![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Charlie+ wrote:
1) Has Milkro$oft published anything regarding how long they will be keeping their update server on-line to provide the library of XP patches and updates for anyone caring to download them? 2) Has Milkro$oft published anything regarding how long they will be keeping their validation server running to perform on-line validation of new installations of XP? No and No Fine. A straightforward, concise, honest answer. and dont expect MS to answer these questions either, why should they tie their own hands in any way by guessing into the future? And a sycophantic answer from a Macro$haft appologist, covering for them and explaining away their cowardly behavior in not deciding to carve a date in stone regarding two very important aspects of the life cycle of one of their products. Really - there is no reason to defend Micro$haft in that manner. You can at least admit that they are acting like cowards by not having the balls to declare some sort of date for the ending of those 2 services. There is precedent for the update server to no longer supply or be functional for one or two of their products, as WindowsUpdate went dark for win-98 I think 2 years after win98 EOL. I don't know what happened for Win-2k in that regard - I presume that WindowsUpdate service no longer functions for win2k - correct? But in any case, it came as a surprise when the update service failed for win-98. But there is -NO- precedent for Meekro$oft turning off its validation server or failing to validate product keys, and I think it's cowardly for such an organization to not announce publicly what their police is or will be for such an important function, and anyone involved in IT would be correct in expecting to see such a policy in writing. |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sat, 29 Mar 2014 09:20:09 -0400, XP Guy wrote:
There is precedent for the update server to no longer supply or be functional for one or two of their products, as WindowsUpdate went dark for win-98 I think 2 years after win98 EOL. I don't know what happened for Win-2k in that regard - I presume that WindowsUpdate service no longer functions for win2k - correct? But in any case, it came as a surprise when the update service failed for win-98. I've read a new post somewhere in Windows XP newsgroup a few months ago. One Windows 2000 user said that the auto update server is still working. Even if the Windows XP auto update server has stopped working, you can still do a manual update. Microsoft already provide a DVD ISO that contains security updates up until March 11th 2014. http://support.microsoft.com/kb/913086 Newer updates if any, won't be that many and troublesome for manual downloads. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 03/30/2014 01:46 AM, JJ wrote:
On Sat, 29 Mar 2014 09:20:09 -0400, XP Guy wrote: There is precedent for the update server to no longer supply or be functional for one or two of their products, as WindowsUpdate went dark for win-98 I think 2 years after win98 EOL. I don't know what happened for Win-2k in that regard - I presume that WindowsUpdate service no longer functions for win2k - correct? But in any case, it came as a surprise when the update service failed for win-98. I've read a new post somewhere in Windows XP newsgroup a few months ago. One Windows 2000 user said that the auto update server is still working. That might have been me. I was given a Win2k server that had been out of use for a number of years and I tired to update it and sure enough I was able to do so. Even if the Windows XP auto update server has stopped working, you can still do a manual update. Microsoft already provide a DVD ISO that contains security updates up until March 11th 2014. http://support.microsoft.com/kb/913086 Newer updates if any, won't be that many and troublesome for manual downloads. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
JJ wrote:
On Sat, 29 Mar 2014 09:20:09 -0400, XP Guy wrote: There is precedent for the update server to no longer supply or be functional for one or two of their products, as WindowsUpdate went dark for win-98 I think 2 years after win98 EOL. I don't know what happened for Win-2k in that regard - I presume that WindowsUpdate service no longer functions for win2k - correct? But in any case, it came as a surprise when the update service failed for win-98. I've read a new post somewhere in Windows XP newsgroup a few months ago. One Windows 2000 user said that the auto update server is still working. Even if the Windows XP auto update server has stopped working, you can still do a manual update. Microsoft already provide a DVD ISO that contains security updates up until March 11th 2014. http://support.microsoft.com/kb/913086 Newer updates if any, won't be that many and troublesome for manual downloads. It appears to me looking at that site that the ISO only contains the updates released that month. Do you know otherwise? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 30/03/2014 07:46, JJ wrote:
Even if the Windows XP auto update server has stopped working, you can still do a manual update. Microsoft already provide a DVD ISO that contains security updates up until March 11th 2014. http://support.microsoft.com/kb/913086 Newer updates if any, won't be that many and troublesome for manual downloads. You mean to say ISOs for monthly updates. They are not cumulative so you need to download all the ISOs since SP3 was released. If anybody continues to insist using XP then updates are of no relevance because any time after May 2014, the XP machines would be a weak-link anyway because no new updates would be released for it. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Good Guy wrote:
any time after May 2014 the XP machines would be a weak-link anyway because no new updates would be released for it. Aside from being tricked into clicking on a spam attachment and running trojan-dropper code, it's probably been the case for a few years now that the average home and soho XP system is hacked via a vulnerability in some Adobe product (flash or acrobat) or a vulnerability in the browser (Firefox, chrome, etc). For XP users that use primarily IE, then yes, WindozeUpdate fixes for IE are useful. But for XP users that don't touch IE but use some other browser, then it's not likely that any Windozeupdates to come down the pipe over the last couple of years has actually patched a vulnerability that would have been of any benefit to that system. In other words, IE patches aside, WindozeUpdates for XP is largely irrelavent and has been for the past 2 or 3 years, because the typical home/soho system is hacked either by running a malicious spam attachment or through a weakness in a Mozilla or Adobe product. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
XP Guy wrote:
In other words, IE patches aside, WindozeUpdates for XP is largely irrelavent and has been for the past 2 or 3 years, because the typical home/soho system is hacked either by running a malicious spam attachment or through a weakness in a Mozilla or Adobe product. Add Sun (Oriface) Java to that relatively short list. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|