Windows XP Home: obsolete sooner than you expect

Published on January 4, 2006 By coffeegrinder In Windows XP

Read the article here.

Comments (Page 2)

on Jan 05, 2006

the expiration dates are supposed to be 2years after the launch of the latest platform. The XP ones were written ages ago on the original estimate of Vista going live 2 years ago.

Also, mainstream support doesn't mean they'll stop patching. Just means you can't call MS about it after that date.

Any PC purchased with XP Home should be covered by the computer manufacturer by warranty anyway.

However, there are many problems associated with selling stand-alone copies too close to the end of support date, because while that date is "public" it's not well known by many people at all. Most of us here consider ourselves technically saavy, but I bet the date was unknown to many of us.

Videlous

on Feb 28, 2006

Mainstream support will be extended. We have no choice. Vista took longer to release than we expected. Mainstream support will be extended by at least 2 years.
Darth Videlous
Dev Win Vista

Island Dog

on Feb 28, 2006

GhoS

on Feb 28, 2006

People always have to be sounding alarms over nothing. If they still support 98, even if limited, they will be fully supporting XP for awhile. Especially where the majority of new Vista users will probably be new computer users rather than upgrades.
So there will exist quite a few XP users out there for some time.

Posted via WinCustomize Browser/Stardock Central

Double Zero

on Feb 28, 2006

People always have to be sounding alarms over nothing. If they still support 98, even if limited, they will be fully supporting XP for awhile.

Just another alarm, LoL, Win98 support will officially end in july 06 as per information on the MS site..

There will be no more security updates, service packs etc, etc..
Though you will still be able to get whats already been provided...

bakerstreet

on Feb 28, 2006

People expect to get support from Microsoft? Given the choice, I'd prefer an OS that didn't need continual updates, anyway.

HighCommand

on Feb 28, 2006

Unfortunately, there is no OS that doesn't need updates, as bugs and holes are discovered in Windows, Mac, and Linux all the time.

bakerstreet

on Mar 01, 2006

" Unfortunately, there is no OS that doesn't need updates, as bugs and holes are discovered in Windows, Mac, and Linux all the time."

Born more of being feature rich than inherently insecure. Most of our security problems with Windows comes from Microsoft rushing to be everything to everyone, and trying to make internet browsers and media players seamlessly part of our OS. Most of these gaping holes come from these secondary functions trying to work alongside the OS instead of as an untrusted layer apart from it.

I tend to think that if they stuck to being an OS, and let the other apps be secondary, we wouldn't have had the situation we've lived with for years. Sure, there's no OS that is free from bugs and updates, but if you only count the ones involved in the core function of the OS, I think we'd have a lot less to worry about. They'd have also had less anti-trust worries.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!