components that exist in XP Embedded, and are only tested against XP embedded. This means that a large portion of the OS (which is absent from XP Embedded) isn't being looked at and can't be guaranteed to be secure. These patches could also BREAK normal XP at any time, as they were not meant for normal XP.

 

[GotNoRice]

I believe these are XP OS's with additional crap removed and included. So the updates make sense.

Even XP embedded still isn't regular XP, any more than Server 2003 is XP. But hey, if you want to install updates not meant for XP on your machine, don't let me stop you

 

[inyourface1650]

ATMs don't run Windows XP, they run embedded operating systems like "Windows Embedded for Point of Service V1" and "Windows Embedded POSReady 2009" which might share a common core with XP but they are NOT the same OS, despite any bad journalism that might have lead you to believe the contrary. Most importantly, support for these operating systems doesn't end until 2016-2019 depending on the version.

FYI - most of our customers ATM's DO INDEED run WINXP. The ATM sits on its own network, with a pretty serious Firewall...but its XP.

 

[Unknown-One]

Even XP embedded still isn't regular XP, any more than Server 2003 is XP.

Poor comparison...

XP and Server 2003 use different kernels, require different drivers, and are sourced from different trunk builds. Patches are not cross-compatible. They're VERY different.

XP and XP Embedded use the same kernel version. Same drivers. Same trunk build. Patches should be mostly cross-compatible. They're VERY similar.

But hey, if you want to install updates not meant for XP on your machine, don't let me stop you

They were meant for XP, but they were meant for a special edition of XP that has lots of stuff ripped out (meaning these patches only partially cover normal XP, and do not necessarily fully-secure it).

 

[cdr_74_premium]

While talking about "13+ years" sounds impressive, the reality is that XP was the main OS that people used up until 2009 when Windows 7 was released, only 5 years ago. There was also very significant differences during that time. Going from stock XP to XP SP3 is like going from Vista to Windows 7, or from Windows 2000 to XP.

Ubuntu LTS releases are supported for five years. For some reason people expect Microsoft to support its products forever, and even after 13 years of support people call them greedy. Come on.

 

[inyourface1650]

FYI - most of our customers ATM's DO INDEED run WINXP. The ATM sits on its own network, with a pretty serious Firewall...but its XP.

and no, not XPe....

 

[GotNoRice]

For some reason people expect Microsoft to support its products forever, and even after 13 years of support people call them greedy. Come on.

There were still new computers with XP on them being sold as recently as October of 2010. For someone who bought a new computer with XP on it, they aren't going to care how many years the OS existed prior to their purchase.

 

[Unknown-One]

Ubuntu LTS releases are supported for five years. For some reason people expect Microsoft to support its products forever, and even after 13 years of support people call them greedy. Come on.

There were still new computers with XP on them being sold as recently as October of 2010. For someone who bought a new computer with XP on it, they aren't going to care how many years the OS existed prior to their purchase.

That has no bearing on his point...

Precisely when the OS was set up has no impact on Microsoft nor Canonical's support timeline. It's effectively like a warranty that begins "date of manufacture," not "date of purchase."

It's now up to the OEM that built said PC to support it, but October 2010 was already almost 4years ago... How many of those machines were sold with warranties longer than 3 years? My guess, not many...

 

[GotNoRice]

That has no bearing on his point...

Precisely when the OS was set up has no impact on Microsoft nor Canonical's support timeline. It's effectively like a warranty that begins "date of manufacture," not "date of purchase."

It's now up to the OEM that built said PC to support it, but October 2010 was already almost 4years ago... How many of those machines were sold with warranties longer than 3 years? My guess, not many...

My post had nothing to do with support timelines or warranties, it was about users and their expectations, in response to the post I quoted.

 

[Unknown-One]

My post had nothing to do with support timelines or warranties, it was about users and their expectations, in response to the post I quoted.

Ok... still not seeing your point. Why would a user who purchased an XP machine in 2010 expect it to still be supported?

 

[GotNoRice]

Ok... still not seeing your point. Why would a user who purchased an XP machine in 2010 expect it to still be supported?

Again, my response was in the context of the post that I quoted. 4 years may or may not be a reasonable expectation for consumers to have when it comes to support, but it's still not 13 years, the figure that was being pushed in the post I quoted.

and even after 13 years of support people call them greedy. Come on.

 

[Unknown-One]

Again, my response was in the context of the post that I quoted. 4 years may or may not be a reasonable expectation for consumers to have when it comes to support, but it's still not 13 years, the figure that was being pushed in the post I quoted.

Huh? What he said was accurate, the OS was originally released 13 years ago...

Just because you bought a PC in 2010 doesn't suddenly renew the OS's support lifecycle.

And a consumer should expect for as long as their PC is warrantied. If they bought a Dell or HP with something longer than a 3-year warranty, running XP, in 2010, then it's now up to that OEM to support that customer.

 

[GotNoRice]

Huh? What he said was accurate, the OS was originally released 13 years ago...

I was never contesting the factual accuracy of his statement, I was trying to explain why 13 years is irrelevant form the perspective of a consumer with a somewhat recent PC that happens to still be on XP.

Just because you bought a PC in 2010 doesn't suddenly renew the OS's support lifecycle.

Nor did I ever claim it did.

And a consumer should expect for as long as their PC is warrantied. If they bought a Dell or HP with something longer than a 3-year warranty, running XP, in 2010, then it's now up to that OEM to support that customer.

My post was simply referencing the fact that "13 years" is irrelevant from the perspective of a consumer, especially the type who would still be running XP in 2014. I do independent IT support every single day and I can say for a fact that YES, people's expectations have increased over the years. Computers used to be things that practically went from brand new to trash in a year or two. MOST of the computers I service are more than 4 years old. They don't expect Microsoft or the OEM they purchased it from to "support" their computer at that point, that's why they call me. But not having any updates at all after only 4 years is a bit lame. Someone running Vista could have an almost 8 year old computer, with almost 3 years of updates still remaining. Even if everything is 100% legit from a technical and legal perspective when it comes to support timelines, that comparison would be a bit hard to swallow for many still using XP.

 

[Ryokurin]

My post had nothing to do with support timelines or warranties, it was about users and their expectations, in response to the post I quoted.

So let's do another analogy.

It still is possible to find some 2012 cars for sale (Poor Mitsubishi) With a lot of them, it may technically be a new car but the warranty clock has started. Will the consumer who eventually buy expect a full warranty? Yes, but they won't get one unless they pay someone for it. Those people who purchased netbooks in 2009 with XP should know they were buying old tech that were at least two OS's behind what was current. It may not be fair, but things move on.

 

[Unknown-One]

not having any updates at all after only 4 years is a bit lame.

They had, and are using, updates released over the last 13 years. Not Microsoft's fault they picked up the product so late.

Those back-updates do count. Those back-updates were also likely a major reason for choosing XP, as without them, it's a disaster of an OS.

Someone running Vista could have an almost 8 year old computer, with almost 3 years of updates still remaining. Even if everything is 100% legit from a technical and legal perspective when it comes to support timelines, that comparison would be a bit hard to swallow for many still using XP.

How, exactly?

XP users got support for 13 years. Vista users are only getting support for 11 years. From an XP user's perspective, Vista users get the shit-end of the stick on overall support.

 

[daglesj]

And how long do OSX and Linux users get updates for a set version of their OS?

Not 10 years is it? Nowhere near.

 

[daglesj]

Buying a XP machine in 2010? Mental illness or bad IT Management?