Windows XP Mainstream support extended to 2014

aquageek

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/letter.html

Microsoft Support Lifecycle

Find more posts tagged with

Free for TechExams community: Cybersecurity salary guide

Compare cert salaries and plan your next career move

Button

Comments

Kasor

I'm still using Win XP at work (in general).... Hopefully Win 7 will be something that we all looking for regular and reliable platform.

qwertyiop

Same here. I work with alot of civil engineers so they do alot of work with programs like autocad, mostly on old P4's that can barely run them. Alot of them are just about ready to be upgraded so chances are that we'll endup leaving them with Windows 7 when it comes out as long as the programs that we need can run on it.

Kaminsky

woohoo !

Nice stable OS (ish) widley used and the workings well known. Doesn't treat you like a muppet and lets you do what you want to do.

I have Vista too and that's pretty stable but treats me like I'm an idiot. [ you want to go to the Command Line ???? You want to run a new program ??? . Are you insane ???? ]

Glad 98's life has been extended.

Note: Think this has a lot more to do with most companies across the world right now simply won't have the money to upgrade and MS could be hit up by a very nasty backlash if they tried to force a global upgrade.

jryantech

Great news, this will also give plenty of time for Businesses to move to Windows 7 :]

blargoe

In Microsoft-ese, that's actually called "extended" support not "mainstream". You get critical and security fixes until 2014 but you have to have an agreement with them or pay for non-security bug fixes, after mainstream support ends... which is still next month. Most recent widespread example I can think of is the DST changes in the United States back in 2007, when Windows 2000 was in extended support. You had to pay for the hotfix installer for Windows 2000 (and I think Exchange 2000... can't remember), but other products like XP and 2003 had a free hotfix.

The security stuff is mainly where I'd be concerned anyway... 2014 sounds good to me. I never thought Microsoft would keep an OS version alive for 13 years.

Jordus

blargoe wrote: »

In Microsoft-ese, that's actually called "extended" support not "mainstream". You get critical and security fixes until 2014 but you have to have an agreement with them or pay for non-security bug fixes, after mainstream support ends... which is still next month. Most recent widespread example I can think of is the DST changes in the United States back in 2007, when Windows 2000 was in extended support. You had to pay for the hotfix installer for Windows 2000 (and I think Exchange 2000... can't remember), but other products like XP and 2003 had a free hotfix.

The security stuff is mainly where I'd be concerned anyway... 2014 sounds good to me. I never thought Microsoft would keep an OS version alive for 13 years.

I'm pretty sure the windows 2000 DST patch was freely available, but you had to download it specifically. It wasnt posted to automatic updates like it was for XP, etc.

aquageek

blargoe wrote: »

In Microsoft-ese, that's actually called "extended" support not "mainstream". You get critical and security fixes until 2014 but you have to have an agreement with them or pay for non-security bug fixes, after mainstream support ends... which is still next month. Most recent widespread example I can think of is the DST changes in the United States back in 2007, when Windows 2000 was in extended support. You had to pay for the hotfix installer for Windows 2000 (and I think Exchange 2000... can't remember), but other products like XP and 2003 had a free hotfix.

The security stuff is mainly where I'd be concerned anyway... 2014 sounds good to me. I never thought Microsoft would keep an OS version alive for 13 years.

My bad, it is the extended support that's extended to 2014. Unfortunately I can't edit the title.

(mod feel free?)

But still, 13 years is an incredible life span for an MS OS!

blargoe

I think the fix for 2000 was a reg hack that you could implement yourself, but you were on your own if it broke something

astorrs

blargoe wrote: »

I think the fix for 2000 was a reg hack that you could implement yourself, but you were on your own if it broke something

blargoe is correct it was a unsupported registry change. The per fix cost is "impressive" so you really don't want to be finding any bugs after that many years...