Windows XP diehards: Can you survive April 2014 deadline?

Some organisations intend to keep running Windows XP after support ends next April, but the options for doing so safely are narrowing.

To those planning to stick resolutely with the aged Windows XP operating system even after Microsoft ends support next year, the advice from experts is simple: Don't do it.

But despite the chorus of warnings, there are fallback measures for diehard XP users, who could still constitute as many as 40 percent of businesses. One in five of the organisations currently using the OS intend to stick with it after the 8 April 2014 end-of-life deadline for support, according to research from software consultancy Camwood.

Read more at: Windows XP diehards: Can you survive the April 2014 deadline? | ZDNet

 

[Wenda]

Quite honestly, if people want to stick to XP, surely that's up to them. They have their reasons, whether we consider them valid or not.

I certainly consider my reasons (posted above) to be perfectly reasonable and valid (tho one or two obviously don't). I also consider that I should not have to justify those reasons to anyone. I've chosen to here, as that's the topic, but really, does it matter so much what OS someone else uses? After all, they're not forcing you to.

As I've stated, I collect operating systems as a part of my computing hobby. So no doubt I run systems that no-one in their right mind would use as their primary OS. So, I don't. But I do run them, and surely that's my choice? Not that of MS, or of some anonymous stranger on a forum/blog.

If I wanted to run Windows 1.0, and it did what I needed, what business is it of anyone to tell me I can't? It doesn't impact on them in any way.

We do not all compute the same way, we do not perform the same tasks. We do not all have the same equipment, level of expertise or interest. We do not have the same needs. We do not all have access to the internet. One size does not fit all, when it comes to computing. My needs are not yours, nor yours mine.


Wenda.


EDIT: I'd be curious to know just how much of the 'security issues' in XP were a direct result of the stunning ignorance of online security by Joe Public, and his reluctance to understand, install and use anti-virus and anti-malware programs? Quite a large percentage, I'd reckon.

IF, people have valid reasons to stay on xp, that's perfectly reasonable. If their reasons are more along the lines of, "They should make a better xp!" Then no... Which is more-or-less what I said a couple of posts back.

See, that's cool you collect operating systems. I don't have an .iso image of xp anymore ever since Windows 8 was in development. I have a few Windows Longhorn builds as THOSE are really interesting (and also quite shocking considering when one realizes Windows 8 is a modernize Longhorn) to poke around with. I have all the official release builds of Windows 8. I might start collecting ALL the Windows versions just to see the progress and design of them. I don't have a Longhorn build, but am on the look-out for one. I had been quite looking forward to Longhorn.

And of course, I bet Joe Public is an ignorant street whore when it comes to online security. I've seen this personally, and just ask ANY IT admin about this. But I doubt that ignorance was the main direct or indirect reason for xp's security issues. There were SERIOUS, I mean, SERIOUS account security issues as well as online security issues in that release. I remember once I installed xp in a VM to virtualize a program, it was an SP2 image. So I had to update it, then update it to SP3, and then update it once more. All in all, I think there were well over 250 updates, JUST SECURITY UPDATES, maybe 50 performance related updates give or take. Even after SP3 which was basically just security updates, there were almost 90 security updates. If that was due to Joe Public, well damn! That is a whopper of ignorance right there! I didn't say there weren't issues, nor did I say that they were caused by users, but that many could have been avoided with a modicum of forethought and taking a few precautions. I may be guilty of many things, but ignorance has never been one of them.

No, I'm not recommending people stay with XP. But equally, if they want to, what's the issue? It won't affect me one way or the other. The world won't end because someone goes online with an XP box after 8-4-14. (Well, it might for him, if he hasn't got any security at all).


Wenda.


EDIT: While doing one of my IT courses, we set an XP Pro (no SP) machine up without any security and connected it to the internet. Didn't do anything with it, just hooked it up and opened IE6. It was hit within minutes, and crippled into unusability within an hour. We re-imaged it, installed SP3 and an AV program and did the same thing. It was still clean at the end of the week. But I'm constantly amazed by the number of machines I see with either no protection, or it's so hopelessly out-of-date that it's useless, or, worst of all, it's not even turned on. And yet who's the first to cop the blame when they get a 'nasty'? Yep, Microsoft.

 

[Coke Robot]

Quite honestly, if people want to stick to XP, surely that's up to them. They have their reasons, whether we consider them valid or not.

I certainly consider my reasons (posted above) to be perfectly reasonable and valid (tho one or two obviously don't). I also consider that I should not have to justify those reasons to anyone. I've chosen to here, as that's the topic, but really, does it matter so much what OS someone else uses? After all, they're not forcing you to.

As I've stated, I collect operating systems as a part of my computing hobby. So no doubt I run systems that no-one in their right mind would use as their primary OS. So, I don't. But I do run them, and surely that's my choice? Not that of MS, or of some anonymous stranger on a forum/blog.

If I wanted to run Windows 1.0, and it did what I needed, what business is it of anyone to tell me I can't? It doesn't impact on them in any way.

We do not all compute the same way, we do not perform the same tasks. We do not all have the same equipment, level of expertise or interest. We do not have the same needs. We do not all have access to the internet. One size does not fit all, when it comes to computing. My needs are not yours, nor yours mine.


Wenda.


EDIT: I'd be curious to know just how much of the 'security issues' in XP were a direct result of the stunning ignorance of online security by Joe Public, and his reluctance to understand, install and use anti-virus and anti-malware programs? Quite a large percentage, I'd reckon.

IF, people have valid reasons to stay on xp, that's perfectly reasonable. If their reasons are more along the lines of, "They should make a better xp!" Then no... Which is more-or-less what I said a couple of posts back.

See, that's cool you collect operating systems. I don't have an .iso image of xp anymore ever since Windows 8 was in development. I have a few Windows Longhorn builds as THOSE are really interesting (and also quite shocking considering when one realizes Windows 8 is a modernize Longhorn) to poke around with. I have all the official release builds of Windows 8. I might start collecting ALL the Windows versions just to see the progress and design of them. I don't have a Longhorn build, but am on the look-out for one. I had been quite looking forward to Longhorn.

And of course, I bet Joe Public is an ignorant street whore when it comes to online security. I've seen this personally, and just ask ANY IT admin about this. But I doubt that ignorance was the main direct or indirect reason for xp's security issues. There were SERIOUS, I mean, SERIOUS account security issues as well as online security issues in that release. I remember once I installed xp in a VM to virtualize a program, it was an SP2 image. So I had to update it, then update it to SP3, and then update it once more. All in all, I think there were well over 250 updates, JUST SECURITY UPDATES, maybe 50 performance related updates give or take. Even after SP3 which was basically just security updates, there were almost 90 security updates. If that was due to Joe Public, well damn! That is a whopper of ignorance right there! I didn't say there weren't issues, nor did I say that they were caused by users, but that many could have been avoided with a modicum of forethought and taking a few precautions. I may be guilty of many things, but ignorance has never been one of them.

No, I'm not recommending people stay with XP. But equally, if they want to, what's the issue? It won't affect me one way or the other. The world won't end because someone goes online with an XP box after 8-4-14. (Well, it might for him, if he hasn't got any security at all).


Wenda.


EDIT: While doing one of my IT courses, we set an XP Pro (no SP) machine up without any security and connected it to the internet. Didn't do anything with it, just hooked it up and opened IE6. It was hit within minutes, and crippled into unusability within an hour. We re-imaged it, installed SP3 and an AV program and did the same thing. It was still clean at the end of the week. But I'm constantly amazed by the number of machines I see with either no protection, or it's so hopelessly out-of-date that it's useless, or, worst of all, it's not even turned on. And yet who's the first to cop the blame when they get a 'nasty'? Yep, Microsoft.

That part about the experiment with xp made me laugh! Holy crap!


It is definitely amazing in this day and age when people understand what the term "bandwidth" means but yet don't understand what the term "quality anti-virus" means. Quite disturbing. Almost EVERY PC I've come across with malware, either a) trial anti-virus that is out of trial, b) google chrome being used over IE 9/10, c) no anti-virus to begin with, or d) REAL bad malware that passed through an actual anti-virus. It's always a piddle off for me when people complain that Microsoft doesn't make good software or secure software even though they're downloading all sorts of crap off the internet without even a single thread of knowledge of what they are doing. This also goes to show why Windows Defender is in Windows 8 the way it is, people are just frankly dumb about these things.

Also disturbing, anti-virus on android handsets. THAT, is quite disturbing. A statistic that was released a while ago stated that what took Windows 15 years to accomplish malware wise, android did in just three. I'll have to go find that one, quite surprising.

 

[CountMike]

Nobody is MAKING anybody go to newer systems, it's just that technology is moving in certain direction and old methods just are not usable any more on it. Computer technology would advance faster if it was not for the fact that every new system has to keep. at least in part some compatibility to it's predecessor as not to many people can pay big amounts of money every couple of years on something brand new. More so goes for software, it is actually amazing how backward compatible is most of software, But I'm sure that code for it could be much more optimized if it didn't have to be backwards compatible.
My biggest issue is with hardware manufacturers of which most do not support their older stuff with at least drivers, going for planed obsolescence so they could sell their new ones. There's just no other reason why I should not be able to use my 10 or more year old laser printer , scanner, TV card or $5000 plotter-cuter with the new computer and software. that with new hardware and software would be more productive than ever before. Luckily there's always somebody willing to modify or even write drivers and software for them. I still have a HP4L printer from '90s that printed hundreds of thousands of pages and with some maintenance will still outlast most of new ones. It's thanks to MS, not to HP that it works perfectly with W8. Bearpaw scanner and KWorld TV card that works perfectly with W8 thanks to somebody that modified XP drivers for them to work with W7 and 8 and not to their respective manufacturers.
So, actually there's a case for all of the combinations possible according to individual needs and wants, just the will and knowledge stands in the way of them. What I'm trying to say is that very abrupt changes are harmful but subtle ones do stand somewhat in the way of progress. Getting the right balance is the most difficult part.
There's also a small segment were older computer hardware and software where disparity of cost mandates keeping older stuff around. Just last year I have put together a 386 computer for a guy to run sawmill machines. It was a top of the line sawmill operation at the time he bought it and when that 386 finally died ( and it was remarkably tough in comparison to new hardware) and to go to newest control system would cost more than whole operation now. So there's a early'90s 386 16SX with win 3.11 happily buzzing somewhere in the remote location, on a mountain employing 20 or 30 people producing material for furniture made the old way and world would be poorer without it. Just an example that I'm sure is repeated all over and over the world.

 

[Wenda]

CR, I'd have had difficulty believing that story myself, if I hadn't seen it with my own eyes.

It certainly convinced me that up-to-date security was a good idea, although by that stage I was off XP and running the first Vista RC with Avira AV and an early edition of Malware-bytes (or it may have been Spybot).

Funny thing, that. A whole classroom full of IT students, some with considerable experience, and I was the only one running Vista... and what's more, I actually liked it!


Wenda.

 

[Wenda]

I still have a HP4L printer from '90s that printed hundreds of thousands of pages and with some maintenance will still outlast most of new ones. It's thanks to MS, not to HP that it works perfectly with Windows 8.

Mike, I know what you mean. MS is usually pretty good with that aspect of Windows. It doesn't have drivers for either of my printers in Windows 8, but they both work happily on older drivers. The Canon Pixma 520 3-in-one uses Win 7 drivers, the Lexmark ES250dn laser-printer rocks along nicely on its Vista drivers.

Regarding your Howlit Packup 4P, I had a 3P for years that I just could not kill. It just kept going. And going. And going. On MS drivers....

It cost me $10 second-hand, and never missed a beat in the nine years I had it.

Now that's value-for-money. :thumb:


Wenda.

 

[Mustang]

This thread seems to have strayed a tad off topic, so I'll ask the question: What is the flavor of the month for AV protection? I used to run Avira but got too many false positives, and even when I would mark them as safe, it didn't retain it in the memory and a few starts later would mark them as a threat and delete them.

I'm currently using Avast AV in real time; with Malwarebytes & Super Anti-spy run periodically. And Zone Alarm firewall.

Not for security, but also periodically clean registry with Glary Utilities, and general cleaning with ToniArts Cleanup ... all freeware of course ... and IE10: Safety --> Delete Browsing History ... with all options to remove ticked .

 

[CountMike]

Security aspect of OS is so amazingly unimportant to so many people that one could at least partially lay blame on them for proliferation of malware. If everybody would take care of the security of their systems there would be much, much less of it. I too, as Coke Robot said, have run into so many of such cases that it even ceased to be funny. Internet can be such a hostile place that one could develop real case of paranoia if he/she knew of just 10% of what is going on. There's people sleeping with a gun under the pillow have triple locks on their doors an security cameras but would not run an AV because it "slows down" their prized computer and could be ripped off of their money and even identity easier then a burglar could do.
An OS and it's maker are just too large and slow to respond to threats to be trusted to respond quickly on all of them. There's many good, free AVs out there whose sole reason for being is security, be it for "average Joe" or other non-demanding users, that there's just no excuse not to use them and at least in part make it easier for the rest to be safer. My Avast Free updates up to 5 times a day and if I relied on MS and its updates I would be up to a you know what creek without the paddle in no time. Even windows Defender, aka MSE could not be relied on to produce timely updates to new threats, although "better than nothing" could be applied here. Just one more case for going to newer OS if state of hardware permits. Trouble of having to learn few new tricks or not liking new interface is offset with with many better things people do not even realize exist.
Remembering all the brouhaha that went with introduction of Win 95, I think that MS was just to complacent about explaining the really important aspects of W8 and instead pushed "metro" and it's apps that are clearly made in the hope of raising their revenue and chasing tails with Apple and Android and what not, but on the way alienating their main base of users. If it was up to me, I would make Metro, Modern UI and whatever fully integrated but secondary to the rest of the OS. Just a small change would have made all this controversy non-existent. Instead of a minus it would be a big plus. Another thing about those apps is the problem of paying for them, bet you that half the people in the world do not have a chance of paying for them, even if they wanted to. Secondly, the base of apps is so small and quality not up to par with desktop and phone/tablet ones that it will take a long time (if ever) to be able to rely solely on them.
In today's world it takes a lot of effort to advertise and sell unimportant things, let alone something so engraved in peoples minds and important to productivity and well-being of so many. So MS just miserably failed on this field and just relaying on the old glory and curiosity of people instead of just explaining the important part of the OS.

 

[jimbo45]

Hi there
The whole security aspect is only relevant if the machine is connected to the Internet -- most of the big businesses - or even small specialized laboratories using XP will have really expensive hardware connected which WON'T be replaced anytime soon -- most of this can be run STAND ALONE and doesn't need to go anywhere NEAR the Internet so the whole "Security" issue is a NON ISSUE - even if the XP system is run on a Virtual machine. It doesn't have to be connected to the Internet.

Besides a lot of newer sites won't have viewable content in the near future if using old browsers anyway so again it's a non issue.

IMO the whole security issue on HOME computers is vastly overblown in any case. (note I'm not speaking about CORPORATE / WORK LANS) - with sensible surfing and careful email handling together without opening oneself open to all sorts of "Identity theft" situations by giving away too much personal data on social media sites the basic built in security of W8 is more than adequate protection anyway.

@Wenda -- I'll bet you haven't got this OS -- WINDOWS Version 1 !!! enc screenshot.

Cheers
jimbo

 

[Wenda]

@Mustang: I used to run Avira, but when I went to the Win 8 preview (CP, I think it was) I decided to give their 'new, improved' Windows Defender a shot. So far, I've been happy with it. It runs in tandem with MalwareBytes Pro (and no, they don't clash, they work well together).

Really, the only issue I've had is that MalwareBytes Pro is sometimes too ready to block a site/program.

I run the latest version of MSE and MalwareBytes trial on the Win 7 machine, with similarly satisfactory results.


Wenda.


EDIT:

with sensible surfing and careful email handling together without opening oneself open to all sorts of "Identity theft" situations by giving away too much personal data on social media sites the basic built in security of Windows 8 is more than adequate protection anyway.

And you've pretty-well nailed it there, Jimbo.

Agree 110%.

And no, sadly I do not. 3.1 is the earliest Windows I have.

 

[jimbo45]

Ah, those were probably the same kind of people that did not want to switch from 3.1 to W95, from 95 to 98, from 98 to Millennium,from Millennium to XP etc. I know some people that are still more comfortable with command interface than with the mouse. Some are just too lazy-brained to learn something new. It is possible to make XP run on newer HW but it takes much more knowledge and effort than just to switch to appropriate OS.

Hi there
What's wrong with a Command line interface if it does what you need it to do --- what about the zillions of servers out there -- whether Linux or Windows based.

For some jobs running a command is far superior to using any sort of GUI - especially for recurring jobs - say automated scheduled daily backups at a large company site. You wouldn't want to sit in front of a screen and run these individually using a GUI would you.

You need the correct tool for the job --you'd hardly use an adjustable spanner for mending a wristwatch with would you.

Cheers
jimbo

 

[CountMike]

I too use command line when it's called for but for the ordinary day to day running, for average person, there's just no need for that, on windows at least.

 

[lehnerus2000]

So you're saying you're one of the people who uses XP on a modern computer where it doesn't belong?

XP is listed as an OS on my PC (under my avatar).

On my current PC, it runs better than ever before.
I hardly ever use it though (~5% of my PC usage).

I use it for:

• Window Live Photo Gallery (it doesn't run amok on XP like it does on W7)
• IE8 for my Web Design course

I have all of my old games on an XP VM, so I can play them on Windows or Linux.
I also have:

• Half a dozen Linux VMs (CentOS, Fedora, OpenSUSE, Peppermint, Pinguy and Ubuntu)
• W2K8 VM
• W7 VM with Adobe bloatware, Chrome, IE9 and Opera for my Web Design course

You need the correct tool for the job --you'd hardly use an adjustable spanner for mending a wristwatch with would you.

You mean a hammer isn't the correct tool for every job? :shock:

 

[pcRat]

This thread seems to have strayed a tad off topic, so I'll ask the question: What is the flavor of the month for AV protection? I used to run Avira but got too many false positives, and even when I would mark them as safe, it didn't retain it in the memory and a few starts later would mark them as a threat and delete them.

I'm currently using Avast AV in real time; with Malwarebytes & Super Anti-spy run periodically.

Avast for me, family & friends. It was AVG which required me updating everyone's AVG whenever a new version was released.

I was reading comments about Avast and tried it. Avast provides frequent virus definition updates every day. Avast has the option to automatically install new version when released.

The very first protection I install on a new computer or new install is SpywareBlaster currently blocking 16,100 items & sites. Check for updates daily but usually there are none.

Also use Malwarebytes.

 

[Lazure]

My machines have never been personally infected by malware since Windows 2000, when I had IIS service enabled and nimda worm was magically appearing on my computer the moment I had an internet connection. That hit automatically the moment I installed Windows 2000, enabled IIS to play around with having a simple webpage that I have full control over. I have never used IIS since. Granted, with modern firewalls and routers this would be far less likely to happen today anyways.

However, I use only Firefox and Chrome browsers (not Internet Explorer). I use NoScript (Firefox) and AdBlock (both browsers). I don't go to webpages that I don't know much about, except in a virtual machine running linux. I don't download stuff without checking it through thoroughly, not just with scanning but with general web knowledge and review about it. First thing I do in any Windows install, even on another person's machine, is enable the showing of file extensions; this prevents those user-ignorance tricks like picture-of-my-kids!.jpg.exe in e-mail attachments or file transfers over IM clients. I also keep my system updated at least every few months, when I actually feel like rebooting. I have very long-term uptimes.

What do I use for AV? MSE (since Windows 7), and I have the free MalwareBytes if I feel the need to manually scan anything with more oompf than what MSE provides. That's it. No reason for me to bog my system down or have some annoying security software get in the way of everything I'm trying to do. I check my startup processes through autoruns (and the new windows 8 task manager) on a regular basis, as well as sweep the list of running processes for anything that doesn't belong there. Even in Windows XP, I managed to stay clean of malware, and the same goes now in Windows 8. I'm careful enough and know better.

When a family member obtains a new machine, if I didn't build it myself (which is the case nowadays with everyone getting laptops), I go through and enable file extensions in Windows, dump all the bloaty software including the stupid trialware McAfee or Norton crap, remove the IE icons and install Firefox or Chrome (configured with adblock at the very least), get all the current Windows updates (including the optional ones) ,and I go and install more lightweight tools and features that do the same stuff the bloaty software did, but better and without bringing about shady extra baggage. If Windows 7, I install MSE. If Windows 8, I don't install anything and let the built-in defender take over.

So far most people I've set up for have avoided any major problems related to malware, except in extreme cases where they were blatantly looking for nasty stuff or something. You can only do so much to protect someone from themselves. If not for the need for specific Windows software or hardware requirements, I woulda just put Ubuntu on those people's machines and saved a lot of trouble.

 

[CountMike]

My first AV was McAfee, I think it was the only one at the time (early '90s) Last ten or so years I used NOD32 but last 2 I'm using Avast free and it has done a bang-up job. Also installed it in countless computers since. It is pretty "lite" on the system and at the same time effective. Also use McShield for the additional protectiom against malware that could come from USB memories as a lot of them get connected to my computer. A lot of people complain that AVs interfere with their systems but the fact is that it is their job. To be any effective they have to stand in between incoming software and the rest of the system and check every byte going in and out, otherwise they are ineffective and do nothing. Another part of an AV should be " behavior shield" which checks for certain behaviors that malware does in an effort to interfere and change parts of OS to be able to do what they do best. Only on the systems that are poor on resources could possibly feel an effect on their speed with a good AV but it's a small tradeoff comparing to the consequences a dangerous virus, spy or trojan can have. Furthermore, internet is not the only danger to your computer, proliferation of USB and other mobile storage media makes it pretty easy to transfer malware and also CDs and DVDs can contain them. As far as "false positives " go they could be a trap too. It's better to check when AV gives alarm and only when you are sure it is harmless to mark it as such so it would not be detected as bad next time.
Being without any protection, at this day and age is just asking for trouble and according to Murphy's law its just the matter of time disaster strikes, it's not a matter of if but when.

 

[Mustang]

I once heard that the second prize in a raffle was a year's free subscription to Norton/McAfee. The first prize was a free copy of Revo Uninstaller Pro that could safely remove McAfee and all it's octopus tentacles.

You mean a hammer isn't the correct tool for every job? :shock:

True story! I have a friend who buys/repairs/sells 2nd hand PCs.

So he wouldn't be tempted to spend endless hours obsessively determined to make dead mobos come to life ... he has now graduated from giving them the last rites with a hammer ... by putting them to rest by stabbing them with a screw driver ... before binning. Lest he be tempted to de-bin them and try a Lazarus resurrection on them.

 

[lehnerus2000]

Idiotic Default Setting

First thing I do in any Windows install, even on another person's machine, is enable the showing of file extensions; this prevents those user-ignorance tricks like picture-of-my-kids!.jpg.exe in e-mail attachments or file transfers over IM clients.

Agreed.

I don't understand why MS continues to use that idiotic default setting ("Hide extensions for known file types" > On - WTF!?).

 

[CountMike]

First thing I do in any Windows install, even on another person's machine, is enable the showing of file extensions; this prevents those user-ignorance tricks like picture-of-my-kids!.jpg.exe in e-mail attachments or file transfers over IM clients.

Agreed.

I don't understand why MS continues to use that idiotic default setting ("Hide extensions for known file types" > On - WTF!?).

Daleks made them do it !! And McAfee is theirs too or fell of the Tardis when they chased Dr.No.

 

[labeeman]

[h=1]Windows XP's demise will do more for PC sales than Win 8, HP says[/h]

Computerworld - LAS VEGAS -- Hewlett-Packard executives say that the coming demise of Windows XP may do what Windows 8 could not, and that's boost PC sales significantly.
Analysts have blamed Windows 8 for hurting PC sales after users failed to embrace its interface redesign

Windows XP's demise will do more for PC sales than Win 8, HP says - Computerworld

 

[FuturDreamz]

I think Microsoft should've installed a killswitch into Windows XP that can be disabled by adding a registry key. Then the people who need XP for mission critical tasks could've just added the key while those that are sticking with XP because they never upgrade or update will be forced to do something.

It'd be risky though, and it would've had to have been in XP for a long time.