Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

Vista losing support


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 mugs001

mugs001

  • Members
  • 6 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:03:26 AM

Posted 27 March 2010 - 01:16 AM

Since Vista is losing support should I go to W7 to be safe and secure?

"Support for Windows Vista without any service packs will end April 13th, 2010. After that, you will no longer be able to get security updates."

What does this mean exactly? That the normal process of Microsoft's tracking of exploitations by virus makers and creating patches/updates to answer those exploitations will stop?

For me it's a bit pricey right now to spend the money for W7 and if Vista would be safe for me (with me keeping on top of routine scanning) then I'd just stay with it but I'd want to be safe and If I have to upgrade then I will.

Any thoughts?

BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 Rich G.

Rich G.

  • Members
  • 13 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:07:26 AM

Posted 27 March 2010 - 07:33 AM

This is news to me that they are pulling support from Vista. I only left XP last year to run one program. As I will have to make the same decision, here are my thoughts.

The first thing is hardware. Although I have a fast machine I did lose one card when I upgraded to Vista. So, the first thing that I would have to look at is each piece of hardware, and check the available drivers with each manufacturer to see if the hardware can be reused. 7 hasn't been out long enough for all the drivers to be updated---this comes from experience. Make a short list for replacements. The next is 7's requirements---what they say and what you really need are two things. Remember the memory fiascoes in the past?

The next is your software. What will REALLY run in 7? I was happy with XP. One program said it would run in XP---but it really only ran well in Vista. I expect that programs will hit the dust in 7. You will need to check your software, and don't forget to check all the plugins and add-ons. Some may not work yet.

Add up the $$$$. Is it worth it?

Personally, I am going to take a hard look at MS products. They are built on an old engine that was constructed when people trusted people---that's why we have patches upon patches now in today's' environment. They need to step back and develop a "New" concept in a new secure operating system. Period. It would probably be hardware hell changing over, but it would be worth it if it was really secure. I object to having to add/change hardware just to support a patched and bloated OS full of useless "features". When I converted to Vista, XP had close to 100 patches, maybe more. Today my Vista has more than 100 patches. Do I really want a product that is that much of a problem? 7 has only been out for 5 months, I wonder what the patch count is right now. I object strongly that MS is pulling the rug on Vista when it's replacement hasn't been out for a year yet and already has problems. I am taking a hard look at other options because of MS security issues-----I am tired of the aggravation. I want a secure product, but Microsoft seems to feel that "double windows on the desktop" and other fluff "features" are more important than delivering a rock-solid secure product.

I have a good virus checker, BitDefender, and will probably add Prevex as a separate Anti-Malware program. Right now I am satisfied with my configuration and will probably stay as is. I just purchased an app that was already a year old---the "new" one was already out. I was not interested in paying more for the new useless "features". Maybe we should do that with operating systems. If the new Linux desktop operating systems could easily run the Windows apps---I would change in a New York Minute! I am watching the new Ubuntu release closely. But right now I see nothing in 7 that would make me run out and spend $$$ just to say I have it.

Rich

#3 Platypus

Platypus

  • Moderator
  • 14,477 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia
  • Local time:09:26 PM

Posted 27 March 2010 - 07:41 AM

Support for Windows Vista without any service packs will end April 13th, 2010.

It means a Vista system will need at least Service Pack 1 installed in order to obtain security updates. Support for the Service Pack level of an OS rolls over periodically - Service Pack 2 has just been released, and in due course, support for Vista at SP1 level will cease, and then everyone will need to have SP2 installed to get updates, etc.

Top 5 things that never get done:

1.


#4 mugs001

mugs001
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 6 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:03:26 AM

Posted 27 March 2010 - 11:05 AM

Hey everyone, thanks alot for your input!

I got the first quote from the Microsoft site but yes, now from another page there I see the statement with the "without any service packs" qualification.

However just below that I see this,

"Support for Windows XP with Service Pack 2 (SP2) will end on July 13, 2010."

So I guess my original question still stands.

#5 rayj0054

rayj0054

  • Members
  • 126 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Location:texas
  • Local time:06:26 AM

Posted 27 March 2010 - 04:52 PM

support packages for service packs generally run for 2 years therefore if you install service pack3 to your xp os you will recieve support until 2014

#6 Platypus

Platypus

  • Moderator
  • 14,477 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia
  • Local time:09:26 PM

Posted 27 March 2010 - 09:33 PM

Yes, same for all operating systems - as support for each Service Pack is withdrawn, the OS must be at the supported Service Pack level to receive updates. So XP will have to have SP3 after July 13th, 2010.

If this was not done, the online update process would get slower and slower, as each system that came online for updates would have to be checked for completed updates right back to original issue. Currently the Windows Updater has to check if XP has SP2, then check if it has the updates issued since SP2. After Jul 13th, it will check for SP3, then only have to confirm the presence of updates issued after SP3. The same process will occur in due course if a SP4 is ever issued.

The time taken to update is not just a convenience/practicality issue either. An out-of date and unpatched OS may not be able to be updated quickly enough online to avoid infection. This is the case with XP without SP1. For example a system that was restored to factory release XP Gold would now be so vulnerable online that it could not be guaranteed to be updated in time to prevent it from suffering an immediate infection, so there's no point still supporting it.

Edited by Platypus, 27 March 2010 - 10:14 PM.

Top 5 things that never get done:

1.


#7 mugs001

mugs001
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 6 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:03:26 AM

Posted 27 March 2010 - 11:56 PM

That helps alot. Thanks everyone!

#8 Rich G.

Rich G.

  • Members
  • 13 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:07:26 AM

Posted 28 March 2010 - 06:03 AM

Yes, same for all operating systems - as support for each Service Pack is withdrawn, the OS must be at the supported Service Pack level to receive updates. So
The time taken to update is not just a convenience/practicality issue either. An out-of date and unpatched OS may not be able to be updated quickly enough online to avoid infection. This is the case with XP without SP1. For example a system that was restored to factory release XP Gold would now be so vulnerable online that it could not be guaranteed to be updated in time to prevent it from suffering an immediate infection, so there's no point still supporting it.



You have made some interesting comments about immediate infection. Do you have any detailed data or a site reference to support your comments? I guess you are assuming in your example "Gold" there are no virus or other protective programs running while an update is being performed. The first program that should be installed and run is a anti-virus program---then do updates. Following your comments it would be impossible to do a complete reinstall as you would be starting before SP1 and would be infected before you finished. A little hysteria here.

#9 Platypus

Platypus

  • Moderator
  • 14,477 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia
  • Local time:09:26 PM

Posted 28 March 2010 - 08:52 AM

A little hysteria here.

Not really. It's just an illustration of one of the reasons older Service Packs roll out of support. It's a worst-case scenario but it still has to be allowed for - I remember it happening to people.

I guess you are assuming in your example "Gold" there are no virus or other protective programs running while an update is being performed.

Yes. That's why I nominated a system being "restored". The user of an old namebrand system could use the "factory restore" option if their OS became corrupted, and not be tech-savvy enough to allow that restoring to factory condition will lose them all subsequent updates, and their third-party security software. A system restored to original release XP or SP1 will not have the Windows Firewall turned on by default, and will be vulnerable from the time it makes an internet connection.

Following your comments it would be impossible to do a complete reinstall as you would be starting before SP1 and would be infected before you finished.

At one time it was pretty much impossible for someone to do an "out-of-the-box" XP reinstall and update on-line if they didn't recognise the extra precautions they needed to take. It is impossible now to do a complete reinstall that way, since you can't update prior to SP2 online. The system should be updated to the highest service pack from CD/DVD, flash drive or whatever, along with anti-virus updated to the most current signatures and third-party firewall if desired, then do the remaining updates.

You have made some interesting comments about immediate infection. Do you have any detailed data or a site reference to support your comments?

Here is an example:

http://blogs.chron.com/techblog/archives/2..._minutes_1.html

Top 5 things that never get done:

1.


#10 Rich G.

Rich G.

  • Members
  • 13 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:07:26 AM

Posted 28 March 2010 - 04:41 PM

http://blogs.chron.com/techblog/archives/2..._minutes_1.html
[/quote]

Thanks for the reference. I went to the site to see if they had current data---it seems that the time is now down to around 2 to 3 minutes. As you and I both agree anti-virus and any other related software should be installed prior to going online for any updating.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users