Microsoft promises to support Windows XP until 2014
By Donald Melanson 
posted June 24th 2008 5:38PM
posted June 24th 2008 5:38PM
It may finally be starting to move down the availability ladder with computer manufacturers (netbooks and the like aside), but it looks like Microsoft is going to be standing by Windows XP for a good while yet, with it now pledging to support the tried and true OS through 2014. According to Microsoft senior VP Bill Veghte, that support will include security patches and "other critical updates," and he adds that "customers who still need Windows XP will be able to get it," despite plans to stop selling a retail product and stop licensing it directly to PC manufacturers after June 30th. For those keeping track, that'll mean that Microsoft will be supporting Windows XP for a full 13 years since its release -- assuming it doesn't push out that support window again when users refuse to upgrade to Windows 7, that is.
I almost peed myself when I read that last line, and looked up at the huge, two-pane Apple advertisement against Vista.
Which it seems is the only way that Apple advertises. At least when the commercials started, there was banter, and now Justin doesn't say a word, while John makes an ass of himself.
Well, you have to bear in mind that a lot of people won't be buying Surface, and from what we've seen, that's the main perk of 7, rendering an upgrade pointless.
Too early to tell at the minute though, since that's all that has been revealed.
You know if you use Firefox, you can get the ad-block plug-in, that gets rid of most of those annoying advertising banners.
Nothing that uses flash can be blocked as far as i know.
I don't know what version of adblock you're using, but mine blocks Flash just fine.
Actually, there's a plugin called 'Flashblock', been using it for ages.
@Rafer - I run Flashblock and that _only_ blocks flash ;)
Gets rid of the most annoying ads so it's good enough for me.
For those who don't know it, Flashblock displays an empty box for any flash on the page. In the middle of the box is a large "play" button so you can play any flash on demand (e.g. youtube).
do ads make you blind?
They should support it for as long as it is profitable for them to do so. To do otherwise would be bad business and if Microsoft is good at anything, it's business.
You're assuming licenses are still sold. It's only profitable to support nonsales items when looking at brand loyalty many years down the road.
The average computer is only in use about 3-5 years, and yet XP will be at the most 4x older than the computer running it. Where is the progress and innovation?
(now waiting for some smart ass to start a Mac flame war...)
uh... is that a pro-Vista rant? it's hard to tell buried under all that gibberish
And Clak is back... Where u been havnt seen your blatant ignorance in a while.
Then hands up Clak, they're going over your head.
@clak
Liked ur letter to Mr.Gates.
also, tell your girlfriend to put a shock collar on you so that when you come on engadget, you get a tiny, painful shock.
Even the stupidest man is considered wise when he keeps his mouth shut.
clak -- TL;DR
@clak:
dude chill out you are obviously just an apple fanboy trying to push apple upon everyone. If I was gats and recieved that letter I would just laugh. you clearly are just a narrow minded fool who has been brainwashed by apple.
and fyi I use Leopard, Vista Ultimate, and Ubuntu. Out of the three I personally prefer Vista. Its not bad. get over it.
It's a shrewd move because it'll keep the corporate market happy.
It makes me pretty happy.
Mark, you seem to be confusing "shrewd" with "forced to do it because of the massive backlash against Vista". They're not really the same thing.
@cockboy
You seem to be confused between maintaining a market whilst selling a new product. Care to guess how many newly sold PCs have Vista on them?
Oh, name calling already. You are truly a class act. Yes, I'm sure Microsoft is being "shrewd" by extending support for XP for so long because they're just so dang clever. Not clever enough to make Vista work to everybody's satisfaction of course, or this wouldn't be an issue in the first place. But they're definitely shrewd to pick up on the fact that Vista is not being adopted on a wide scale by corporations, which are MS's bread and butter.
Although the fact that Captain Obvious was standing outside Ballmer's window waving red flags may have had something to do with it too. But hey, if your definition of "shrewd" is "picking up on the completely obvious", then sure.
@cockboy
I told you a few weeks ago that you would from that point on be known as cockboy to me. It's called consistency.
Sort of like how people are consistently buying Vista equipped new machines for personal use. As for corporate, you do realise that Vista's adoption rate is similar to XPs? Well, of course you don't, which is one of the reasons why you're such a... well, cock.
Now please: do us all a favour and slam your fingers in a car door.
Okay, well as long as you think name calling constitutes a valid argument. Maybe you need a juice box and a nap? Anyway, who cares about personal machines? Did you forget what you wrote in your first post? Here's a hint: "corporate market". You say it was a shrewd decision for MS to finally notice that Vista wasn't taking off as fast as they thought it would, causing them to extend support for XP until 2014.
Really? That was a shrewd decision? Or was it just the obvious thing to do to maintain their corporate userbase? As I said, doing it because they're "shrewd" is not the same thing as doing it because they pretty much have to.
Wow Mark, you're a dick. I'm just trying to imagine what kind of person you are off the internets, and I've got it narrowed down to:
a) Dude with backwards baseball hat who yells at friends for not drinking enough at bars while inappropriately hitting on the waitress
or
b) Nerdy gamer dude who got picked on too much in highschool to be able to develop social skills and thereby ends up thinking trying to be a bullying ass will make him look good.
Could you help me decide which it is?
@ jollyIlamma o waeva,
dude you don't know the histroy between Zak and Mark(and other Window users), so just just let them talk things through.
And as a Mac-user why does Zak have to comment on a Windows article?
To all the stupid people going into articles about the the thing/companies that disappointed you and you hate now, you don't need to go back and bitch about it.... No matter what evidence you provide to support your arguments, you personal opinion shows through...
I work for a Fortune 10 company and they just rolled out XP about 2 years ago. We still have some people on Windows 2000. So, it will be another 5 years before they get to Vista, if ever.
@jollylama
Definitely a).
Why, what are you going to do about it, soft lad?
@cockboy
Please, for the love of God, look up the corporate XP adoption rates for 2001-2007.
Seriously.
Is it weird that this headline fills me with unspeakable joy?
Is it sad that you can't take the time to update your computer to today's technology to run Vista correctly or is it sad that you blame Vista when many people are running it with very little problems?
What will people do when software companies decide to not write their applications to be compatible with XP anymore? Software increasingly, over time, requires the need for a more powerful machine and OS. Yet, people moan and groan that Vista is utter garbage. I believe that the Apple marketing has done a good job on informing the public of what Vista is like. If you were working for Apple Inc., wouldn't you be happy because of the wonderful marketing done that has set people's minds when they haven't even used the OS yet? That is just awesome and sad. As a tech, I see people tell me Vista sucks and yet, they are asking me what OS they should get for their new machine. The next question I ask is, "Have you used Vista yet?" The common answer is, "No, I just heard that it was different." Sad, pitiful people who hate change and technology.
*This rant was written on a Vista machine, next to a Ubuntu Server and XP machine.
Jon, maybe he'll cross that bridge when it becomes 2014
@ Jon
That's why i have vista on seperate partition, the theory if the market shifts to Vista before Windows 7 comes out then I'll be ready to go.
PS: a quick google search will reveal an easy way to dual-boot XP and Vista.
"...assuming it doesn't push out that support window again when users refuse to upgrade to Windows 7"
Oh snap!
I look forward to a force install of Service Pack 52!
You do know Apple's working on its fourth service pack for Leopard, right?
Mark, I think you meant to say that apple is working on a fifth service pack for Mac OSX.
Nah, Leopard's different from Tiger. It is however awaiting the launch of it's fourth service pack in July though.
Curiously people slag Vista off without ever mentioning this though, despite just how craptastic Leopard - or Leoptard as it came to be known - was on release.
So they're not releasing 10.5.4 then?
OK.
@clak
You continuously reference Microsoft fanboys, but I have never seen or heard of one. I've seen loyal fans of the Xbox brand, but not Microsoft as a whole, and certainly not Windows.
I think most people at Engadget don't dislike Apple, but rather, dislike the specific type of people who are their loyal-for-life, elitist customers.
Let the OS bashing and flaming begin.
I wish Microsoft kept up support Windows NT4 and Windows 2000 as much as they do now for XP.
There are companies still out there with NT4 machines as the OS is quite stable and very fast. Probably the same reason for XP, the stability is very good.
Why doesn't Microsoft just release their old OS'es to the Public Domain, so others can utilise the benefits. I cannot see them losing XP in the wake of Vista. But if Microsoft stops supporting old OS'es like 98 why can't M$ at least make them free to third world countries?
Because Bill Gates is a philanthropist. Ergo, any criticism of MSFT's business practices is insensitive. QED.
I would like to remind you that this is NOT how to do proper business.
When doing business, morals, ethics, is on the side...
Imagine going to a store, and you see a product and it says next to the price. "Nha! don't buy it, it really sucks! You see that hinge there, yea it will brake. It will be in liquidation soon, if you really want it, it will be 80% off. But it would still be better for you to get the product next to it...." Yea, I admit, it would be nice. No more cheapo products, however so many companies will close their doors.
Oh sorry forgot my end-point.
If money is to be made... then it should be taken. If Microsoft does this, people would stop buying their product wait until it gets free, and get it for free. A sacrifice you do once (by staying with the same OS for all these years) but after that you can just update for free on every new release. Also third world countries are not cut out of the world... so anyone in the world could get it easily.
"When doing business, morals, ethics, is on the side..."
How tragic is this that our whole world decides the fate of individuals, culture, and ecology on cost benefit analysis? Fuck that, time for a new paradigm.
I guess this is cool, maybe I'll take the plunge now. Does anyone know if the XP Home / Professional full versions for System Builders are a viable option for Dual Booting in something like Boot Camp?
in Xoviet Russia, camp boot *you*
Yeah you can use the system builder versions for Boot Camp.
Cool, thanks a lot Zak :D
Is Vista really that problematic for people to migrate? I use Mac at work and home so I can't say... But it must be a pain since people want to stick with XP (which is a pretty solid OS)
Then again I was running Win95 on my PC up until 2002 when I switched to Mac.