Determined Developer Resurrects Windows XP with Unofficial Service Pack 4

Note to all XP users:

Your OS is XPired now.

Note to journalists:

Writing stories and giving attention to these desperate and unsafe attempts to keep XP use viable merely encourages people to continue putting themselves at risk - even though you add a disclaimer about the developer and safety of using what you are writing about.

Just look at how quickly people click OK on EULAs, without reading them.

Note to anyone who would want to try this:

Does it delete the NSA backdoor(s) or enhance them?

> Just look at how quickly people click OK on EULAs, without reading them.

What good does it do to read a EULA when it takes a lawyer to interpret it?

Hence, default -> "Reject". As it jolly well should be.

> What good does it do to read a EULA when it takes a lawyer to interpret it?

So true.

> "Reject". As it jolly well should be.

This is also a good instant reflex to have, and should be taught in all computer literacy classes these days.

> and should be taught in all computer literacy classes these days.

Sadly, what passes for "computer literacy" in most day-prisons is just "How to open and save a Microsoft Word file".

RyanVM was responsible for unofficial service packs for Windows 98SE and Windows ME that I found useful for years for my stubborn clients who refused to part with that old OS long after its expiration. In my experience, Ryan's service packs were stable, complete and saved a lot of time trying to track down all of the patches and installing them manually. He even included versions of IE, .Net and Direct X and many hardware drivers not officially sanctioned by Microsoft for those ageing OSs. When the XP SP4 is final, I'm downloading it for use for my current stubborn clients who refuse to part with old XP.

> Sadly, what passes for "computer literacy" in most day-prisons is just "How to open and save a Microsoft Word file".

Agreed. And even that simple procedure can be more difficult to teach some people than I imagined.

cmost - I just tell my clients I no longer support XP, period. No exceptions. I gave them all plenty of time to implement upgrades to Win7, and I will not support obsolete systems with questionable security and stability issues beyond my control. Even if they are still running Vista (and I cannot convert them to Linux) I insist they upgrade to Win7.

@ seatex

I'm happy to take a client's money to support an old OS if that's what they want. I simply ask them to sign a waiver releasing me from any and all liability should something break and I explicitly state there are no guarantees. You'd be surprise at how many people gladly do so.

cmost - Your experience is better than mine with these clients. In my experience, they tend to be tightwads in the first place - usually why they don't want to spend money on system upgrades. And they don't appreciate the extra time and effort it takes to support older, less reliable systems. It becomes a case of "not worth the time and money" to me in almost all cases I've dealt with. But, if you have some that are willing to pay more for support, I can see the business case.

@seatex...at the risk of "earning your ire", I believe you may be forgetting another (and in my view, excellent) reason for the reluctance of people to move from an older software version.

I am still using a very old and long expired version of openSUSE and KDE4.....and the reason ? It does everything I want and I am extremely comfortable with it and I like what it does...Sure....I have a later version all prepared with data transferred and backups made, but why the heck do I want to hurtle into this spin of "upgrade, new version, upgrade, new version, upgrade, new version......ad nauseum" when there is no need ?

WinXP, in my books, still remains one of the best (if not "the best") versions of Windows released.....it's why so many around this globe still like and prefer it and are running it. I am NOT surprised to find clients as described by cmost and I have full sympathies with them. "Tightwads" ? No....try "people who don't want change for change's sake - where the only winner for change is Microsoft's bank balance".

Ridcully - No ire here. I do understand why people are reluctant to change. And I agree with "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."

If a machine is not connected to a network or the internet, it is safe to run anything on it, really. So, if there is no need, don't change it.

However, that all changes when the machine is connected and security becomes a concern - especially with Windows. As for Linux, There are easier ways to harden older systems and fewer security threats in general. I have clients still running Linux systems and servers with the 2.6.x kernel, but those systems are still supported with security updates because they were designed for long-term use and support.

I never suggest change simply for change's sake. I very much value familiarity and stability, just as you do. But software and the threats to it are constantly evolving, and at some point it is necessary to upgrade for security reasons.

I wonder if systemd is actually "WinXP system pack 5 for Linux"?

Glad I'm at the library. Otherwise I'd be cleaning off my screen & keyboard right now...

Quoting:I wonder if systemd is actually "WinXP system pack 5 for Linux"?

Perhaps we should not discount this possibility too quickly. Never underestimate the determination of spook's with an essentially unlimited budget. After all, the more difficult it is to read code, the fewer people will do it.

gus3: so instead you are mopping the library floor?

greetings, eMBee.

I am honored, Gus.

Now seriously, there is no privacy against the NSA. I rely only on their institutional inefficiency, bureaucratic infighting, and the base motivations of human nature, for the fact that they have it all and don't share.

As Phil Zimmerman said about PGP, "PGP is just "pretty good", It's for small secrets, like credit card numbers."

Privacy is not perfect security. By not expecting perfect security, "we" can build effective systems for privacy, which I consider very important.

If perfect computer security was possible, the people with the unlimited budgets and Sovereign Immunity would turn back to physical invasion, wiretapping, and all the other gadgets gizmos and gimics that Edward Snowden reminded us they never stopped doing.

Or as a datacenter staff member said to me once, when I asked, "Where are the NSA taps?"...

"Oh, There's a WHOLE LOTTA sniffing going on here."

We both smiled and dropped the subject.

"What good does it do to read a EULA when it takes a lawyer to interpret it?"

Most of these EULAs and terms of conditions warnings that appear are probably not enforceable in the UK.

The unfair terms and conditions act states

Regulation 7 states: (1) A seller or supplier shall ensure that any written term of a contract is expressed in plain, intelligible language. (2) If there is doubt about the meaning of a written term, the interpretation which is most favourable to the consumer shall prevail

Indeed any condition that is deemed likely enough to sway your decision to use or not use a product or service must be highlighted at the point of sale otherwise the terms and conditions will not hold up.