Microsoft warns against Windows XP security update hack

[carwiz]

Sorry L.F. but you don't know much about what the true costs are to a business to just update one release of an OS. There's more to it than slapping a PC on someone's desk. I don't know what background you have in business but clearly it's not administrative or budget related. Perhaps the closest you've come to business is the checkout lanes at WalMart because that seems to be your take on the simplicity of a large corporation making changes.

Here's a quick view of what it really costs for a fortune 500 company to make changes.

Change Terminals (PCs): $13.5 million
Update OS: $3.2 million
Update software: $60 million
Personnel Training: $380 million
Lost Op. Costs: $700 million
Stock value loss: $2.2 billion

Net Loss to company: $3.356+ Billion

So quit your crybaby pressure to get everyone to agree with you. The ones that count are ignoring you.

 

[Boozad]

I find it highly ironic that the end of support for an OS a lot of people didn't want to upgrade from near enough coincided with the release of an OS that not a lot of people wanted to upgrade to. No wonder HP started selling machines with Windows 7 installed again.

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Sorry L.F. but you don't know much about what the true costs are to a business to just update one release of an OS. There's more to it than slapping a PC on someone's desk. I don't know what background you have in business but clearly it's not administrative or budget related. Perhaps the closest you've come to business is the checkout lanes at WalMart because that seems to be your take on the simplicity of a large corporation making changes.

Here's a quick view of what it really costs for a fortune 500 company to make changes.

Change Terminals (PCs): $13.5 million
Update OS: $3.2 million
Update software: $60 million
Personnel Training: $380 million
Lost Op. Costs: $700 million
Stock value loss: $2.2 billion

Net Loss to company: $3.356+ Billion

So quit your crybaby pressure to get everyone to agree with you. The ones that count are ignoring you.

Actually, I do have a pretty good idea of the costs; I used to work for a large electric/irrigation utility (the company I get my pension and retirement medical coverage from), including some time in management, and have seen first hand what is involved with upgrading (both hardware and training expenses) and what can happen when poor decisions are made, such as purchasing equipment that depended on computers and software that couldn't be upgraded when the time came. I was the one who interfaced with our IT department for my department (warehousing) on software and hardware for the department and often personally handled all the replacement hardware (computers, monitors, etc.) for the entire company, including processing the retired hardware. After retiring from that company at 55, I worked 5 1/2 years for a large convenience store chain, advancing to a lead position (but not into actual management even though the company tried to push me into it because I didn't like the way the company abused their salaried employees and I preferred the 4/10 schedule I had working third shift), and was involved in hardware and software upgrades, including implementation and training.

As far as the figures you are throwing round, what is your source? What is the company? What percentage of total profits and operating expenses do those figures represent? What was the amortization schedule? Figures like that out of context and without validation are meaningless.

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

I find it highly ironic that the end of support for an OS a lot of people didn't want to upgrade from near enough coincided with the release of an OS that not a lot of people wanted to upgrade to. No wonder HP started selling machines with Windows 7 installed again.

Actually, HP never stopped selling Win 7 machines; they just decided to capitalize on the Win 8's lack of appeal to the home user market.

 

[Layback Bear]

I have never been in position of buying, or decision on that to buy for a business or corporation.
Just throwing numbers around without showing the source is a waste of time.

Anybody, corporation, company, government that buy a operating system and hardware and thinks it's going to last forever needs to live at Disney World and dance with Goofy while at work.

Ten years is a very very very long time for a operating system and hardware to be able to do the job needed to be done and done with proper security. The computing world just moves to fast for anything ten years old to the job.
For those companies that for what ever reason want to hang onto the old equipment and operating system and programs just but the updates from Microsoft.
I'm quite sure Microsoft will keep selling updates as long as their are buyers.
In my world we call that kicking the can down the road.

 

[Boozad]

I find it highly ironic that the end of support for an OS a lot of people didn't want to upgrade from near enough coincided with the release of an OS that not a lot of people wanted to upgrade to. No wonder HP started selling machines with Windows 7 installed again.

Actually, HP never stopped selling Win 7 machines; they just decided to capitalize on the Win 8's lack of appeal to the home user market.

That's what I meant by 'selling'. Not physically selling.

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

I find it highly ironic that the end of support for an OS a lot of people didn't want to upgrade from near enough coincided with the release of an OS that not a lot of people wanted to upgrade to. No wonder HP started selling machines with Windows 7 installed again.

Actually, HP never stopped selling Win 7 machines; they just decided to capitalize on the Win 8's lack of appeal to the home user market.

That's what I meant by 'selling'. Not physically selling.

Sorry, my mistake.

 

[Night Hawk]

I am at no surprise at the warning not to apply anything new regarding any existing XP installs presently in use since MS is now finished with all support. Anything found now in regards to updates could easily be some form of malware!

That's not how this works. It tricks Windows Updates into thinking the computer is running Windows Server 2003 or Windows Embedded, both of which are built on the same base kernel as Windows XP, but have different features and such. It's still not possible to install malware via windows updates without being previously infected.

I wasn't specifically pointing to just the item mentioned in the article there but other forms of OS tricksters that could be used to open new doors for slipping new bugs into the 13yr. old version now that regular MS support is no longer being seen. The possibility is there while the chances of it being seen at this late date is growing less and less each day as XP use wanes into the old folks home.

 

[Layback Bear]

Lets have a moment of silence for XP. It has earned it.

A great system for many years.
RIP XP.

 

[Britton30]

Hmm, I wonder if these smart hackers will apply it to Linux to get Windows Updates too?

 

[andrew129260]

Hmm, I wonder if these smart hackers will apply it to Linux to get Windows Updates too?

What?

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Hmm, I wonder if these smart hackers will apply it to Linux to get Windows Updates too?

:roflmao::roflmao:

 

[msgerbs]

Sorry L.F. but you don't know much about what the true costs are to a business to just update one release of an OS. There's more to it than slapping a PC on someone's desk. I don't know what background you have in business but clearly it's not administrative or budget related. Perhaps the closest you've come to business is the checkout lanes at WalMart because that seems to be your take on the simplicity of a large corporation making changes.

Here's a quick view of what it really costs for a fortune 500 company to make changes.

Change Terminals (PCs): $13.5 million
Update OS: $3.2 million
Update software: $60 million
Personnel Training: $380 million
Lost Op. Costs: $700 million
Stock value loss: $2.2 billion

Net Loss to company: $3.356+ Billion

So quit your crybaby pressure to get everyone to agree with you. The ones that count are ignoring you.

Where does the $2.2billion come from? And why is training users more costly than paying developers to update 15-year-old software?

Regardless of all this, technology moves forward, it's how things work. It should've been planned for years in advance. Look at it as an operational expense and get over it. That said, when you really get down to it, it's not microsoft forcing people to change, it's the hackers devoting their lives to finding vulnerabilities in Windows. If not for them, you could keep using XP forever.

Besides, your new computers are vastly faster and more powerful than your old XP machines ever were, letting people get work done faster, as well as improving morale.

 

[Layback Bear]

Talking about keep employes trained. Try running a auto dealership.
Auto's change constantly and mechanics need training constantly. It's a never ending battle.
Who would of ever thought that a auto mechanic had to train and learn about a car that has 20 computers (yes 20) networked.
A car that has radar and will park itself with you doing thing but sitting behind the steering wheel. Somebody has to be trained to repair such systems. Their are call auto mechanics or technicians.
Keep your employes trained is part of doing business.
The equipment need to do today's business should of been factored in years ago.

 

[matts6887]

Microsoft has warned against using a hack that allows Windows XP to continue to receive important security updates after Microsoft withdrew support in April.

The hack tricks Microsoft’s update servers into applying security patches to Microsoft’s 13-year-old Windows XP. A small change within Windows XP makes it appear as other versions of Windows that are still supported until 2019.

Microsoft warned that Windows XP customers may face problems if they install the updates. “The security updates that could be installed are intended for Windows Embedded and Windows Server 2003 customers and do not fully protect Windows XP customers,” Microsoft said in a statement released to ZDnet. “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.”

Source

A Guy

This does not totally surprise me either. Especially with all the risks of getting infected by malware, etc. these days. While there are still those xp diehards out there that for whatever reason still want to be able to use xp(why they would is beyond me); its just not worth the security risk etc. imo.

 

[Night Hawk]

Lets have a moment of silence for XP. It has earned it.

A great system for many years.
RIP XP.

Microsoft closes the taps for Windows XP support

"atten hut!" taps youtube - Bing Videos

 

[lehnerus2000]

And why is training users more costly than paying developers to update 15-year-old software?

I suggest that it is because developers know what they are doing (or they should) whereas users know nothing.

30 years ago I was told that it cost the organisation I worked for $100/hr to employ me (I got ~$10/hr).

 

[LMiller7]

And why is training users more costly than paying developers to update 15-year-old software?

Because there are a lot more users that use software then developers that develop it.

 

[Night Hawk]

And why is training users more costly than paying developers to update 15-year-old software?

Because there are a lot more users that use software then developers that develop it.

Don't forget that for each newer version of any given software a certain amount of retraining to get familiar with changes may be necessary and why companies often hold off for lengthy periods of time before taking the upgrade path.

Continually upgrading dos or 9x at this late date would be pointless as well as for the 13yr. old XP since newer pc users would be expecting newer "bells and whistles" for the obviously reasons was well as long timers going with the latest. Then of course software companies make the bulk of their revenues by selling the updated wares to existing customers as well as wanting to bring new ones in.

 

[Pete4]

According to this :
Windows 7 is still growing in market share - GSMArena Blog
At the moment Win7 has 50% market share
Win XP 25 %
Win 8 and Win 8.1 around 6% each.
Vista 2.9%
Also Win 7 has the fastest growing rate of 0.79 %
Personally I don't care either way, but for the company to completely abandon 25% of it's customers (Win XP) and at the same time keeping support for products that have 2.9% of the market share (Vista) or pushing products that customers clearly don't want (Win 8 and 8.1 with slower growth rate than 7) clearly shows arrogance.