MC and others agree to pay for extencded updates.

micky wrote:
On Wed, 19 Mar 2014 09:27:26 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:

| Customers like Morgan Chase and some other big banks have agreed with
| MS to pay for extended secuirty (and other?) updates for XP, after April
| 8, when security and other updates are scheduled to end.
|

Yes. They'll make the patches. But they won't let
the general public get them. Your purchase has "expired".

Well my question is, How long before someone in the computer dept. at
one of these banks etc decides to distribute the patches for free, or
profit? Will they have a unique id? They don't now, do they?

Anyhow if he and someone from another company compares their two
versions, they should be able to find the unique id and de-unique it.

Yes, but your hypothesis is there is some compelling value
to these updates. How do you know that ?

The AV company providing tools to such an "extended support" customer,
will be covering the OS whether the patch is in place or not. If the
"extended support" customer cannot get protection for WinXP, they'd
have to switch out of it anyway. Maybe move to BeOS or something :-)

A support story, needs both patches and an AV strategy. In a business,
it isn't good enough for your IT department to apologize, when nobody
can work. There has to be a more complete support picture.

And Microsoft will be working, behind the scenes, pushing developers
to use .NET 4.5, so nobody can buy software for their WinXP machines.
So on the one hand, you bought your "extended support", but Microsoft
is still working to make your WinXP as in-compatible as they can manage.
And .NET 4.5 and other changing strategies, is how they'll do it.

Imagine if the very next Microsoft Office, doesn't support WinXP.
I can see a few sad faces in the IT department then. Or a few
Linux/LibreOffice converts. There are many forces pulling on the
situation, all at the same time. More destructive than constructive
forces.

A real question would be, if business is going to skip Windows 8,
what happens if Windows 9 is a continuation of the Windows 8
business strategy ? What then ? Windows 9 had better have
"zero training costs" and a good migration strategy. Not like
the mess that exists now. Maybe business will adopt ChromeBooks
for their employees. The possibilities are endless, especially
when the price is taken into account.

Paul

Paul wrote:
micky wrote:
On Wed, 19 Mar 2014 09:27:26 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:

Customers like Morgan Chase and some other big banks have agreed with
MS to pay for extended secuirty (and other?) updates for XP, after
April
8, when security and other updates are scheduled to end.


Yes. They'll make the patches. But they won't let
the general public get them. Your purchase has "expired".

Well my question is, How long before someone in the computer dept. at
one of these banks etc decides to distribute the patches for free, or
profit? Will they have a unique id? They don't now, do they?

Anyhow if he and someone from another company compares their two
versions, they should be able to find the unique id and de-unique it.

Yes, but your hypothesis is there is some compelling value
to these updates. How do you know that ?

The AV company providing tools to such an "extended support" customer,
will be covering the OS whether the patch is in place or not. If the
"extended support" customer cannot get protection for WinXP, they'd
have to switch out of it anyway. Maybe move to BeOS or something :-)

A support story, needs both patches and an AV strategy. In a business,
it isn't good enough for your IT department to apologize, when nobody
can work. There has to be a more complete support picture.

And Microsoft will be working, behind the scenes, pushing developers
to use .NET 4.5, so nobody can buy software for their WinXP machines.
So on the one hand, you bought your "extended support", but Microsoft
is still working to make your WinXP as in-compatible as they can manage.
And .NET 4.5 and other changing strategies, is how they'll do it.

But is there that much software that is so indispensible (or irreplaceable
with other alternative programs) that it even needs NET 3.0 or above? (I
could almost make the case for NET 2.0, but I agree that version is at least
handy to have for a few apps).

Imagine if the very next Microsoft Office, doesn't support WinXP.
I can see a few sad faces in the IT department then. Or a few
Linux/LibreOffice converts. There are many forces pulling on the
situation, all at the same time. More destructive than constructive
forces.

I'm not sure why anyone would actually *need* anything better than Office
2003 or Office 2007 (and that dumb ribbon) to do *actual* work.

And who really wants or needs to go to Office 365, with that stupid MS
(cloud based?) subscription model? (also like the latest versions of
Photoshop and some other Adobe products, as I recall).

I'm hoping that this MS and Adobe annual software subscription model falls
flat. Unfortunately, I doubt if it will, however, as everyone thinks they
have to have the "latest" and "greatest" versions of everything or they'll
"look bad". (We're not talking about needing cutting edge Hollywood video
editors here)

A real question would be, if business is going to skip Windows 8,
what happens if Windows 9 is a continuation of the Windows 8
business strategy ? What then ? Windows 9 had better have
"zero training costs" and a good migration strategy. Not like
the mess that exists now. Maybe business will adopt ChromeBooks
for their employees. The possibilities are endless, especially
when the price is taken into account.

Paul

| And Microsoft will be working, behind the scenes, pushing developers
| to use .NET 4.5, so nobody can buy software for their WinXP machines.
| So on the one hand, you bought your "extended support", but Microsoft
| is still working to make your WinXP as in-compatible as they can manage.
| And .NET 4.5 and other changing strategies, is how they'll do it.
|

That's an interesting idea. But .Net has always been a tool
mainly for customers, not for MS or their partners.
I had to install .Net 2.0 recently only because I built a new
computer and the onboard chip is ATI (which AMD apparently
bought out). ATI unfortunately uses .Net for their display
applet. Up to now I've never had any .Net framework installed,
and I wouldn't use any software that requires it. There's just
no good reason to use it for Desktop software, or to be saddled
with such a bloated support package. And there hasn't been
any difficulty in avoiding it.

And these days MS is trying to push Metro apps, telling
the DotNetters, "Don't worry. You can use .Net to write
the new trinket apps. .Net will work as well as javascript
for that." Ironically, .Net was actually intended for use writing
"web services" and to compete with Java server-side. That's
how long MS has been trying to push their services scam.
Now .Net is 12+ years old and being "deprecated".

The thing I fear more than incompatibility is
lockdown. .Net, code signing, NTFS permissions, WinRT and
Metro have all served a dual purpose: On the surface they
represent potential security and stability improvements, but
they also represent steps in locking down the Windows API
in preparation for a services interface.

Another aspect of this is that Microsoft is actually twisting
their own arm by providing corporate support. In the past
they've been very good about backward compatibility because
business customers require it. By supporting XP they're putting
themselves in a position where they need to support XP software
as well.
At this point XP is over 12 years old and still widely
supported. Apple, by comparison, generally supports about
2 years (2 versions) back. Since Apple won't support their own
products, software developers also don't. It's easy not to notice
how bad Apple is if one doesn't use it, but awhile back I was
helping a blind friend who needed to download some kind of
special purpose software. I've forgotten what the software was,
but it was available in Mac and Windows versions. The Windows
version supported Win2000+ (1999). The Mac version supported
the version before last. (About 2 years) Fortunately he was
using an XP computer that I had built for him. If he'd had a
Mac it would have been time to buy another new one.

I don't mean to imply that the Microsofties are acting with
honesty or decency. Just that since their main customer,
in their own eyes, is the corporate world, they're forced to
maintain backward compatibility as long as those companies
are running software they've written for an earlier version of
Windows.

Mayayana wrote:
| And Microsoft will be working, behind the scenes, pushing developers
| to use .NET 4.5, so nobody can buy software for their WinXP machines.
| So on the one hand, you bought your "extended support", but Microsoft
| is still working to make your WinXP as in-compatible as they can manage.
| And .NET 4.5 and other changing strategies, is how they'll do it.
|

That's an interesting idea. But .Net has always been a tool
mainly for customers, not for MS or their partners.
I had to install .Net 2.0 recently only because I built a new
computer and the onboard chip is ATI (which AMD apparently
bought out). ATI unfortunately uses .Net for their display
applet. Up to now I've never had any .Net framework installed,
and I wouldn't use any software that requires it. There's just
no good reason to use it for Desktop software, or to be saddled
with such a bloated support package. And there hasn't been
any difficulty in avoiding it.

And these days MS is trying to push Metro apps, telling
the DotNetters, "Don't worry. You can use .Net to write
the new trinket apps. .Net will work as well as javascript
for that." Ironically, .Net was actually intended for use writing
"web services" and to compete with Java server-side. That's
how long MS has been trying to push their services scam.
Now .Net is 12+ years old and being "deprecated".

The thing I fear more than incompatibility is
lockdown. .Net, code signing, NTFS permissions, WinRT and
Metro have all served a dual purpose: On the surface they
represent potential security and stability improvements, but
they also represent steps in locking down the Windows API
in preparation for a services interface.

Another aspect of this is that Microsoft is actually twisting
their own arm by providing corporate support. In the past
they've been very good about backward compatibility because
business customers require it. By supporting XP they're putting
themselves in a position where they need to support XP software
as well.
At this point XP is over 12 years old and still widely
supported. Apple, by comparison, generally supports about
2 years (2 versions) back. Since Apple won't support their own
products, software developers also don't. It's easy not to notice
how bad Apple is if one doesn't use it, but awhile back I was
helping a blind friend who needed to download some kind of
special purpose software. I've forgotten what the software was,
but it was available in Mac and Windows versions. The Windows
version supported Win2000+ (1999). The Mac version supported
the version before last. (About 2 years) Fortunately he was
using an XP computer that I had built for him. If he'd had a
Mac it would have been time to buy another new one.

I don't mean to imply that the Microsofties are acting with
honesty or decency. Just that since their main customer,
in their own eyes, is the corporate world, they're forced to
maintain backward compatibility as long as those companies
are running software they've written for an earlier version of
Windows.


Actually, I see one other troubling trend.

I had my Windows 8 disk drive connected up, and I was
booted into Win8. I tried to install a copy of Netscape
Communicator 4.76 or so, and the OS stopped the installation.
The browser was blacklisted, and not allowed to install.

I don't particularly like this capability. And that example
constitutes abuse by Microsoft. It's one thing to blacklist
their own software (prevent Windows Virtual PC from
running in Windows 8), but it's quite another to
stop any third party tool from installing. No
matter how well intentioned, this is *wrong*.

My desktop is not a fondleslab or a phone.
And I don't need "Big Brother" to help me run it thanks.
If I bork the OS by installing that software, that's
my business.

I ended up using WinXP for my Netscape Communicator temporary
install and test. Because WinXP wouldn't pull something like that.
I was trying to remember whether it was Netscape Communicator
which had the FTP retry capability (if a download stops,
you can pick up where you left off - requires server-side
support as well). I seem to remember some browser in the
past as having that capability.

Paul

| I had my Windows 8 disk drive connected up, and I was
| booted into Win8. I tried to install a copy of Netscape
| Communicator 4.76 or so, and the OS stopped the installation.
| The browser was blacklisted, and not allowed to install.
|

I haven't heard of that and couldn't find anything online.
Do you know what's doing the blacklisting, or what they're
calling this "feature"? If they're really blocking software
that's a whole new level of brazeness.

Mayayana wrote:
| I had my Windows 8 disk drive connected up, and I was
| booted into Win8. I tried to install a copy of Netscape
| Communicator 4.76 or so, and the OS stopped the installation.
| The browser was blacklisted, and not allowed to install.
|

I haven't heard of that and couldn't find anything online.
Do you know what's doing the blacklisting, or what they're
calling this "feature"? If they're really blocking software
that's a whole new level of brazeness.



I'll give a screenshot, as I cannot find a reference
online to this practice.

In this picture, the contrast and brightness were adjusted,
so you can read it. The screen is dimmed while this is happening,
and the band across the screen is modal (must be dismissed). I
used a screenshot utility with a timer to take a snapshot. The item
circled in red is the one I tried to install, a 32 bit copy of
Netscape Communicator 4.76.

http://i58.tinypic.com/igf9yw.jpg

This will also happen on Windows 8, if you try to install
VPC2007 or Windows Virtual PC from Windows 7. Even though
VirtualBox still installs. You could run Windows 8 Preview
on top of Windows 8 Preview, using VirtualBox. So at least
that works. I can't run HyperV here, because my processor
has no SLAT (Extended Page Tables).

*******

There's a suggestion here, the message is actually caused by
a 16 bit installer.

http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/w...2-a0f48baca789

The program uses InstallShield at the top level. A test
with file.exe suggests it's not PE32 and so it's a 16 bit
problem.

False alarm.

Too bad the error message couldn't have
told me that. As it's the same error I get with the
virtual machine software that won't install. And I doubt
that stuff uses a 16 bit installer.

Paul

From: "Paul"

Mayayana wrote:
| I had my Windows 8 disk drive connected up, and I was
| booted into Win8. I tried to install a copy of Netscape
| Communicator 4.76 or so, and the OS stopped the installation.
| The browser was blacklisted, and not allowed to install.
|

I haven't heard of that and couldn't find anything online.
Do you know what's doing the blacklisting, or what they're
calling this "feature"? If they're really blocking software
that's a whole new level of brazeness.

I'll give a screenshot, as I cannot find a reference
online to this practice.

In this picture, the contrast and brightness were adjusted,
so you can read it. The screen is dimmed while this is happening,
and the band across the screen is modal (must be dismissed). I
used a screenshot utility with a timer to take a snapshot. The item
circled in red is the one I tried to install, a 32 bit copy of
Netscape Communicator 4.76.

http://i58.tinypic.com/igf9yw.jpg

This will also happen on Windows 8, if you try to install
VPC2007 or Windows Virtual PC from Windows 7. Even though
VirtualBox still installs. You could run Windows 8 Preview
on top of Windows 8 Preview, using VirtualBox. So at least
that works. I can't run HyperV here, because my processor
has no SLAT (Extended Page Tables).

*******

There's a suggestion here, the message is actually caused by
a 16 bit installer.

http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/w...2-a0f48baca789

The program uses InstallShield at the top level. A test
with file.exe suggests it's not PE32 and so it's a 16 bit
problem.

False alarm.

Too bad the error message couldn't have
told me that. As it's the same error I get with the
virtual machine software that won't install. And I doubt
that stuff uses a 16 bit installer.

Paul

Yes, it is.

Was this Win8/32 or Win8/64 ?

TrID - File Identifier (Definitions: 5279)
50.0% (EXE) Generic Win/DOS Executable
50.0% (EXE) DOS Executable Generic


--
Dave
Multi-AV Scanning Tool - http://multi-av.thespykiller.co.uk
http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp

| The program uses InstallShield at the top level. A test
| with file.exe suggests it's not PE32 and so it's a 16 bit
| problem.
|
| False alarm.
|

That's good. It's nice to hear sometimes that things are
not as bad as they seem.

On the topic of Microsoft controlling things, I just read
an article in the NYT this AM about how people are upset
because Microsoft found the identity of a code leaker by
reading the Hotmail of a blogger who published the leak.
Of course, MS, Yahoo and Google claim the right to rifle
through their customers' email in their TOS. But
their customers like to pretend it isn't so. The NYT was
clear in pointing out that MS was within their rights. They
also quoted two apparently relevant people offering their
opinions on the matter. Neither said it was wrong in any
way. One said it was "stupid". I think the other called it
"unfortunate". All were in agreement that what Microsoft
did wrong was not to trespass on private property but
rather to allow the public to see evidence that in our
growing corporatocracy, rights are provided by money,
lawyers and ownership of congressmen, so corporate rights
trump citizen rights.

| Too bad the error message couldn't have
| told me that. As it's the same error I get with the
| virtual machine software that won't install. And I doubt
| that stuff uses a 16 bit installer.
|

I saw something about that problem recently.
Maybe it was in the Win7 group. People were talking
about pros and cons of 32 vs 64 bit.

For what it's worth (you may already know this), it's
easy to check an executable. Just open it in a hex editor.
Somewhere near the front of the file will be "NE" if it's
16-bit. A 32-bit PE file always has PE00. ("PE" followed
by two 0 bytes.)

Mayayana wrote:
| The program uses InstallShield at the top level. A test
| with file.exe suggests it's not PE32 and so it's a 16 bit
| problem.
|
| False alarm.
|

That's good. It's nice to hear sometimes that things are
not as bad as they seem.


If you look at my screenshot, the system response is absurd.

A band was placed across the screen. The screen was dimmed.
The band must be dismissed with the button on it, in order
to use the GUI. You can't do anything, until you acknowledge
the band covering the screen.

The response was way more than is needed, to indicate an
installer run has a problem.

That's part of the reason I went off the rails and
mis-interpreted the symptoms. You'd swear I'd tried
to break into Fort Knox with my program with the 16 bit
installer (and 32 bit actual executables).

If you look at the response I get, when running
something that needs Administrator privileges on
Windows 8, the "error 5" dialog is much more
reasonable. And as far as I know, that error is
coming from the application itself.

Paul

From: "Paul"


"Was this Win8/32 or Win8/64 ?"


--
Dave
Multi-AV Scanning Tool - http://multi-av.thespykiller.co.uk
http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp

David H. Lipman wrote:
From: "Paul"


"Was this Win8/32 or Win8/64 ?"


It's Win8 x64. Running on an Intel system (not ARM).

Paul

From: "Paul"

David H. Lipman wrote:
From: "Paul"

"Was this Win8/32 or Win8/64 ?"

It's Win8 x64. Running on an Intel system (not ARM).

Paul

Yep. There is no DOS/Win16 emulation on x64.
That software would have worked if it had been Win8/32.


--
Dave
Multi-AV Scanning Tool - http://multi-av.thespykiller.co.uk
http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp

In message , Mayayana
writes:
[]
For what it's worth (you may already know this), it's
easy to check an executable. Just open it in a hex editor.
Somewhere near the front of the file will be "NE" if it's
16-bit. A 32-bit PE file always has PE00. ("PE" followed
by two 0 bytes.)


Presumably, if a hex editor rather than just viewer, _changing_ that
byte won't make it run ... (-:
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

I long for the commercialised Christmas of the 1970s. It's got so religious
now, it's lost its true meaning. - Mike [{at}ostic.demon.co.uk], 2003-12-24

In message , rogergonnet
writes:
Tens upon tens of million of PC are still running on Windows XP.

Probably true.

In 2013, more than 320 million machines were bought. In 20 years or so,
perhaps 2 or more billions were fabricated, many of them working on XP. It s
therefore probable that XP is still running on some 200 million PCs, most
owned by poorest people, not by Morgan Chases and their equivalent.

Probably true, though you don't give a source for your figure of 10%
(nor for your figure of 2+ billion for that matter).

Cutting so many people from any security regarding their computers is
insane, **criminal**, dangerous, and but for big bankers and companies
that I don't care of since they can buy new machines, I consider that
Microsoft should be sued and sentenced dor FRAUD in organized gang.

(I think you mean care *for*.) On the other hand, MS is a business not a
charity (see below), and _they_ have no obligation to support an
(arguably) 13-year-old product for which they are getting no money for
doing so.

There is nothing to stop you trying (the suing) if you wish (-:.

Nowhere any clients having bought a new or an older pc running on XP has
been informed that his machine will become the prey of such a gang.

No-one has bought a new XP PC for some time. What people selling older
ones tell their purchasers is not under the control of MS.

Worse, only the poorest people who have no money to buy a new one or buy
a new system shall be the victims of the gang.

That has always been the case, and not exclusive to computers; "the
poor" usually can't afford the most economical (or safest) cars, can't
buy product (any - food, household ...) in the economical larger pack
sizes, and so on. I've never heard anyone seriously suggesting that the
responsibility for this situation lies with the manufacturers.

Still worse, XP was running more or less okay, while the three next ones
like Seven has neve been even able to install correctly, and now, Eight

Now, I fear, you're showing some ignorance/prejudice. Millions of Vista,
7, and 8 systems exist and are working fine.

(decried by many as an aberration for desk or laptops) is still worse, as
far as it seems.

Lots of people (especially those used to older systems) don't _like_ the
default user interface of 8 (including me, for that matter, though I've
not given it a fair run); that doesn't mean it doesn't install correctly
though.

And since Bill Gates, the richest man of the planet is supposed to have
large charities sums to give, stealing them the security of their machines
is doing the exact reverse of what he pretends to be.

Two points: 1. He's not "stealing": that implies taking away something
they have. (Rolls Royce are not stealing from me by not giving me a
car.) 2. I think the costs involved are in a significantly different
sphere than even Bill's millions (though I'm not sure about that). (Oh,
and 3. Bill no longer runs MS.)

It's a real shame.

If at least, MS was offering a symbolic low monthly sum to pay to keep the
pc's updates, it would still do lots of money of such an offer.

_Now_, I think you're talking - though not if only symbolic; it would
have to be sufficient to actually cover the costs. There is a suspicion
that the majority of those running XP wouldn't pay even just a nominal
amount, though, in many cases on principle. (Not sure how I'd feel about
it, though I might go for it.) There's also the matter of how they'd
ensure only those paying get the updates.

When we buy an automobile, of a house, it certainly can be repaired,
restored, etc, even later; buy here, MS proposes you to stop using any

In the case of a car, once certain critical parts are no longer
available, you're f*d, unless you have oodles of money - and not just
the mechanical parts (for which you need to find skilled engineering
manufacturers), but things like the engine management unit and ABS
controllers. (There's a small company behind where I work who will
reverse-engineer those - not just to provide support after the
manufacturers, they also claim that the ones they produce are actually
better; however, they don't come cheap!)

external link with an XP PC, otherwise you're at risk of seeing your PC
vandalized by crazy or dishonest whatever.

Remember that it's not the builder that's doing the attacking in this
case. If your car or house gets broken into, and it still only has the
security (locks, immobilisers, cameras, ...) it came with when it was
made/built, would you blame the original manufacturer/builder (unless
they gave a guarantee of the relevant number of years)?

That XP is older than the next systems, well, it's the same, but as long as
it has no big destruction of its HD, or screen, it should be updated, or
else, and all the private individual owners should receive these for free.

Paid for by whom? It costs _something_ to create them.



Basically, _I_ wish they'd just fixed and enhanced XP (actually, 98) for
ever, but I can see why they work as they do, and don't consider it evil
as such. I only consider it evil when they cross the line into actively
working against older whatever, and even then only when it's done out of
spite: if some new feature just isn't programmed in such a way that it
will work on everything back to Windows 3.1, _that_ isn't evil as such.



"micky" a écrit dans le message de news:
...
Customers like Morgan Chase and some other big banks have agreed with
MS to pay for extended secuirty (and other?) updates for XP, after April
8, when security and other updates are scheduled to end.

Because thousands, tens of thousands? of ATMs still run XP.


Acc to NPR news but I'm sure you'll see it everywhere before the day is
out.


Acc. to "computing", Britain's NHS are paying some millions to keep some
aspects of XP supported too. This is not _necessarily_ a waste of public
money; it _may_ be a prudent measure as part of an overall upgrade
strategy. (Without knowing quite what aspects they're paying for the
maintenance of - IIRR, the article didn't say - I can't comment.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

....Every morning is the dawn of a new error...

| For what it's worth (you may already know this), it's
| easy to check an executable. Just open it in a hex editor.
| Somewhere near the front of the file will be "NE" if it's
| 16-bit. A 32-bit PE file always has PE00. ("PE" followed
| by two 0 bytes.)
|
|
| Presumably, if a hex editor rather than just viewer, _changing_ that
| byte won't make it run ... (-:
| --

Afraid not. The entire file structure is different.
A 16-bit executable will be using structures and
storage based on a norm of 2 bytes, while 32-bit
is based on a standard of 4 bytes. I don't know
anything about 16-bit EXE file structure, but I know
that 32-bit is very complex and deals with 32-bit
data. For instance, numeric pointers to data within
the file are stored as 4-byte values. If the system
tried to load a 16-bit executable as 32-bit those
values would end up being random. Even if the 16-bit
header were identical, Win32 would read it wrong
because where Win32 is using 4 bytes to store a
number, Win16 would be using 2.

A very simple example of the problems that would
arise: A BMP file starts with two marker bytes "BM".
After that the next four bytes record the file size.
A bit after that there are 4 bytes that tell where the
image data starts, 4 bytes that tell the image width,
4 bytes that tell the image height, etc. Those groups
of 4 bytes all represent 32-bit numbers.
If there were such a thing as a 16-bit BMP (maybe
there is?) it would have 2 bytes for file size, 2 bytes
for data offset pointer, 2 bytes for width, etc. So if
you tried to open that file on a 32-bit system the
32-bit values derived from the file header would be
nonsense, because the software reading it would be
looking for 4-byte numbers.