Comments
Newest First | Oldest First | Threaded View
Re: Reminds me of Y2K
Fair enough. But I think a certain amount of uncertainty and doubt is intrinsic to the situation. When you're talking about such a large user base, one can't be certain what risks apply to one user versus another. The large user base does allow us to be certain of one thing, however: Some sets of risks applies to thousands if not millions. (I admit that something like the reverse is also be true; that is, certain XP risk vectors are not applicable to millions of XP users-- but that doesn't negate my point.) Consequently, in attempting a thorough discussion, one has to hit several points, not all of which are equally applicable to all readers:
And so on. I'll grant you this: If someone's XP knowledge comes solely from headlines flashing across Google News, that person might have an exaggerated sense of the risks. But if someone is truly concerned, I expect they'd research a tad more than that, and if they do, I've seen more than a few articles that I consider fair. For a mass audience, the situation isn't as simple as "Yes, keep using XP" or "No, you must upgrade now," and I think people who've read beyond the headlines can get an accurate sense of the shades of gray.
No one's denying that many people will continue to run XP without incident, but it would irresponsible to tell people to simply not worry. If I were speaking to an individual and could ask about his/her computing habits, software needs, and security precautions, perhaps then I could endorse continued XP use. But writing for a wide audience, that kind of insight is impossible-- so again, the conversation needs to be approached from several angles. Objectively, Windows XP probably won't destory the Internet, but individual users also face objective risk considerations, some of which are likely to grow more severe over time.
- Your machine will still work and is unlikely to become an incubus of malware right away (this point might not get highlighted in headlines, but I've seen it made many times, often in unequivocal terms);
- Certain risks are real (and they are. Do we know that hackers are stockpiling zero days, or that they'll reverse-engineer exploits using future Windows 7 and 8/8.1 updates? No. But is there a reasonable chance? Yes, which makes the risk worth mentioning.)
- Certain risks are overblown (such as ATMs, or the millions of locked-down XP boxes running on private corporate networks)
And so on. I'll grant you this: If someone's XP knowledge comes solely from headlines flashing across Google News, that person might have an exaggerated sense of the risks. But if someone is truly concerned, I expect they'd research a tad more than that, and if they do, I've seen more than a few articles that I consider fair. For a mass audience, the situation isn't as simple as "Yes, keep using XP" or "No, you must upgrade now," and I think people who've read beyond the headlines can get an accurate sense of the shades of gray.
No one's denying that many people will continue to run XP without incident, but it would irresponsible to tell people to simply not worry. If I were speaking to an individual and could ask about his/her computing habits, software needs, and security precautions, perhaps then I could endorse continued XP use. But writing for a wide audience, that kind of insight is impossible-- so again, the conversation needs to be approached from several angles. Objectively, Windows XP probably won't destory the Internet, but individual users also face objective risk considerations, some of which are likely to grow more severe over time.
Re: Reminds me of Y2K
"Fear, uncertainty and doubt." The majority of customers who have called me thought that after Tuesday their PC was now wide open to all malware. That they had "lost something" on that day. That their PCs would be soon overrun by malware.
The problem is that we don't have an objective situation. We just have uncertainty. I have a customer, a professional photographer, who still runs Windows 2000. Works fine. The XP update delivered Tuesday was the most up to date XP that ever existed. Anti-virus software is still running and being updated but Microsoft now shows a red icon on Security Essentials even though everything is fine. These PCs will probably have hardware failures before the OS risks are realized (but see the W2K example).
The whole approach "we are warning you for your best interest, watch out, look out, here it comes!" appears self serving and unobjective. I had a tire shop "cram" my bill with an extended warranty. I asked him to remove the charge. His response: "but you will be all alone if your tire fails!" That was an emotional appeal, not an objective one of which approach was a better value given the risks.
Only time will tell, but I think a year from now we'll be talking about the disaster that didn't happen.
The problem is that we don't have an objective situation. We just have uncertainty. I have a customer, a professional photographer, who still runs Windows 2000. Works fine. The XP update delivered Tuesday was the most up to date XP that ever existed. Anti-virus software is still running and being updated but Microsoft now shows a red icon on Security Essentials even though everything is fine. These PCs will probably have hardware failures before the OS risks are realized (but see the W2K example).
The whole approach "we are warning you for your best interest, watch out, look out, here it comes!" appears self serving and unobjective. I had a tire shop "cram" my bill with an extended warranty. I asked him to remove the charge. His response: "but you will be all alone if your tire fails!" That was an emotional appeal, not an objective one of which approach was a better value given the risks.
Only time will tell, but I think a year from now we'll be talking about the disaster that didn't happen.
Re: Reminds me of Y2K
"The hype is that 'something new might happen!' after 4/8/14. This appears to just be marketing FUD."
I'm not certain by what objective standard it can be dismissed as pure FUD. I mean, sure, some of the commentary is over-the-top. Windows XP hasn't made ATMs particularly vulnerable, for example.
But by and large, XP's retirement poses some legitimate security considerations, most of which has been objectively reported by the tech media. Whether one absolutely must act on these considerations is debatable, but the considerations themselves aren't FUD.
In the articles I've written, the perspective has generally been: "If you know what you're doing, you don't have to upgrade, but if you have to ask whether you'll be safe, XP might be more trouble than it's worth." I think this is a pretty responsible and fair assessment. Yes, some people will keep using XP without incident. The ratio of victims to potential victims is usually pretty small, even when we're talking about major cyberthreats. But I think it would be irresponsible to broadly encourage people to keep using XP. Even if only a minority of users get victimized, the consequences can be pretty terrible for the unfortunate few. IT professionals and tech-literate consumers are one thing. But XP's user footprint is huge, and we can safely assume it includes millions who could blithely stumble into a trouble-- and who might unwittingly spread the problem to other machines. Words like "might" and "could" set off alarms for some people-- but in this case, I think they're a necessary part of comprehensive discussion.
I'm not certain by what objective standard it can be dismissed as pure FUD. I mean, sure, some of the commentary is over-the-top. Windows XP hasn't made ATMs particularly vulnerable, for example.
But by and large, XP's retirement poses some legitimate security considerations, most of which has been objectively reported by the tech media. Whether one absolutely must act on these considerations is debatable, but the considerations themselves aren't FUD.
In the articles I've written, the perspective has generally been: "If you know what you're doing, you don't have to upgrade, but if you have to ask whether you'll be safe, XP might be more trouble than it's worth." I think this is a pretty responsible and fair assessment. Yes, some people will keep using XP without incident. The ratio of victims to potential victims is usually pretty small, even when we're talking about major cyberthreats. But I think it would be irresponsible to broadly encourage people to keep using XP. Even if only a minority of users get victimized, the consequences can be pretty terrible for the unfortunate few. IT professionals and tech-literate consumers are one thing. But XP's user footprint is huge, and we can safely assume it includes millions who could blithely stumble into a trouble-- and who might unwittingly spread the problem to other machines. Words like "might" and "could" set off alarms for some people-- but in this case, I think they're a necessary part of comprehensive discussion.
Re: XP users will eventually migrate, but to what?
I can understand why some people have taken the "How can Microsoft abandon 200 million+ customers?!" perspective. But Microsoft obviously can't support XP indefinitely. It takes resources to do so-- and those resources aren't necessarily adding much to Microsoft's bottom line at this point. In fact, they might be detracting from Microsoft's bottom line, since we're talking about resources that might have gone to, say, Azure or something promising, instead of being lavished on ongoing XP maintenance.
I'm a big proponent of companies considering customers over profits, but at some point, Microsoft has to move on to new technologies. If not after 12 years, how long would be appropriate? If Microsoft had decided that 200 million active users was too many, would 100 million have been acceptable? What about 10 million? I think Microsoft could probably have done some things differently to help with XP's EOL deadline, but I have trouble arguing that Microsoft should have kept XP on life support for another five years.
I'm a big proponent of companies considering customers over profits, but at some point, Microsoft has to move on to new technologies. If not after 12 years, how long would be appropriate? If Microsoft had decided that 200 million active users was too many, would 100 million have been acceptable? What about 10 million? I think Microsoft could probably have done some things differently to help with XP's EOL deadline, but I have trouble arguing that Microsoft should have kept XP on life support for another five years.
Reminds me of Y2K
1. With the 4/8/14 update, this is arguably the "best" XP in its lifetime -- better than it was say 5 years ago as to safety and stability, yet the world didn't end then because XP was in use.
2. The hype is that "something new might happen!" after 4/8/14. This appears to just be marketing FUD. I ask customers how often their anti-virus has reported stopping an attack or how often they've had to have someone come in and clean out a virus. If they say rarely to never - which is the vast majority, then their risk of a world ending event after 4/8/14 is low. If they do get malware the impact is no different than if they got it before 4/8/14. Clean it up and move on.
3. 've worked on PCs that hadn't had an update in months to years but were used daily and while I find lots of software bloat I only get a few virii. This is true on both XP and Win7. How agressively the individual interacts with the internet appears more relevant to picking up issues than does the choice of virus checker (if any) or the condition or version of their OS. Retired church ladies often get lots of software bloat but few viruses. The youthful (30s and below) seem to get the most malware, at least in my experience, and they more often have the newest OS (i.e, win7).
MS stopping updates to XP makes news and the induced fear generates a lot of business, but there is so far no reason to belive that today is any risker than yesterday was -- nor will next year logically be any more riskier than last year was.
It feels like Y2K all over again. Maybe we should call it YXP?
2. The hype is that "something new might happen!" after 4/8/14. This appears to just be marketing FUD. I ask customers how often their anti-virus has reported stopping an attack or how often they've had to have someone come in and clean out a virus. If they say rarely to never - which is the vast majority, then their risk of a world ending event after 4/8/14 is low. If they do get malware the impact is no different than if they got it before 4/8/14. Clean it up and move on.
3. 've worked on PCs that hadn't had an update in months to years but were used daily and while I find lots of software bloat I only get a few virii. This is true on both XP and Win7. How agressively the individual interacts with the internet appears more relevant to picking up issues than does the choice of virus checker (if any) or the condition or version of their OS. Retired church ladies often get lots of software bloat but few viruses. The youthful (30s and below) seem to get the most malware, at least in my experience, and they more often have the newest OS (i.e, win7).
MS stopping updates to XP makes news and the induced fear generates a lot of business, but there is so far no reason to belive that today is any risker than yesterday was -- nor will next year logically be any more riskier than last year was.
It feels like Y2K all over again. Maybe we should call it YXP?
Re: XP users will eventually migrate, but to what?
Frankly speaking, MS did more than enough to support Windows XP in these years. The OS architecture was designed one decade ago and it's becoming more and more difficult to adopt new technologies. It's indeed time to upgrade. Many users stay with XP since it's rather stable. Furthermore, they may not have strong demand that needs to facilitate the power of new Windows OS. But now the time finally comes - without continuous support/patch, you are prone to higher and higher risk without upgrade.
XP users will eventually migrate, but to what?
If software companies can't set a date for when their product will no longer be supported, they end up carrying forward an ever growing deadweight of baggage. Microsoft has been better than most about signaling its intentions. On the other hand, I'm not sure if I were Microsoft that I would spur so many customers to migrate. If they wanted to migrate to Windows 7 or Windows 8, they would have done so by now. If their existence becomes tenuous on XP, then they will migrate. I'm just not sure where.
Re: fair and balanced reply -- Official word on the Windows XP ATM issue
Microsoft Director of Communications Tom Murphy confirmed to me that some ATMs are running Windows XP Pro Embedded, which loses support today, whereas others are using Windows Embedded SP3, which is supported until 2016. He said Microsoft has been working with banks since 2007, and that all of them have taken appropriate measures, from updating machines to paying Microsoft for extended XP support while they finish migrations. He said, "With banks, trust and security is front and center. ATMs are something they put a lot of thought and investment into." He added he's still going to use ATMs.
I asked about the "old ATM in the corner of a liquor store" scenario, and he said that it's hard to speak specifically, but that those ATMs are operated by companies whose business is to ensure that customers are kept safe. He also said that the vast majority of Microsoft's large customers have moved off of XP, though he said some complex migrations are still ongoing.
I asked about the "old ATM in the corner of a liquor store" scenario, and he said that it's hard to speak specifically, but that those ATMs are operated by companies whose business is to ensure that customers are kept safe. He also said that the vast majority of Microsoft's large customers have moved off of XP, though he said some complex migrations are still ongoing.
Re: Lab machines
Thanks for sharing your experience. It's easy to play up the number of active XP systems, and for consumers, I think the hoopla about risks has some merit. But a lot of professionals need to keep using XP and know how to keep it secure, with or without Microsoft, as your story demonstrates. The upgrade urgency isn't the same for everyone, and unfortunately, neither is the upgrade simplicity.
White Papers
Current Issue
InformationWeek Tech Digest, Dec. 9, 2014Apps will make or break the tablet as a work device, but don't shortchange critical factors related to hardware, security, peripherals, and integration.
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Archived InformationWeek Radio
InformationWeek Live for the Week of February 22, 2015
UPCOMING!
Wednesday, March 11, 12pm EDT
Upgrading from Windows Server 2003: Why Now is the Time to Make Your Move
Wednesday, March 11, 12pm EDT
Upgrading from Windows Server 2003: Why Now is the Time to Make Your Move
Everything You've Been Told About Mobility Is Wrong 
Attend this video symposium with Sean Wisdom, Global Director of Mobility Solutions, and learn about how you can harness powerful new products to mobilize your business potential.
- Featured UBM Tech Sites
- InformationWeek |
- Network Computing |
- Dr. Dobbs |
- Dark Reading
- Our Markets:
- Business Technology |
- Electronics |
- Game & App Development
- Working With Us:
- Advertising Contacts |
- Event Calendar |
- Tech Marketing Solutions |
- Corporate Site |
- Contact Us / Feedback
Tweet This
User Rank: Ninja
4/15/2014 | 8:24:43 PM