back to article Microsoft: MED-V won't help you escape WinXP end-of-life

Slipping Windows XP inside Microsoft's Enterprise Desktop Virtualization (MED-V) to get around the PC operating system's end-of-life date won't work. That's the warning from Microsoft, which has advised customers to stop looking for ways to keep Windows XP going and finally migrate. Extended support for Windows XP finishes on …


This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Thomas 18
    Thumb Up

    When I'm in charge

    software will only be licensed for as long as it's maintained. Don't want to maintain it any more? then you got to release the source so someone else can.

    1. Zaphod.Beeblebrox
      Thumb Down

      Re: When I'm in charge

      If by "maintained" you mean newer versions are being released, then Windows fits that definition. If you mean that old, unsupported versions are no longer being maintained, then I'm glad you are not in charge so that source code for the old, unsupported versions of my company's software aren't released to my competitors, etc since current versions are based on that code as well. I suspect many, if not most, developers of commercial software would feel the same.

    2. Droid on Droid

      Re: When I'm in charge

      That,s why you wont be in charged, MS can put an 18 year old intern to work maintaining XP and get around your not so cunning plan.

      1. Thomas 18
        Thumb Down

        Re: When I'm in charge

        Fortunately, in addition to getting to invent new laws, dictators can use common sense and make arbitrary judgements to deal with people who like to 'get around' existing ones.

    3. Gordon Fecyk

      Where I am, it turns out I AM in charge...

      ...and XP is gone. Everything still works, even the old IE6-only-supposedly web apps. Their vendors can kiss my shiny metal... or they can get replaced.

      (and yes, do continue the downvotes. They won't change what I accomplished.)

  2. adam payne


    Goodbye XP you have served as well.

    1. henrydddd

      Re: Goodbye

      Nothing will change for me when the April 2014 date comes. I will still be doing most of my commputing on a Linux machine with XP as a virtual machine (ether Vmplayer or Virtual Box) to run my old legacy apps.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward


    I've got win 3.11, 95 and 98 running for some mission critical (ie too expensive to replace while they are still working) systems.

    Since they've been stable for so many years, and I've avoided putting any other software on them, and they are not connected to anything else outside their own little circle they should be happy for a few years. Or at least so long as my cannibalised parts bin from their departed siblings holds out.

    To some extent I can apply the same processes to Win XP.

    1. Annihilator

      Re: workarounds

      "I've got win 3.11, 95 and 98 running for some mission critical (ie too expensive to replace while they are still working) systems."

      That's not what "mission critical" means. And if you've got truly mission critical stuff running Win 3.11 on bare metal then you'll be in for a treat at some point in the future. Consider at least virtualising it?

      1. Anonymous Coward

        Re: workarounds

        "ome mission critical (ie too expensive to replace while they are still working) systems"

        Err , what? If they were mission critical my friend you'd have replaced them years ago since the hardware your win 3.11 must be on its last legs. If your business goes under because you couldn't be arsed to update some PC software in 20 years then serves you right.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: workarounds

          It's not long since I managed to replace a DOS (6.20) system. It was not the same box as it was when the software was new but it was the same software.

          (In fact it was probably much faster and easier to back up - bootable USB, copy folder on and restart PC. just copy the files onto the network where my predecessor would have used about 3 sets of 45 floppy disks and PKZIP.)

          The new system does pretty much the same job through a web browser. More importantly, management can run off lots of nice reports whenever the urge takes them.

        2. launcap Silver badge

          Re: workarounds

          >Err , what? If they were mission critical my friend you'd have replaced them years ago since the hardware your >win 3.11 must be on its last legs. If your business goes under because you couldn't

          You've obviously never worked in a small manufacturing company.. where I used to work we had a number of old Win 3.11 machines (386's no less). The reason? We had a custom-designed card and software to run the machine That Did Everything and said card refused to work in anything faster than a 386 and the software was DOS-only (and no - we didn't have the source because it was written in 1994 by a long-departed contractor).

          Cost to replace? A lot - both in terms of time and lost production on the machine. Did I mention that we only had 2 cards (1 didn't work properly and was being used as a spart-donor for the other)..

    2. Buzzword

      Re: workarounds

      Unfortunately WinXP machines are much likely to be networked, and thus exposed (however indirectly) to the wider internet and all the dangers that that presents. If your systems aren't connected to anything else at all, then you're a lot safer.

      (Yes there's still the old Sneakernet danger, but it's a lot less serious than having some script kiddie prodding your ports until you bend over.)

    3. h4rm0ny

      Re: workarounds

      "I've got win 3.11, 95 and 98 running for some mission critical (ie too expensive to replace while they are still working) systems."

      Never was posting AC more a wise decision.

      1. Anonymous Coward

        Re: workarounds

        "If it ain't broke don't fix it".

        IE, the anon could be posting about a 200k CNC machine or something. You load in the design files (whatever format) and it spits out a part. Does it matter if it runs linux, CE, Chrome, Win, DOS, JAVA? To me, it does not. If it turned out to have Win 3.11 installed, then fine, why change it? Why risk a fatal exception causing the tool to mangle your expensive materials or the entire machine?

        However, the point is that the machine does not need any operating system support anyhow. It's a closed system. :P

        1. Curious

          Re: workarounds

          Absolutely right.

          How do you upgrade from NT4 workstation with the realtime patch?

          One manufacturer suggests posting the entire PC (responsible for operating the CnC machine, putting it out of commission for a week) back to Italy.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: workarounds

          > IE, the anon could be posting about a 200k CNC machine or something.

          The CnC machines I work with are usually Win 95 / 98 machines and connect to our software via RS232.

          Often at 9,600 baud.

          It's fairly surprising when some of these things cost a quarter of a million; but they are pretty much bomb proof. So long as they keep to the standard comms protocol it's really none of my business what goes on inside anyway.

        3. Spanners Silver badge

          Re: workarounds

          "If it ain't broke don't fix it".

          That means we are free to fix just about anything MS has ever done. Its products have tended to be broken straight out of the box. We were just forced to use them.

          To their credit, they have made some nice hardware.

        4. Boris the Cockroach Silver badge

          Re: workarounds

          And besides


          But then only 3 run windows anyway, the rest are on Linux or Custom Control OS

    4. Cpt Blue Bear

      Re: workarounds

      I feel your pain, brother. We have one customer with multihead embroidery machines that have dedicated control software running only in Windows 3.x. Believe me, we've tried to make it run on modern hardware and OSs (closest we got was using WINE, but it still fell over to often).

      To all those who've never played in this space, the realities are that it costs tens to hundreds of thousands to replace a machine and they are built to run for decades. People running these systems for business have the attitude that it's worked fine up until now, we'll move on when the machine dies. You deal with it or they find someone else who will.

  4. Derk

    And When I'm in Charge

    If MS was my company, I'd be finding out why the customers want to stay with it, perhaps it has features that the later Vista and Win7 don't? I'd be asking "Why the hell are we forcing people to take something they don't want!?" Make the upgrade path less painful, especially in terms of cost.

    If MS see no money in Win XP, then charge for updates, charge for sevice packs.

    I still use XP in Parallels for my CAD system on my Mac. Upgrade to Win7? spend £100+ for what? Don't think so. XP works just fine. Mind you I downloaded the preview of Win8, what a crock that is! Got so pee'd off it with it so fast.

    Microsoft: Giving people what they either don't want or need and charging the earth for it.

    1. TeeCee Gold badge

      Re: And When I'm in Charge

      Yes, but the "killer feature" that XP has which Fister and 7 lack is, er, IE6. MS want that POS dead, buried and its grave thoroughly danced on as much as the rest of us do.

      At the end of the day, the real issue is "it works, so why would we go to the effort and expense of changing it?". There's not much you can do in a subsequent release to counter that. Even giving it away free and having it make the tea as well won't help.

      In the real world, the cost of the product itself is peanuts when compared to the costs of application migration / certification / testing and the subsequent rollout.

      Incidently, MS's view of corporate usage may well be correct, from their perspective. They'll be looking at the licenses. It's common knowledge that vast 7 desktop migration projects are ongoing around the world and it's quite likely that the majority of those are close to fruition and have already aquired the licenses for rollout.....

      1. The BigYin

        Re: And When I'm in Charge

        It amuses me so much that MS's proprietary lock-in on IE6 is now biting them hard on the ass.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: And When I'm in Charge

          it was this exact thing that made the recode of my software browser independent and ultimately OS independent. now over 50% of all of my machines do not run a windows OS of any sort !

        2. Mark 65

          Re: And When I'm in Charge

          "It amuses me so much that MS's proprietary lock-in on IE6 is now biting them hard on the ass."

          I wonder if at times it amuses them too? I mean, never could they have dreamed that they would have done such a thoroughly comprehensive and all encompassing job of it. In a way it has to be the most successful piece of code Microsoft has ever written.

    2. Marty

      Re: And When I'm in Charge

      "If MS was my company, I'd be finding out why the customers want to stay with it, perhaps it has features that the later Vista and Win7 don't? I'd be asking "Why the hell are we forcing people to take something they don't want!?" Make the upgrade path less painful, especially in terms of cost."

      its well known why businesses have stuck to winXP. as stated in the actual article...

      "The sticking points are Internet Explorer 6 and 7, as many big businesses have written critical apps for IE6 and 7 – which are off-limits on Windows 7."

      The cost to re-write those apps so they work with alternative browsers that work on windows 7 is going to be MASSIVE... add that to the cost of upgrading all the OS, and on top of that, then the cost of upgrading hardware... your looking at a costs of several hundred thousand pounds for a large corp.

      Personally, once it was realised that my software I use for my business wouldn’t be able to run on windows 7 the code was re-written and made sure that it was browser independent and therefore OS independent. It wasn’t really a big deal for me as my business is only a very small enterprise and for the majority of the time its only me or the missus using it so it does not have to be very polished !!

      other businesses should have taken similar steps starting way back 7 years ago...

      1. nematoad

        Re: And When I'm in Charge

        "other businesses should have taken similar steps starting way back 7 years ago..."

        Yep, done that.

        As a former MS sysadmin I know what a crock of shit Windows is, so when I started my business I made sure that I stayed well away from the MS treadmill. I only use Gnu/Linux and it serves me well. A few tussles with suppliers and customers who would send me .docx documents but a few polite requests sorted that out. Other than that I had a few problems with getting to grips with Gimp which is a story in itself. As a bonus I sidestepped all the viruses and malware problems.

        Not that this is a solution for everyone trapped on the MS upgrade cycle but with a bit of planning and sadly at some cost it can be done. You just need to think through whether it makes sense for your particular business.

    3. h4rm0ny

      Re: And When I'm in Charge

      "If MS was my company, I'd be finding out why the customers want to stay with it, perhaps it has features that the later Vista and Win7 don't?"

      We know why. The article even says why. Because some of these companies have mission critical software that only works in IE6 and they either can't or wont spend the money to re-write that software until the point that they absolutely are forced to. It's not because, as you imply, the management of these companies have strong feelings about how much more lovely the interface is in XP over Win7 or that they feel they really can't risk moving to an OS with a better security model. It's replacement of archaic software.

    4. DJ Smiley

      Re: And When I'm in Charge

      We are staying with it because our main finance software hasn't yet been updated to a version which runs on windows 7......

    5. jonathanb Silver badge

      Re: And When I'm in Charge

      Customers want to stay with Windows XP because it works, and continuing to use it costs nothing. Even if Microsoft gave away Windows 7 for free along with new computers to run it on, a lot of companies would stick with XP due to the costs of migration.

      1. Anonymous Dutch Coward

        @jonathanb: reasons for staying with XP

        Very good point.

        A lot of posts/media say it's old software (e.g. non-compatibility with IE7+) holding migrations back, but I'm really wondering whether a big factor could be that the new OS just does not have much more to offer in an enterprise setting.

        Of course, driver support for new machines is one of the ways in which Microsoft gets people to upgrade regardless of whether they can afford it/see any net benefit.

        Given the latter, my earlier points are probably academic anyway...

        (icon directed at myself - interested in your thoughts)

    6. Tezfair

      Re: And When I'm in Charge

      "Microsoft: Giving people what they either don't want or need and charging the earth for it."

      Like an Ipad then?

  5. undeadMonkey93

    "However, MED-V won't be updated to work on Windows 8..."

    No bother, doubtful many enterprise's machines will be updated to run Windows 8.

  6. Ogi

    Time to move to reactOS I wonder...

    I have been looking at reactOS (, basically an open source version of windows, for some legacy software/hardware. So far some apps works on it, some don't, so it is a bit hit and miss, but the project is reaching a point where it is usable for some things.

    Perhaps going with them is better than trying to fight MS with clinging on desperately to windows XP?

    1. MacroRodent

      Or Wine on Linux?

      With Wine may applications work fine, and some don't, so there the picture is similar, but unlike ReactOS, with Wine the basic platform underneath the compatibility layer is a mainstream operating system, not something that is still in early stages. Yes, I know ReactOS has existed for many years, but its development has beem quite slow, just a hobby of a small group, whereas the same critique no longer applies to Linux. This matters for future hardware support. I suspect the Wine layer also has more momentum behind it than ReactOS.

      1. Ogi

        Re: Or Wine on Linux?

        I agree, the reason I went with ReactOS is because I had hardware with windows drivers. Linux only has NDIS for networking, and getting windows drivers working in Linux is near impossible. Far easier to make use of an OS that allows use of windows drivers by design :)

        Wine and reactOS complement each other, rather than compete. I believe they co-operate on the API/userspace area already.

        1. RAMChYLD

          Re: Or Wine on Linux?

          Drivers isn't really much of a problem in Linux anymore actually. One of my Linux box is running on a very exotic setup (two GeForce450s in an SLI configuration, and a SoundBlaster X-Fi E-MU PCI card). NVidia proprietary drivers for the graphics card aside (which required me to agree to enable a repository in Ubuntu and running the proprietary driver detection tool), the rest of the hardware were recognized and worked without a hitch on installing Ubuntu.

    2. A Non e-mouse Silver badge

      Re: Time to move to reactOS I wonder...

      But the problem isn't the O/S itself: The problem is IE6.

      Unless someone in the open source world is going to re-write IE6, ReactOS is the wrong answer.

      1. DJ Smiley

        Re: Time to move to reactOS I wonder...

        ie4linux has a ie6 version :)

        I've not used it in _years_ as I stopped doing web dev; but it basically worked perfectly then :D

      2. Ogi

        Re: Time to move to reactOS I wonder...

        If they suceed in getting compatiability of reactOS up, then you don't need to rewrite IE6, you could just rip it out of an old windows install and run it as is. That is the benefit. I doubt wine (for example) will ever support activeX, as while it has API compatability, the OS-specific bits in IE6/ActiveX will never mesh with the linux system (at would be a massive job to do).

        1. MacroRodent

          Re: Time to move to reactOS I wonder...

          Out of interest made a search for activex at, and some forum posts there talk like IE + activeX works on Wine after IE is installed, at least in some cases (since the forums are for problems, you naturally see more comments about situations where it does not work). Someone with serious activex legacy code problems might want to take a closer look at it.

    3. RAMChYLD

      Re: Time to move to reactOS I wonder...

      Well, here's hoping ReactOS 1.0 goes gold the day MS shuts off support for XP (or worse, shut off XP's activation servers). I'd really love to dump all the MS crud I have and switch to ReactOS, but sadly, there's just games I have that cannot be run under ReactOS or even WINE because of stupid copy protection mechanisms that for some reason fails in ReactOS, or because it used undocumented calls that ReactOS cannot handle. Hopefully, by then ReactOS would've ironed out all their bugs and problems by then.

      1. MacroRodent

        Re: Time to move to reactOS I wonder...

        Wonder if ReactOS will become the official OS in Russia... see

        (found via /.)

  7. Craig 19

    Upgrading now...

    We're just about to start a rollout of Win7 to ~2500 machines in September.

    Plenty of planning and pain so far, but the bigger picture is that we've XenApp'd every single app in use so that in future we can shift to pretty much any OS without affecting users to any great degree.

    Doesn't bode well for any aspirations Microsoft have for charging for Windows 7's successor.

  8. Benjamin 4

    Given how many people don't want to upgrade why don't MS just charge for updates and support and make the most of it. I have yet to find a compelling reason to upgrade.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      a good reason....

      "I have yet to find a compelling reason to upgrade."

      how about for future updates and security !!

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I can't see my company switching from XP on April 2014, albeit only because they are too fucking tight to buy anything new. We even run an old VAX for various purposes, but nobody but the bosses know how to use it.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "nobody but the bosses..."

      That's usually because it's the machine with the hidden siphon of funds recorded on it...

    2. Mark 65

      Ah, the VAX, what fond memories. VMS, CMS, purge commands. Now that was a real system.

  10. Ken Hagan Gold badge

    No security patches? So what?

    In a corporate environment, LAN security is probably pretty tight to begin with, desktops will be firewalled and stripped of unnecessary services, and all end-users will be running with limited privileges (as Dave Cutler intended). To that, add the fact that XP has comparatively few security issues at the OS level. Microsoft Update delivers patches each month but it is apps that are being patched more often than not.

    Corporate admins also have options that aren't open to ordinary users, such as using a Linux (or Mac) desktop and RDP-ing into a Win2k3 Terminal Server for those badly-behaved mission-critical legacy apps we keep hearing about.

    Lastly, bear in mind that anyone still running XP has already decided not to jump to Win7. If they have a compelling reason to avoid Win7, Win8 isn't even going to be considered.

    1. Zaphod.Beeblebrox

      Re: No security patches? So what?

      "In a corporate environment, LAN security is probably pretty tight to begin with, desktops will be firewalled and stripped of unnecessary services, and all end-users will be running with limited privileges (as Dave Cutler intended). "

      I'll expect my replacement keyboard shortly, thanks for the laugh though!

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Where I am the big stumbling block is application compatibility with IE6. I get the feeling Browsium might be becoming a more valuable company day by day.

    Sorry, Anon because I have to when talking about work.

  12. The BigYin


    ...if possible migrate away from Windows altogether.

    New Win8 kit may be locked down (UEFI).

    Will it run Win9? Will Win9 even allow you to install it on non-Win9-locked-down kit?

    Why take the risk?

    Move away from the platform if at all possible.

    1. h4rm0ny

      Re: And...

      "New Win8 kit may be locked down (UEFI)."

      This has been pointed out many times before and I know you are a regular poster here, so why keep repeating this? We're talking about Win8, not WinRT (the ARM version) and you know that it is a requirement that the user be able to disable secure boot.

      "Why take the risk?"

      Because we balance risks against benefits. Steve Jobs might turn out to have left doomsday code in MacOS to destroy us all, but it wouldn't stop me from using OSX if that was what suited me - because I would balance my choice of OS against the liklihood of an actual risk.

      Seriously, we're talking about corporate users here. Are you actually counselling businesses to turn away from moving to WIndows 7 because you think (without any good reason as far as I can tell) that Win9 some day might stop their users from blitzing the OS the company has installed and putting Linux on it or similar. Hell, in the unlikely event that occured, business IT departments would regard being able to lock down their systems and prevent their users from working around the installed OS as a plus

  13. EvanPyle

    At my work out apps are updated to REQUIRE the latest version of IE about a year after they come out.

    Some of our apps no longer even work on Vista! Complete 7 roll-out should be complete within weeks.

    1. Anonymous Coward 15

      Fake the user agent string?

  14. BobChip


    Why are MS so desperate to drive enterprise desktops down the Linux road? I can't think why they should wish to do this, but the fact remains that we have made the decision, and have done so.

    My biggest issue now is trying to figure out why we did not do this much sooner.

    1. Mark 65

      Re: Confused......

      With great size comes great arrogance/complacency?

  15. Chris Thomas Alpha

    the only appropriate response

    is to laugh....not investing in the core software of your business which then subsequently becomes unsupported, why didn't somebody at least TRY to run the software on chrome and fix up the bugs....they've had years to do might be able to get an intern to fix the html layout problems, since all the server code doesn't need to change....all you need is a student programmer who knows HTML/CSS/JS, you can find those unemployed in the local there is really very little excuse.

    so laugh...perhaps a bit of righteous ridicule will go a long way....these apparently IT PRO's are not so IT PRO after all.

  16. Richard Ball


    Can't someone produce a new, safe, allowed-on-w7 version of firefox that pretends to be IE6/7?

    1. Uncle Slacky Silver badge

      Re: firefox

      Dunno about FF, but there's "Chrome Frame" which will do what you want:

  17. Davidoff

    Lazy businesses

    How about businesses would start to prepare for migration on time instead of waiting until it is too late? The EOL for Windowsxp has been set for ages, no-one should be surprised by now that its life is finite.

    Windowsxo was a great OS, but it's now 11 years old, and the world has moved on. IE6 is only still a topic because those responsible for implementing a proper migration strategy haven't done their job properly. If you start looking at migration when the EOL date is close then it's simply too late. The basic planning for migration should already start before the current platform is being deployed.

  18. waffler

    What about the millions of home users who have XP machines that are working fine. They aren't going to fork out for an upgrade to win 7 or 8 for that matter. Looks like I'll be migrating all my customers to Linux then!

    1. James Chaldecott

      $40 upgrade

      I bet most of those home XP users are spending over the odds for an annual subscription to Norton AV (or similar), but I wonder how many will take up MS on their "All XP users can upgrade to Windows 8 Pro for $40" offer. Win 8 UI issues aside, I bet the latter is actually more important from a security point of view.

      1. Fuzz

        Re: $40 upgrade

        Not only is Windows 8, in general, more secure than XP but it includes Microsoft security essentials so there is no real reason for home users to need a subscription to an AV product.

      2. waffler

        Re: $40 upgrade

        Most of those whose computers I look after don't use Norton or similar but a free AV that I installed for them. I somewhat doubt their PCs will be able to run Win 8 in any decent fashion being as they prob don't have enough memory. Older folk don't see why they should throw away a perfectly functioning PC just because.

    2. Marty

      "What about the millions of home users who have XP machines that are working fine."

      I wouldn’t imagine there would be millions...

      no new computers that have come to market in the last 7 years have had windows xp pre-installed, and most that were bought prior to that will now be in bits, have Ubuntu on it or a bootleg copy of windows 7.

      Personally, I hope that one day Microsoft will give the OS away free to home users on a "as is" basis. selling a support package to those who want or need one. Licence businesses on a sliding scale on how many PC's they have in use. But I doubt they would want to risk all the anti trust issues they would get slapped with for that....

  19. Gordan

    Key Question Remains Unanswered

    Why upgrade, regardless of EOL?

    Seriously, the "no more patches" argument doesn't really withstand much scrutiny, especially in the typical and much cited use case of corporate desktops running web apps in IE6. Let's look at possible attack vectors that these machines could typically be exposed to and how valid they are in a typical use case.

    1) Corporate desktops aren't (or at least shouldn't in any sane case) be exposed directly to the internet. They will be behind firewalls. That means that direct service exploitation remote exploits are substantially mitigated, over and above what Windows XP''s built in firewalls provide (assuming they are configured suitably - if they are not, that is an IT policy deficiency, not a deficiency of Windows XP). With a suitable corporate firewalling configuration (including virus filtering using something like viralator, squidclam or similar), malware should have a pretty difficult job getting through in the first place.

    2) Corporate email is spam and malware filtered (or at least it should be in any sane use case). This mitigates malware and trojans propagated by email.

    3) Assuming something slips past 1) and 2), desktop Windows XP deployments typically run AV software with on access scanning. If this is a different AV tool to what is used in 1) and 2), this will increase probability that anything that slips past the filters and firewalls will get caught on the machine itself.

    4) Other policies, such as no local media access, can also mitigate the attack vector of using tainted USB sticks and other removable media. Remote desktop connectivity with dumb terminal thin clients also helps.

    The vast majority of what will get through points 1-3 are 0-day exploits, and by definition security patches will not help against 0-day exploits, so claiming that as a reason to upgrade doesn't withstand scrutiny.

    So seriously - what reason is there _REALLY_ to upgrade if Windows XP works for what you are trying to do with it? For all the rhetoric surrounding the subject, is there a real, good, reason to upgrade that is well defined by the usage requirements?

    1. xenny

      Re: Key Question Remains Unanswered

      How long is an installation of IE 6 (The apparent main reason people are sticking with XP) going to survive before there's a trivial compromise is found for which no patch will be forthcoming?

      1. Gordan

        Re: Key Question Remains Unanswered


        How often does that happen? Did it happen in the last 5 years? When, how often, and how serious was the issue? Was the issue relevant in a secured, firewalled corporate environment? Can you cite some examples?

    2. Captain Save-a-ho

      Re: Key Question Remains Unanswered

      As you correctly pointed out, the fear would be with 0-day exploits. But the dilemna isn't whether upgrading will avert 0-day exploits, but whether you'll ever get a patch to secure them. XP will get ZERO patches after April 2014, so THERE"S your reason to do something.

      The rhetoric from MS clearly intends to scare enterprises into upgrading to Windows 7 or 8, but that's not really the important discussion. The more important point is what can be done, because there are ways to isolate the applications so there is zero internet activity (i.e. host-only connections in a virtualized environment). In addition, it's really short-sighted to leave a "mission-critical" application in an unsupported container. As an investor, I would be furious to learn that my appointed directors and executives had shirked their fiduciary responsibilities in the long-term just to slightly boost the corporate earnings in the short-term.

      Of course, if they had started the process when XP support was originally extended, there would be no issue now. Instead, they've kept putting off the long-term solution to benefit the short-term to the point where the short-term has become the long-term. Idiots.

      1. Gordan

        Re: Key Question Remains Unanswered

        @Captain Save-a-ho:

        Once they are no longer 0-day exploits, the malware exploiting those issues will be blocked elsewhere, either on the firewalls/filters or by the anti-malware software installed on the machine itself. So IMO it is a non issue.

        The concept of something being "supported" is 99% arse covering exercise by middle management anyway. In reality it doesn't gain you much when it comes to actually having a problem, other than having somebody to phone up who gets the blame while your business suffers either way.

        Anybody who is that concerned about supportability should not be implementing any systems based on closed, proprietary technology. If you are going to invest an eyewatering sum of money in an update, then you should be spending that money on technology that is open, open sourced, and based on ratified standards. That way at least you won't find yourself in the same situation again in 5 years' time. Otherwise you are merely repeating the same mistake.

    3. Duncan Macdonald

      Re: Key Question Remains Unanswered

      Orphan applications are a major reason for not upgrading. Many organisations have bits of software for which the sources are no longer available or which rely on features that are no longer supported. (In some cases the software came from a now defunct company, in other cases the employees that developed the application have left.)

      If the functions performed by these bits of software are important then the organisation has to decide which is better, running an old system or paying out for the software to be re-written to run on a new system. In many cases the decision will be to avoid the expenditure on a re-write unless it becomes unavoidable.

      (In some cases with the legal tangles with copyrights and software patents, rewriting an application that came from a defunct company could be a legal minefield.)

    4. Davidoff

      Re: Key Question Remains Unanswered

      "Why upgrade, regardless of EOL?"

      Let's see:

      XP 32bit (like all 32bit OSes which don't support full PAE) is limited to 4GB minus the expansion area which usually leaves you something in the ~3.5GB region as usable memory (the x64 version of XP was poorly supported when it was still current and is pretty crap compared to even Vista x64). Considering that entry level PCs nowadays come with 4GB RAM and that many applications gladly use (and need) more, XP's scheduler is also not great at handling modern multi-core processors (Vista made some noticable progress and Win7 and Win8 are from a different world in this regard).

      Hardware support in XP is also lacking. It knows nothing(*) about things like UEFI or the various power management modes of modern processors and chipsets, and the 32bit variant can't even handle storage over 2TB properly. Some things can be tacked on with additional tools, other can't.

      Security is another thing, MS has put a lot of effort into the successors to make them more secure.

      To your other points: corporate firewalls (or better: web gateways) occasionally fail to detect threats, either because of a bug, because of misconfiguration, or by design. Many corporate AV scanners (like Sophos) have pretty shoddy detection rates and aren't even triggered by lots of malware today. And locking down the PC often enough means rendering it unusable for the actual task at hand.

      All the things you listed are things that should be there *in addition* to a properly secured and updated PC. This should not be used as a mitigation for the lack of security updates, as it has been shown in many past cases like Conficker.

      "Remote desktop connectivity with dumb terminal thin clients also helps."

      Yes, well, unfortunately XP doesn't support RemoteFX which allows virtualized accelerated 3D graphics or even RDP 7.5, and proprietary solutions which provide accelerated graphics aren't cheap either. So in the end using XP may cost you more than using Win7 or Win8 while providing less flexibility.

      The fact remains that XP is nowadays simply inadequate if a computer is used for more than doing a bit of Office and surfing the web if contemporary applications are to be used, It's fine if you run the same old (and probably by now long unsupported) applications from the good ol' days on the same old hardware, but even then you should be aware that the world moves on.

      * 'Windowsxp Professional 64bit Edition' can handle EFI since it's for the Itanium platform, but that is unique to this version and platform.

      1. Gordan

        Re: Key Question Remains Unanswered


        So your argument is that you need support for more RAM and bigger disks even though the main point is that the same things are still being done with the same software (the latter point specifically being why people refuse to upgrade)? Sorry, that argument doesn't withstand scrutiny at all.

        If the corporate firewalls and AV software is leaking known malware such as trojans, then you are screwed either way, even with the new OS.

        Why on earth could you _possibly_ want accelerated 3D graphics in a corporate environment? Seriously, WTF? Most corporate grade PCs have Intel GMA GPUs which are only barely 3D capable in the first place.

        Finally, 64-bit XP is for x86-64, not for Itanium.

        Given the epic scale of the ignorance you have displayed in your comment I am seriously wondering if you are just deliberately trolling.

    5. Mark 65

      Re: Key Question Remains Unanswered

      Why upgrade? Hardware drivers. Once it's EOL you can kiss goodbye to them too. What are you going to run it on in the future when hardware starts to fail? Most enterprises use standardised hardware from the likes of HP etc so new desktops won't have the necessary drivers for XP as it's not like HP give a shit. Use a VM instead? That then means that you've already moved desktops to something else.

      Also you'd update for software compatibility as any new commercial software you want to use won't likely be compatible, licensed or supported on an EOL OS.

      In general you'd aim to update the desktops to 7 and leave the problem apps in VMs and/or on citrix and wait and see what 9 is like.

  20. Lee Dowling Silver badge

    In terms of business - we stuck on XP because it works and works the way we want. We can turn junk off. We can make things easier for our users (don't get me started on domain logons and kids). We haven't used IE since Firefox became viable (version 3/4?). It works on the oldest and the newest machines and works the same across the board and can be imaged easily (i.e. byte by byte) and moved to other / replacement machines. It doesn't cost the earth in annual renewals, or anything else MS want us to move to.

    In terms of personal use - I stuck on XP for the same reasons, and also because it runs all my games. I have a 7 pro licence sticker stuck to the bottom of my last laptop that came with it. It seems it would run 99% of my games if I could be bothered to go through the hassle of install and setup, but then so does the XP install. The XP install on that laptop has run through at least 4 machines in its lifetime and still works perfectly, so there was no need to install 7 when the laptop broke and I bought a new machine (oh, and my 7 license is locked to this particular machine should I ever decide to use it!). My office suite is LibreOffice. My browser is Opera. My IM is Pidgin. My programming/IDE is MinGW and Eclipse. Pretty much the only thing keeping me on XP is games. But the preferable alternative is *NOT* Windows 7 or 8 unless it has to be.

    I'm not currently willing to sacrifice my games, so Linux is out, but if Steam pull their finger out and do what they promise (i.e. Steam on Linux, and at least *most* of my games), Windows Anything won't see my personal machines again. My "other machines" (i.e. old desktops etc. that I use to do various things) are all Linux already, because they don't need to (and in some cases couldn't ever) run my games anyway. I don't get why I'd pay to put Windows on them, or go through the hassle of setting up Windows to be "just right" when they do everything I need them to do and I could just image them from one of my already-working installs (some of which have gone through 10+ distro major version upgrades in their lives).

    The problem that Microsoft has is partly self-inflicted by their IE-lock-ins, licensing schemes (especially for small education), costings and changes and partly just plain apathy on the part of their users. I don't care what the OS is underneath so long as it does what I need to, and I can install it when necessary. 99.9% of the time that means Linux wins for me, and I have one "main" machine that's on the easiest, cheapest, most "moveable" OS that runs my games - namely XP - for just that reason, gaming. And, nowadays, if you're not a gamer, you can do 99.9% of things EXACTLY THE SAME using a decent Linux setup (I'm not counting Ubuntu's new interface which seems to have caught Windows-disease and keeps getting in my way while trying to "help" me).

    Hell, most people on Windows that I see use Firefox or Chrome for browsing anyway. Most people are perfectly happy with LibreOffice (especially when they are told it's not some stupidly ridiculous price more than their laptop, as is common nowadays). Over and above that, it's a matter of hardware support (pretty much sorted nowadays) and gaming.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Steamed Penguins

      " if Steam pull their finger out and do what they promise (i.e. Steam on Linux, and at least *most* of my games), Windows Anything won't see my personal machines again"

      Amen to that!!

      BTW My organization is still installing Vista on desktops (anon.cow. to avoid embarrassing them)

    2. vmistery

      Couldn't agree with you more. And as much of the stuff I use is going web based such as my work email (accessed via roundcube), our case management system, our in house developed browser based software and google docs there wont be much need for me to use it at work either soon. All I 'need' most of the time is a good SSH client and a browser and probably Java for those odd Minecraft moments!

  21. Miek

    "The sticking points are Internet Explorer 6 and 7, as many big businesses have written critical apps for IE6 and 7 – which are off-limits on Windows 7." -- They should try writing critical apps properly then instead of donning their blinkers and coding for one specific browser. You never know: some of these people may learn a thing or two.

  22. Anonymous Coward

    And Windows Virtual PC?

    I think MS isn't telling us the whole story here. Either that or I misread.

    When you check out the Med-V Overview (TechNet link) you'll notice that it is a separate piece of software which allows you... Well, we read the articles here.

    But what about Virtual PC? Or put better: "Windows XP Mode"? These are totally different products, and Microsoft uses this as a sales argument because /only/ owners of Windows 7 Professional and higher are entitled to pick up "Windows XP mode" and use it on their Windows 7 environment. That would make me assume that "sold together with Win7 pro (or higher), thus one could expect support until Win7 pro (or higher) are themselves no longer supported".

  23. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Sewage. (no not that kind)

    I say, they like to sue people. Well, we have a global financial crisis, at a time when the is utter chaos to force people to upgrade is hardship. I say we should sue Microsoft, over and over and over just like the gun control fuckwads, every three to six months file a lawsuit and sue for the source code.

    Bill gates and the deadly vaccine eugenicists.

    Global warming and the geoengineering/monsanto fascists.

    In light of this I'd suggest they are war criminals.

    They owe us already, the whole fucking source code.

    Fuck this bullshit. Fuck these psychopaths.

  24. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I walked into Ford the other day....

    ...I wanted an EcoTec engine fitted to my 13 year old Focus, but apparently I'd have to buy a new car to use that engine, or turn to a 3rd party supplier to do a custom workaround.

    I DEMAND they keep updating my car for free and continue to throw thousands of man hours finding issues with it and repairing them for free!

    1. Anonymous Coward 101

      Re: I walked into Ford the other day....

      Brand new engines is one thing, but how would you feel if Ford decided that they would no longer supply replacement exhausts or suspension springs for your car?

      Also, people would be happy to purchase security updates for XP at a fair price.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: I DEMAND....

      it's not free, it's paid for when you buy windows.

      But you're right, the driver for upgrading windows is maintaining Microsoft's revenue stream not dealing with technological developments

    3. Lee Dowling Silver badge

      Re: I walked into Ford the other day....

      Nobody's asking Microsoft to provide the equivalent of SATA drivers for Windows 98. They are asking them to continue to support an existing OS with the capabilities it was released with. There's a big difference between a security patch, a patch to circumvent a crash and, for example, a patch to add USB 4.0 support to XP.

      If you notice, almost all the "drivers" for Windows XP now are not Microsoft ones any more. USB 3.0 machines, SATA controllers and those with integrated graphics come with chipset drivers from the manufacturer and nothing much works until you install them (i.e. you get VESA video modes via the standard MS drivers and no USB / SATA until you install the specific drivers).

      Nobody is expecting MS to push out fabulous functionality and top-end hardware support for XP. They don't want the Aero or Metro interfaces (that's part of the problem, really, and why they're still on XP!). They're asking not to be left in the lurch when there's a security problem.

  25. Magnus_Pym

    It's not like it's free.

    People keep saying why not upgrade? Well it costs money and if the return on investment isn't worth it then why do it? Because Microsoft want me to? F*** 'em.

    1. Davidoff

      Re: It's not like it's free.

      "People keep saying why not upgrade? Well it costs money and if the return on investment isn't worth it then why do it?"

      If that's the case then just don't update. Just don't expect anyone to support your old setup beyond the official EOL date.

      1. Magnus_Pym

        Re: It's not like it's free.

        "If that's the case then just don't update. Just don't expect anyone to support your old setup beyond the official EOL date."

        I don't. It's not the upgrading that annoys me it's the constant questioning of my motivation. "Come on don't be a cheapskate, Give Microsoft and Intel/AMD some more money", like it's a church raffle or something. It's not, it a rip off, a con to move money from the poor (me) to the rich (them). Spend my hard earned so I can do what I do now but with a number of small irritating changes built in? why? Because we I'm threatened with lack of support that I never use anyway? Because the bad people might find a fault they can exploit? - more likely in a new product than an old one I would have thought. Because they need the money to invest in brilliant and life changing new products? Yeah right.

        1. Lee Dowling Silver badge

          Re: It's not like it's free.

          I have to agree.

          I have never, in my entire professional life running networks, contacted MS support. Licensing, yes, but not support. If you're running XP and don't want to upgrade, that's up to the user, not the OS manufacturer.

          In isolated networks and systems, you DO NOT deploy every MS hotfix the second it comes out. Really. Because most of the time you end up with at least one computer that takes exception to it and blue-screens or exhibits some other problem. Sure, you could wipe machines clean every time there's a hotfix but that's literally monthly. For the months of testing that every hotfix takes to check, you are "vulnerable" anyway.

          And to the average home user, or someone who has secured their network and uses the computer sensibly, there's no need to deploy every single hotfix and service pack immediately or, I would argue, at all.

          So what, exactly, are you going to lose when EOL comes around? No more hotfixes. When was the last hotfix you applied? What would the new hotfix fix? What vulnerabilities are unpatched after EOL that weren't before EOL? (Hint: There will ALWAYS be some that are STILL unpatched even now, but MS just don't care or can't fix it).

          If you're running the PC on an isolated network, if you're sensible about what you do to it, if you're the only user, it pretty much doesn't matter what OS or version of it you run. Hell, I still have Linux 2.0 embedded devices hanging around on my network. They are probably wildly exploitable if you can access them. But because I'm the only person who has access to them and I'm not likely to expose their flaws or exploit them, it doesn't matter. What matters infinitely more is your frontline (i.e. what sort of border security do you have?), your users (i.e. is there anyone other than you, do they follow established procedures, do they have rights to do things that might be dangerous?), and your productivity.

          For work, yes, XP looks like little old now but, to be honest, we've held on BECAUSE we were hoping that a viable alternative would appear before XP was put to rest, but that doesn't seem to be happening so we may have to accept a loss of productivity on our next upgrade. The fact is, though, that our users aren't malicious (just stupid) and our borders are secured and permissions are locked down (which cures most stupidity). And even with the most up-to-date computers in the world, the same viruses and malware would still get through if a user is stupid enough to click "OK" on a security message. Sure, you *COULD* exploit the machines at the moment if you were seriously determined to do so but almost certainly not remotely (no ports exposed, for a start), and not without arousing suspicion. And you'd get local admin on a machine on a network that doesn't really house anything interesting anyway for your efforts (because anything interesting like payroll etc. is segregated).

          But for personal use? EOL doesn't scare me still. Hell, there's only 118 hotfixes that I haven't installed yet waiting for me (not counting IE updates, "anti-malware", etc.) on my main computer when I go to Windows Update.

          So MS support for my own personal machine means precisely zip. I've never used their support channels (which are universally worthless), only their free online knowledgebase (which is only occasionally worthless). I've got their automatic updates turned off and have had for years (too many cases of "It said it was applying updates and now it won't boot" coming through my door over the years). The cost, to me, of a full, remote compromise of my personal XP machine is about the equivalent of a hard drive failure of that same machine. Reinstall from clean image, block off the entry route that caused the problem, carry on. The probability of such happening is rapidly approaching zero (15+ years of verified virus- and malware-free computing despite never once owning an antivirus or antimalware product). Thus the comparative "risk" is so near zero that it doesn't matter.

          But, hell, I've got a decent firewall on the network and OpenVPN-over-WPA2 on the wireless (which blows visitors minds!). If you can get past that to send packets to a machine or make me click on a link, it pretty much wouldn't have mattered WHAT I had anyway.

          It's a question of risk analysis. Most business have held-off on Windows Vista / 7 / 8 because the money they spend may never result in a productivity or security increase at all. Now they are being "forced" to upgrade, they reconsider and stick to their decision for yet-another-year. When EOL comes around, they will reconsider again. If your risk analysis says you must move, then you would have done years ago (e.g. I would hope banks and large corporations had moved or at least moved to secured, virtualised instances of some kind by now). If your risk analysis sees no gain, then you won't move until it DOES see a gain. And, eventually, people will move off XP - just because it can be tricky to support on new hardware, if nothing else.

          But if MS *really* wanted you to move off XP, Metro would come with an option to universally disable it, the start menu would still be present in 8 in a "classic" mode, and other literally-two-minute changes to their code would have people moving across in droves. They're not particularly interested in you moving off XP at the moment, for some reason. They are more interested in getting you onto their cloud services, it seems, into annual contracts, their app stores, etc. If you are going to move only to not use that junk then, for some reason, they don't want you at all. At least, that's the impression I get.

  26. Mage Silver badge

    Extended support for Windows XP finishes on 8 April 2014,


    less than 2 years to get to terms with Linux or write a replacement.

    Of course unlike "eat within two days of opening" cooked meats, XP won't go "off" immediately. Whatever we move to it won't be Apple Candy or MS Metro shiny windows.

    Hundreds of MS CDs and DVDs here. Won't be buying more product from them. Unless maybe a games console for some kids...

  27. bofh80

    The blind leading the blind

    So, no one notices microsoft's idiomatic tendencies at work here?

    They created their own browser to lock people into windows.

    And it WORKED.


    How is that microsoft can have a compatibility mode to run windows 95 apps, yet somehow getting IE9 to run them is 'impossible'. Or simply recompiling ie7 on windblows 7.


    Stupid is. Stupid does.

    1. Christian Berger

      Re: The blind leading the blind

      Well they could alternatively make it possible to run 2 different versions of IE, however that clashes with the idea of deeply integrating the browser into the rest of the operating system.

      Microsoft currently tries something they should have done ages ago. They try to "reboot" their products. (Un)fortunately they are only doing this half-assed. That's why there still is a win32 API in Windows 7. One one hand, this doesn't help cutting down the mess that's called Windows, on the other hand it doesn't provide 100% compatibility.

      People always bought Microsoft Product for their claimed compatibility. MS-Dos was seen as a decent way to run CP/M Software (I think it needed some minor porting). Windows 386 allowed you to run multiple DOS Windows at once. Windows 95 claimed to run all your Windows 3.1 software, and Windows 2000 was claimed to run your Windows 95 software. In fact it wasn't uncommon for people to run DOS software under Windows 2000.

      People, particular business users, don't care about new features. They want to run their old software.

  28. This post has been deleted by its author

  29. roger stillick

    our XP machines now running Linux mint

    We knew this was coming and trialed our IP on both PDF and netscape HTML format starting last September...

    Mule, a Greybox w/ M98 ser2 running a LOTUS Smart Suite small enterprise platform that had automated our small business functions failed due to code by MS bricking M98, making it unstable ( September 2011 )...

    We are a Model Railroad Club that travels to Train Shows... a Nonprofit... any Mechanized Record keeping we do takes away from funds that could be spent doing things...Throwing away a USD-425.00 program was a really big hit on our bottom line... a Nonprofit...We resolved to not have this happen again...

    We purchased 3 USB hi capacity storage drives, offloaded the Mule IP to new file systems on those drives, and made sure the stuff worked on a Linux laptop, took 10 months....During that time the Mule got Linux software and the hi end HP peripherals got working on Linux drivers in the Mule ( getting Smart Suite replacement= soon )...

    What does have to do with WinXP end -of -life ?? We have a DVD production laptop that we did not buy the Linux suite for when new= got XP home export instead (never,ever, updated ) mostly for video production software in MS format...the EOL stuff posted here on Reg for XP triggered an offload to external drives and a redo of the laptop to Linux Mint...2 months later I'm writing you on the DVD production laptop...

    No more MS for those of us who didn't want it in the first place... We went from Commodore 64 ( worked just fine for 5 years ) to IBM PC's and Laptop's with MS OS's in 1989...and the fun started, a constant redo of our stuff ( we repurchased MS works 3 times and redid the IP 3 times= thinking it was OK )

    This is NOT OK, this whole thing was one huge time waster= OUR DOCUMENTS ORIGINALLY RAN on UNIX Release 4.0 on a Unix Laptop and serial printer... We got talked out of it, and went with 8 bit Commodore...

    We spent 23 years on this nonsense... do no have to any more...IMHO

  30. Unicornpiss

    Ya know...

    MS could still extend the end of life date if there's enough outcry, though they probably won't. XP has had a long, good run, and I still vastly prefer it in an Enterprise environment to Win 7. Some pet peeves about Win 7:

    -The wizards to connect to a network, etc. are designed for your grandmother maybe, but they're a pain in the ass for anyone with a grain of intelligence, and the "troubleshoot my problem" has about a 20% chance of getting it right.

    -If MS was going to go away from Netmeeting, they should have had a backwards-compatible replacement, not the joke that is its 'replacement'.

    -What happened to the little 'lights' applet that shows you network activity? Too confusing for 1% of the population?

    -Why is there no progress meter for hibernation any more?

    -What's up with the idiotic video settings applet that shows you monitor 1|2 as being the same screen when it feels like it? Yes, this clarifies things...

    -The whole Start Menu structure.

    -UAC, nuff' said.

    -The "trail of bread crumbs" view in the address bar, and how it manages to never do what you want, when you want it to. And the lack of an "up a level button".

    MS, like so many companies, doesn't realize the merits of preserving a good thing, or at least incorporating tried n' true features its next generation product. Redesigning the UI every few years instead of building on what you have is as idiotic as stores that rearrange their wares every year or so in the hopes that you will buy more if you have to look longer for what you want. Maybe some people are taken in, but it just pisses most of us off...

  31. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Microsoft already say Windows XP is OK till 2016

    Microsoft Windows XP Professional is available through December 2016

    "1. What is the difference between Windows XP Pro and Windows XP Pro for Embedded Systems?

    Windows XP Pro for Embedded Systems contains the same software bits and operates identically to Windows XP Pro. Windows XP Pro for Embedded Systems has licensing restrictions which restrict its use to an embedded solution."

    Just make sure you buy it from the right place. There'll be plenty of folk on eBay willing to help you soon, just like there are already Microsoft Authorized Refurbishers on there who will sell you an XP PC with a genuine XP CoA. Shipping the refurb PC to you is optional, because all that sensible people really want is the XP CoA, to go on a PC they bought elsewhere (probably with Vista).

  32. mfritz0

    I migrated... Right to Linux

    I'm running SuSE_12.1 right now, makes this laptop run 5 times better than it ever did with Windows XP. This laptop is 11 years old and it runs almost as good as my HP core 2 Desktop running Windows Vista. I'm changing that to Linux too after I find the time.

  33. Faszination

    What's the problem?

    This is ridiculous. Its about time Microsoft phased out XP support, not before time in my opinion. The old excuses of 'I have a CNC machine that runs Win98' or 'if it ain't broke don't fix it' just don't cut it to be honest.

    The fact of the matter is, technology is changing, the infrastructure we work on is evolving in ways that we need to take advantage of and stubbornly refusing to upgrade because 'you don't like an interface' or 'don't want to pay' is bullsh*t. A machine manufacturer might well have designed a piece of equipment to run for decades but in my experience they are blinkered in the their views and their abilities and almost always write their control code to be utterly incompatible with even the smallest update.

    Besides, they usually end up going out of business before issues like O/S updates are required anyway.

    In my opinion, if you choose to continue running XP, 98 or even 3.11 then its effectively your IT funeral when something fails or is compromised by a virus or malware - why should your support company or MS care about that?! You've been warned often enough!

    Upgrade and lose the luddite attitude or stop moaning.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: "Upgrade and lose the luddite attitude or stop moaning."

      I assume based on what you wrote that you're not financially responsible for anything significant, and don't have a clue about what "cost effectiveness" and "fitness for purpose" means.

  34. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

    "MED-V is designed to only serve as a temporary solution for remediation. The end game should be the modernization or replacement of the application(s) in question."

    The question I have is this: if I have to buy replacement software - or recode the software I have - why would or should the replacement software be locked into the Microsoft ecosystem one more time? If I must do this - because Microsoft are withdrawing support for the platform I use - then why wouldn't I simply invest my money in standards-compliant software? HTML 5, JAVA or so forth?

    If it must be a native app, why not code it for Linux? That way I can deliver as an "App-V" style X11 solution to any desktop I want (using any client operating system I want) without lock-in or licensing issues.

    In sort: if you force us out of the locked-down ecosystem you yourself created, who among us should be mad enough to lock ourselves in to the garden one more time?

    Honestly curious how that logic works...

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like