Does this include bitlocker? Or is this an issue with third party boot loaders so bitlocker is fine but truecrypt is not?
Here some context
its an easy fix for for dualboot if you can just replace grub with mbr again, but people with disc encryption are rather screwed it seems.
But this is definitely confusing. MS explicitly offers patches for Win 7, Server 2008, Server 2003, and XP, but there's no "Vista" link visible.
If anyone should not expect security update news via popular news outlets its Window's Vista users. There are plenty of niche channels for niche product releases.
The upgrade from XP to Vista meant a lot of software stopped working, especially from a driver perspective. If you're using some niche software that "just works (tm)", why change? Especially if it costs a lot of money to upgrade or your system isn't networked. The UK tried to upgrade its XP running backbone years ago, failed - and still got billet £10+ billion.
There was the popular perception at the time that every other version of Windows was good, while the in-betweens sucked. Vista followed that expectation perfectly, as did Windows 8.
I've always read this comic as making fun of people for having unjustifiably low opinions of Vista.
- XP market share: 3.57%
- Vista market share: 0.23%
- Mac OS 10.10 market share: 0.51%
(10.10 went out of support the same year as Vista)
As someone commented above, there's a footnote about how Vista users can use the Server 2008 patch, I was more amused that in an apparently-complete enumeration of versions in a table, they just...left it off.
Now everyone on XP will feel safe because its still getting updates.
I do appreciate the problem of security patches, but XP is pretty rock solid as a platform so for many businesses their tool does what they need.
Patching an ancient OS is enabling the delay of updates with the excuse "Whats the point, it still works"
The entire situation is ridiculous really. So what that XP is "ancient"? For many purposes it works just fine. The only reason this situation exists is because people can't fix their own computers. The entire thing is a massive waste of resources.
And look, of course it would be better if they upgraded. But "facts on the ground" can make it hard. It's easy to comment on HN, but not everyone involved is a complete idiot. I suspect that it's probably one of those 90/10% things: 90% has already been upgraded year ago, but getting the last 10% upgraded to something newer is 90% of the effort.
The situation where I'm not able (or even legally allowed!) to patch my own computer system is pretty ridiculous. I'm not massively in to "Free Software" or the "four essential freedoms", but I do think people should have the freedom to fix software they bought ("right to repair").
I know how it works, I don't "buy" Windows, I buy a license to allow using it. I think is legal shenanigans and doesn't (or rather, shouldn't) really matter.
The entire thing is just a colossal waste of resources. Many organisations would be perfectly happy with XP, because a basic stable OS without too much fancy stuff is all they need, and XP offers that. It's not an "upgrade", it's just "replacing a working system with another working system".
If it were open source, other people could pick it up (gratis or for a fee). Right now, nobody can (except for Microsoft), because it is proprietary software. Microsoft brought it upon themselves to release the software as such.
Forced internalization of externalities and transparency of risk (by vendors establishing both a firm lifecycle and a patching regime) provide the right incentives to make that happen.
In other words, the world of networked devices is a world of constant change. It must rid itself of those not fit for that change. People can run XP until the sun burns out, they just can't connect it to anything that's not theirs.
Nobody gave a shit about it. And this wasn't some crazy seat-of-the pants startup. It was a mature software company, employing >40 engineers (in that division alone), that had been building, and selling software for many, many years.
We'd also develop inside VMs. That is, we'd install Visual Studio, our product, Seapine source control...
And you're claiming that, it working, is not a legitimate reason to keep using it?
Like any other large industrial org, there's some bits of million-pound kit with integrated, essential XP. Likewise old essential software where the support has literally retired, running on 2003. We've got roadmaps for replacing it, but they're not instant.
We manage it as best we can. But broadly we're just about to go to 10 on desktops, so we're not as bad as the police!
It's Windows 7 now, I'm now seeing some staff get Windows 10 machines deployed to them.