Microsoft to extend Windows XP anti-malware support through mid-2015

[Shawn Knight]

Microsoft has announced plans to continue to support Windows XP anti-malware efforts through mid-April 2015. The company is still moving forward with plans to discontinue general support for the aging operating system this April, however.

Specifically, the extended support is limited to anti-malware signatures in Security Essentials. It’s also worth pointing out that after this April, XP users will no longer be able to download and install the program. As such, it’d be a good idea to go ahead and pick up Security Essentials (it’s free) if you have an XP machine and haven’t already done so.

Microsoft is pitching the extension as a move designed to help organizations complete migrations from XP to a newer operating system. True enough, it’s advisable to upgrade to a newer OS sooner rather than later as they will have security updates on a regular basis for some time to come. Full support for XP ends on April 8, 2014 at which point using up-to-date anti-virus alone might not be enough protection.

To put it all into perspective, Microsoft Trustworthy Computing general manager Mike Reavey said late last year that Windows XP is six times more likely to be infected than Windows 8 despite the fact it has the same malware encounter rate.

Even still, Windows XP commanded 29 percent of the Windows market share as of December 2013 according to NetMarketShare. In comparison, Windows 7 represented 48 percent of the market while Windows 8 had only captured 11 percent. Vista lags behind all other modern Windows operating systems at just four percent share.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/55359-microsoft-to-extend-windows-xp-anti-malware-support-through-mid-2015.html

 

[oldikes]

I tried dual booting windows XP for nostalgic/old app purposes. Needless to say that it doesnt like working next to windows 7. at all. maybe ill pick up another drive really cheap somewhere to do it.

 

[Justin Moran]

Why are you the last to know info? I know about this from about noon yesterday EST....

 

[Guest]

I tried dual booting windows XP for nostalgic/old app purposes.Needless to say that it doesnt like working next to windows 7. at all. maybe ill pick up another drive really cheap somewhere to do it.

Google "VMWare Player". Your Welcome....

BTW, I currently have Win7 and XP dual boot on a drive. Works flawlessly.

 

[oldikes]

Google "VMWare Player". Your Welcome....

BTW, I currently have Win7 and XP dual boot on a drive. Works flawlessly.

Virtual machines arent the same! its like playing a knockoff of your favorite video game!

 

[amstech]

We have had all types of trouble to get XP machines to update. Even after installing XP SP3, Net Framework 2.0 + 3.5 SP1, etc etc its difficult to get those first 2 genuine's to come through. Another way is to put on IE8 on but even that is not working as well anymore. WTF!

 

[cliffordcooley]

Microsoft needs to come to grips with the fact, we don't have to upgrade our hardware as often as we once did. There is less need in upgrading OS versions, because of this fact. They can either slow down on the forced upgrade release cycle or risk alienating their consumer base. I don't see an issue with leaving XP, however I don't want to think how fast they will want to ditch 7 after XP.

I'm almost tempted to say MS is wanting to hold the rest of the XP crowd until Windows 9. MS probably fears the XP crowd moving to Windows 7 instead of Windows 8. This is more than likely an attempt at crowd control migrations to Windows 7. If they can hold off migration until Windows 9, maybe just maybe there will be less to migrate from Windows 7.

 

[EClyde]

I been using 7 so long XP looks and feels like junk. It was great and I keep it around for some games but good night sleep tight

 

[Railman]

I was under the impression that MS still provide support to older operating systems to organisations that are prepared to pay MS. It often makes sense for certain organisations not to change operating systems especially if they are using mission critical systems. NASA is a good example of an organisation that utilise tried and tested programs not cutting edge.

 

[captaincranky]

Considering the marks that M$E has been getting in malware detection, prevention, & removal testing recently, does it even ,matter that they are still going to support it?

When you come right down to it, if M$ stops making M$E available to XP users, it would force them to go out and get something that works, (AVG, Avast, Avira, etc.), most of which are free also.

I mean really, there are many who believe that M$ is screwing up the detection abilities of M$E on purpose, to force users into adopting Win 8 and its coming derivatives.

 

[avoidz]

XP still works -- and works very well -- on the millions of computers and devices it runs on. Makes sense to support it until at least the 10% usage mark. Thumbs up for Microsoft.

 

[Railman]

XP still works -- and works very well -- on the millions of computers and devices it runs on. Makes sense to support it until at least the 10% usage mark. Thumbs up for Microsoft.

I would still be using XP if the PC running it had not broke down. If you have a perfectly workable old PC it makes sense to leave the operating system for which that PC was validated. Hopefully when I have the time I will building a new PC and there is no way XP would be suitable for it.

 

[Guest]

Microsoft Windows 7 works well on the millions of computers it is on and they have a SP for it, but they will not release it because they want to push people to Window 8, 8.1 or 9 with there much touted Metro UI which many people do not like. I still use XP, but I have a Windows 7 install disk for when I need to upgrade. I would only buy a new computer if it came with a Windows 7 install disk so I could UPGRADE from Windows 8 to Windows 7.

 

[Dustyn]

So extend antimalware support without extending critical security patches alongside? Does anyone see this as Microsoft sending a conflicting message?

 

[SNGX1275]

I would still be using XP if the PC running it had not broke down. If you have a perfectly workable old PC it makes sense to leave the operating system for which that PC was validated. Hopefully when I have the time I will building a new PC and there is no way XP would be suitable for it.

Agree totally. But this is just absurd to expect Microsoft to continue supporting an OS they released in 2002. 2000 was a fantastic OS but hardware and software developers quit supporting it, 2000 with SP4 and 3rd party software was arguably better than XP because it ran on lower spec'd systems better and allowed more freedom without OS bloat. At some point you have to just upgrade because you are running an OS provided by someone other than yourself (or your company). The maker of that OS has to make money, they have to end support of old operating systems.

People talk about these big organizations that can't switch because of proprietary software of whatever. Well FFS, they've had over a decade to get something implemented. Upgrade their software to run on a new OS, or make their software work on a *nix based OS that they can maintain themselves. There are all kinds of solutions out there that don't involve clinging onto a consumer OS from 11 years ago.

 

[captaincranky]

So extend antimalware support without extending critical security patches alongside? Does anyone see this as Microsoft sending a conflicting message?

Well, at some point, you'll have to let XP go. I still use it to go online almost everyday.

With that said, the machine involved is an ancient eMachines, with restore discs. It has been updated to SP-3, but the install is no longer able to hook up with Windows Update anyway.

So, I leave the installed programs confined to only those I need to fulfill its ad hoc mission, which is to seek out erotic art of any and all intensities.......

Accordingly, I never log into any active account, and an up to date AV solution is installed.

If the "bear gets me", so to speak, then I don't cry for help, I just jam in the restore discs, and take my punishment like a pervert, er, I mean man.

M$ actually did too good a job on XP, which is why it seems indispensable. But times change. Business are crying because they'll have to spend good money for newer desktops and OSes. Money which could be better utilized by stashing it in an offshore account to avoid paying taxes on it, or using it to pay illegal aliens under the table in cash for their services.

 

[Guest]

Well, at some point, you'll have to let XP go. I still use it to go online almost everyday.
With that said, the machine involved is an ancient eMachines, with restore discs. It has been updated to SP-3, but the install is no longer able to hook up with Windows Update anyway.
So, I leave the installed programs confined to only those I need to fulfill its ad hoc mission, which is to seek out erotic art of any and all intensities.......
Accordingly, I never log into any active account, and an up to date AV solution is installed.
If the "bear gets me", so to speak, then I don't cry for help, I just jam in the restore discs, and take my punishment like a pervert, er, I mean man.
M$ actually did too good a job on XP, which is why it seems indispensable. But times change. Business are crying because they'll have to spend good money for newer desktops and OSes. Money which could be better utilized by stashing it in an offshore account to avoid paying taxes on it, or using it to pay illegal aliens under the table in cash for their services.

@captaincranky, sometimes I don't quite get you, but this is perhaps one of your best points that you have made. Like the SNGX1275 above your post said, Microsoft is a business, and businesses need to make money. Google makes money by you selling your privacy to them, mostly by invasive ads, but none the less they make money out of it to provide you with a "free" service (note the quotes around the word free). Microsoft makes money by selling you an ad free experience, and updates it from time to time, sometimes requiring you to purchase a new license, but hey they have to make money somehow, now just imagine Microsoft adopted Googles model and windows is riddled with ads? Consumers would drop them like they drop a turd in the toilet, so these people moaning that they have to buy a new OS every couple of years really have no foot to stand on. Nowhere has Microsoft said you must upgrade your OS at the end of every 3 year release cycle, so you are more than entitled to keep your current OS until its support cycle ends, IN TEN FRIKKEN YEARS. After that you have no more excuses. XP has had its life span extended on numerous occasions at great cost to MS, as you are not upgrading by holding onto that old decrepit OS. I'm on windows 8.1, so even if Windows 9 comes out next year, I wont be upgrading until at least 2016/17. Windows 8 cost me $70 +/-, the games I run on it, cost me anywhere from $20-$40 upwards and I have bought many since buying windows 8. MS Office 2013 cost me $300, lets not forget other apps and bits. So essentially, the apps I am running on my PC cost me more than 4 times than the actual cost of the OS its all running on. That OS will serve me for at least another 3 years, so you do the math and tell me what aspect software wise is the cheapest. This is probably the case for many people. Ultimately, I will choose the business model Microsoft uses and have a pay once option rather than use Googles method of having ads shoved down my throat, like on youtube or their other services. Now if Google opted to adopt the pay once model, then I may be tempted to use their services...

 

[Railman]

M$ actually did too good a job on XP, which is why it seems indispensable. But times change. Business are crying because they'll have to spend good money for newer desktops and OSes. Money which could be better utilized by stashing it in an offshore account to avoid paying taxes on it, or using it to pay illegal aliens under the table in cash for their services.

The cost of new hardware and OS only constitutes a small element of the cost of upgrading. One issue that has never been addressed in the Windows environment is backward comparability with programs. For example my wife should have access to her firms Intranet from the home computer, unfortunately she cannot access it because it only works via IE10. We currently are on IE11.

I think is is about time we had some industry standards which all programmers should adhere to which are not dependant on the OS or the programs. It does seem mad that in this day and age we use so many web based systems but they only work in selected configurations.

Moderator note: Railman, please take care to quote correctly. Fixed for you. Thanks.

 

[captaincranky]

The cost of new hardware and OS only constitutes a small element of the cost of upgrading. One issue that has never been addressed in the Windows environment is backward comparability with programs. For example my wife should have access to her firms Intranet from the home computer, unfortunately she cannot access it because it only works via IE10. We currently are on IE11.

First let me state, I'm an old fart, and as such, I probably need less overall software capability than you young 'uns.

At the present, M$'s business model seems to be suffering from excess greed and incompetent management.

That being said, somehow the notion that you simply have to adhere to their release schedule by buying everything they release on the day of its release, is utter foolishness. Some of our posters seem in tune with that fallacy, and shame on them.

Windows offerings have always offered considerable overlap. So, you can buy a "new car", at almost every yearly interval that is convenient for you. (And I'm aware that statement is only partially true. It is however, more true than false).

The failure you're experiencing with the IE-10 / IE-11 issue, obviously rests solely with M$.

However, software compatibility rests with its proprietary publisher as well. Adobe is the world's worst. They won't update much of anything. And if new cameras are released RAW plugins for them WON'T be provided for them outside of Adobe's limited window of support. And now they're subscription only for their creative suite products.

OTOH, "DVD Shrink", hasn't been updated since 2006, and yet works flawlessly with all versions of Windows. (At least as far as Win 7).

Part of what sunk Vista, wasn't faults with Vista itself, but a failure on the part of aftermarket hardware and software producers, failing to keep up with drivers and updates.

Yet, Vista first offered native support for SATA drives. XP still had the pure nuisance of needing a floppy diver to install drivers for SATA.

An interesting question might be, "how much collusion is present between M$ and manufacturers, to incorporate obsolescence into their product"?

I think is is about time we had some industry standards which all programmers should adhere to which are not dependant on the OS or the programs. It does seem mad that in this day and age we use so many web based systems but they only work in selected configurations.

Yeah well, we already have a large part of that with "Universal PnP". The trouble with that is, consumers are too stupid to realize the standard needs to be adhered to. You obviously have to ignore it when producing all these BS phones, tablets, and such. Makers skirt it in the desktop environment by simply declaring devices, "legacy, no longer supported". Hence say goodbye to an IDE bus on the new boards.

 

[Railman]

M$ actually did too good a job on XP, which is why it seems indispensable. But times change. Business are crying because they'll have to spend good money for newer desktops and OSes. Money which could be better utilized by stashing it in an offshore account to avoid paying taxes on it, or using it to pay illegal aliens under the table in cash for their services.

The cost of new hardware and OS only constitutes a small element of the cost of upgrading. One issue that has never been addressed in the Windows environment is backward comparability with programs. For example my wife should have access to her firms Intranet from the home computer, unfortunately she cannot access it because it only works via IE10. We currently are on IE11.

I think is is about time we had some industry standards which all programmers should adhere to which are not dependant on the OS or the programs. It does seem mad that in this day and age we use so many web based systems but they only work in selected configurations.

Moderator note: Railman, please take care to quote correctly. Fixed for you. Thanks.

Thanks to the moderator. Sorry but editing long posts on a mobile is tricky some times. Also thanks to Captain Cranky for his entertaining reply. Just a couple of points, I would describe myself as middle aged not young 'uns. Secondly I was not thinking about hardware but the general operation of software. For example take an accounting package such as the one I use at work. All the interfaces are via PC (no complicated interfaces with tills etc.) The access is via the Web however to get it to work you must have the right versions of IE and Java. To me it would make sense for the program to work with more than one internet browser meaning it would work with Apple and Linux in addition to MS.

 

[bmaytum]

I still run Windows XP SP3 on several older home PCs: 1 is XPSP3-only (I had it running as a LAN firewall, but gave that up since it's hardware was limited to 100Mbs), 1 is XPSP3 dual-boot with PCLOS Linux, 1 is triple boot XPSP3 + PCLOS + Win7. The primary reason for XPSP3 on the 2nd & 3rd box is for compatibility with some old racing games that are great fun which will NOT run under Win7 (neither 32- nor 64-bit, even in "compatibility mode") due to the DRM features used in those old games.

I plan to continue using XP on those boxes, already fitted with MSSE, and am glad to hear Micro$oft will continue to provide MSSE signature updates into 2015.