Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

olePigeon · Sep 23, 2004, 02:45 PM

http://news.com.com/Microsoft+to+sec...3-5378366.html

Microsoft is no longer going to offer security updates to any version of Windows other than XP. The cut off date for Windows 2000 is June 2005. Windows 2000 still makes up nearly 50% of Microsoft's install base.

Now the only way to secure your OS is to pay $99 for an upgrade to XP.

E's Lil Theorem · 03:11 PM

Originally posted by olePigeon:
...

Now the only way to secure your OS is to pay $99 for an upgrade to XP.

Doesn't Apple do something similar? I don't think they provide security updates for 10.1 and the only reason they provide them for 10.2 is because they received some bad press a few months ago for not doing so. Given Microsoft's userbase being so much larger, it obviously affects more folks.

Anyway, even though MS is trying to get people to upgrade, five years seems like a decent amount of time to support an OS. IIRC, they stopped supporting 98 after a similar period.

EDIT: grammar

ManOfSteal · Sep 23, 2004, 03:12 PM

Smart move.

Link · Sep 23, 2004, 03:16 PM

Yeah that's what I was thinking. Apple hardly supports their *TWO YEAR OLD* OS, nevermind one that came out almost 5 years ago.

Shaddim · Sep 23, 2004, 03:53 PM

That sounds reasonable, I wouldn't expect Apple to come out with security updates for OS 9.1, no matter how many people still use it.

turtle777 · Sep 23, 2004, 03:56 PM

Given that XP is already 5 years behind the power curve, M$ commitment to their own sh** is quite commendable !

-t

mitchell_pgh · Sep 23, 2004, 03:59 PM

I'm really not surprised... this coming from a company that is considering charging for security updates to their current OS.

nredman · Sep 23, 2004, 04:01 PM

Originally posted by olePigeon:
http://news.com.com/Microsoft+to+sec...3-5378366.html

Microsoft is no longer going to offer security updates to any version of Windows other than XP. The cut off date for Windows 2000 is June 2005. Windows 2000 still makes up nearly 50% of Microsoft's install base.

Now the only way to secure your OS is to pay $99 for an upgrade to XP.

sweet

my dad is going to be pissed because for some reason at home and work he used windows 2000 and swears by it. personally having used it and xp i dont know what he is smoking

itai195 · Sep 23, 2004, 04:14 PM

They should have offered the security updates for Win 2000, I agree. However, whether or not 50% of the installed base uses Win 2000 doesn't make any difference to me, those users have known all along that mainstream support would end in mid-2005.

Zimphire · Sep 23, 2004, 04:20 PM

I don't blame them.

I don't see Apple users getting pissy because they don't offer security updates for OS 9 or 10.1.

Toutgood · Sep 23, 2004, 04:30 PM

Originally posted by nredman:
sweet my dad is going to be pissed because for some reason at home and work he used windows 2000 and swears by it. personally having used it and xp i dont know what he is smoking

Hey My dad had windows 2000 going until this spring, and he had it working like a champ - I don't think it ever crashed or was infected by a single virus in its entire existence (that I saw). XP on the other hand has had some minor issues. He hates Microsoft though, and is a big Linux guy.

And really 2000 and XP are more alike than OS 9 and X. And we OS X users just LOVE new OS versions, don't we!

Who's still using 10.1?

zen jihad · Sep 23, 2004, 04:53 PM

MS will probably do a U-turn as soon as big business starts complaining. It was the sane deal with NT 4 support.

Webscreamer · Sep 23, 2004, 05:06 PM

Originally posted by Toutgood:
And really 2000 and XP are more alike than OS 9 and X. And we OS X users just LOVE new OS versions, don't we!

Who's still using 10.1?

I think 10.1 is still a decent system... you still have UNIX under the hood. I know a few graphic design firms that still run their servers off of 10.1 Server. they see no reason to upgrade because they are running smoothly.

CharlesS · Sep 23, 2004, 07:09 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I don't blame them.

I don't see Apple users getting pissy because they don't offer security updates for OS 9 or 10.1.

Except that many people don't want to upgrade from Windows 2000 since 2000 has had significantly fewer security issues over its lifetime than Windows XPloit. MS is basically giving the finger to its security-conscious users with this new policy.

klinux · Sep 23, 2004, 08:37 PM

Originally posted by olePigeon:
[url]Now the only way to secure your OS is to pay $99 for an upgrade to XP.

Now that's a flame bait if there's ever any. One can secure a home Windows system (corporate systems warrants a separate discussion) with a few simple moves.

Every single solution below is simple and free.

1. Install Mozilla or your favorite non-IE/OE browser/e-mail tool.
2. Install Grisoft AVG or your favorite free antivirus tool. Set to auto-update definition.
3. Install Zonealarm or your favorite free firewall tool. If you don't know what is incoming or outgoing, deny by default.

There are more one can do but this will protect you from virtually all attacks (does not protect from social engineering attacks, of course).

Why do PCMag, McAFee, Norton, etc make it seem so hard? Easy, they have their own self-interest to protect.

klinux · Sep 23, 2004, 08:43 PM

Oh, and either auto or download OS patches regularly. This is a given for any OS.

Zimphire · Sep 23, 2004, 10:52 PM

Originally posted by CharlesS:
Except that many people don't want to upgrade from Windows 2000 since 2000 has had significantly fewer security issues over its lifetime than Windows XPloit. MS is basically giving the finger to its security-conscious users with this new policy.

Oh well.. then 2k users need to find a new OS vender.

I am not MS shill, but they shouldn't have to support OSs 4 or 5 years old.

No one expect Apple to.

olePigeon · Sep 24, 2004, 03:05 AM

Except that when you don't release a new OS for that long, allowing the OS to become so embedded, you'd think they would allow some more support.

You think people who pay those damnable yearly fees for upgrades are happy? They've already payed enough money for the next 10 Windows releases. Microsoft owes them a little more than that.

I agree that Microsoft probably will make a u-turn after 1/2 their customers complain... or move to Linux or Mac OS X.

Scotttheking · Sep 24, 2004, 05:06 AM

Maybe I'm blind, but I don't see the claim made in the subject anywhere in the article. The only thing I see is that the new version of IE will be SP2 only.

MS's support of their OSes kicks the crap out of Apple. Period.
The same with third party support for older MS OSes. *looks at Java*

MilkmanDan · Sep 24, 2004, 06:50 AM

Microsoft to virus makes: Have fun.

Scifience · Sep 24, 2004, 08:40 AM

I'd swear MacNN has turned into Slashdot: Replying and pretending to carry on a detailed and in-depth conversation about something without ever having RTFA!

I'm not pro-Microsoft by any stretch of the imagination, but nowhere in that article does it say what the original poster claimed. It only says that the new security enhancements (not patches, but enhancements) for IE are only going to be available for XP SP2 users.

By this, they mean the built-in pop-up blocker, the new (uber-annoying) method for dealing with ActiveX controls, and the ever-so-wonderful feature that asks you three times before allowing you to download anything.

XP SP2 users can keep those features to themselves for all I care. But nowhere does it say that users of older OSes won't be getting their weekly dose of security patches anymore.

Way to spread the disinformation around, guys.