Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Chrome for Windows XP to Receive Support Until 2015

By - Source: Tom's Hardware US | B 14 comments

Google announced that their Chrome browser will continue to receive patches until a full year after Microsoft cuts support.

While a stalwart cadre of PC users has stuck with Windows XP for the past decade, Microsoft has said that its support of the OS will end on April 8, 2014. Earlier today Google announced that it would continue patching and updating Chrome for XP an additional year – until 2015.

Mark Larson, the Superintendent of Public Safety at Google said in a blog post, "Our goal is to support Chrome for XP users during this transition process. Most importantly, Chrome on XP will still be automatically updated with the latest security fixes to protect against malware and phishing attacks."

Supporting legacy software is often rough – the code’s flaws are much better known by definition and that tends to make computers running older, outdated tech significantly more vulnerable to attack. That aside, many businesses still rely on bulk licenses to keep their  enterprises running, and the closer we get to that April 8th deadline, the more likely those IT departments will be forced to switch over.

For a good chunk of people, that’s going to mean big change and certainly plays into Microsoft’s hands as it brings in new bulk licenses for its latest operating systems.

Discuss
Ask a Category Expert

Create a new thread in the News comments forum about this subject

Example: Notebook, Android, SSD hard drive

This thread is closed for comments
  • -7 Hide
    apache_lives , October 16, 2013 3:25 PM
    XP is dead why bother
  • 6 Hide
    usbgtx550 , October 16, 2013 3:33 PM
    There is still a fair amount of people on xp. My friend is still running his 6 year old computer with it. Yes, xp is definitely on its way out finally, but it still has a user base.
  • -3 Hide
    anxiousinfusion , October 16, 2013 3:37 PM
    Come on, Google! Don't encourage the slow adopters. Sheesh.
  • Display all 14 comments.
  • 3 Hide
    rwinches , October 16, 2013 3:50 PM
    I still have machines that run 95B and 98SE I have older games that run on them with no fiddling with DOSBOX.
    One has a DFI MB with dual Pentium 550s and for the games I run on it it's great.
  • 1 Hide
    radiovan , October 16, 2013 3:54 PM
    Thank you, "Superintendent of Public Safety", aka Google In-charge-of-things Person.
  • 5 Hide
    none12345 , October 16, 2013 4:05 PM
    xp still has a massive install base. So, it would be utterly stupid for google to just drop it today for instance. That's why they are still supporting it, they aren't stupid.

    Even when they stop supporting it, its not like it stops working.
  • 4 Hide
    ta152h , October 16, 2013 5:28 PM
    I have Windows 7, and Windows XP on my two main computers, and I can't tell you I prefer Windows 7. Yes, it's slower and bloated, but besides that I don't know what it does that XP doesn't. Both do their jobs fine, and I don't see any reason to stop using XP because something else came out that will help lower the performance of my computer.

    Not that I dislike Windows 7, it's fine. I just don't think it does anything I need that Windows XP doesn't. A lot of people feel that way, and a lot of people are still using XP because of it.

    Some ninnys on a forum aren't going to change that reality because they think everyone should upgrade. Some people should, some people are fine with what they have.

    Now, Windows 8 is an abomination, so 'upgrading' to that from XP will make people buy Android base computers, or Chromebooks. Not to mention that horrible "A" word they heard is so chic and cool, but truthfully sucks.

    Even so, it's time to move on. Microsoft is a dying company, and whether it be XP, Vista, 7, or 8, it's time to leave Windows behind. Free OS's is the future, and unless Microsoft gives Windows away, it will continue to lose market share, as it's been doing month after month.

    Windows 8 is their Waterloo. And Google is their Blucher. But, regardless, Windows would die because the expensive OS model doesn't work anymore, with the alternatives. Windows 8 just sped it up.
  • 5 Hide
    tomfreak , October 16, 2013 10:15 PM
    the problem people use winXp is because of the performance benefit it has on old machines. win7/8 are not coming anywhere close to winxp on this area. win7 is a ram hogging OS when compared to XP.

    Some machines like an old laptop are still 85%-90% condition, it still work like charm for everyday web usage, why bother change for a new one? it is just doesnt have the horse power for win7 especially the RAM upgrade is top out @ 1GB.

    If Xp support ends I am most likely gonna use linux on my still good condition 7yrs old pentium M + 1GB RAM laptop.
  • -1 Hide
    apache_lives , October 17, 2013 1:48 AM
    Windows 7 "bloated" haha thats cute, its what Windows 9x/2k users said about Windows XP - or have you all forgotten about this?
  • 1 Hide
    SteelCity1981 , October 17, 2013 2:33 AM
    As the bulk will switch to Windows 7 machines as it should say and not Windows 8. You are starting to see this with Windows 7 market share continuing to climb, it's up to 46.3%. This will get much bigger next year when Windows XP goes dark and is no longer support by Microsoft.
  • 1 Hide
    SteelCity1981 , October 17, 2013 2:47 AM
    Tomfreak are you serious, you are comparing Windows XP to Windows7/8? First of all Windows XP was designed around much older machines in which many of those machines are no longer around. So how can you compare a machine built back in a decade ago to machines now? Many machines built within the last 5 years can handle Windows 8 let alone Windows 7 just fine. Windows Windows XP came out to run it for optimal performance it required 128mb of ram, that would equal to what the price is of 16gb of ram is today, when many people were still running 64mb or 96mb of ram. Windows 7/8 has stayed the same in optimal performance since Windows Vista which is 2gb of ram for 32bit editions and 4gb of ram for 64bit editions. So how can Windows 7/8 be resource hogs when the optimal performance requirements have stayed the same since 2007?

    OK and Computers the ran Windows 95 didn't have the performance that required to run Windows XP when it came out when many Windows 95 machines toped out at 64mb. So was Windows XP a resource hog back then too?

    Your argument for older machines that are almost a decade old or older in the reasons why they can't run Windows 7/8 is ridiculous to say the least.
  • 0 Hide
    JD88 , October 17, 2013 8:18 AM
    Good to see Google caring about it's customers. I know a lot of people still running XP on older machines that work just fine. Why would they want to pay likely the value of the PC itself to upgrade to 7 or 8?

    I would suggest just switching them to a Linux distro myself.

  • 0 Hide
    knowom , October 17, 2013 11:47 PM
    XP requires less hard drive space, uses less processes, and uses less memory and has full GDI acceleration support plus it doesn't have all the UAC nagging and pestering that Vista and beyond do nor any of the XP program compatibility problems either.

    It lacks some of the newer features and conveniences, but unless you explicitly need them all they are is bloated crap you don't in fact need that will just slow your PC down and take up more space.

    Chances are Microsoft has you by the balls if you want to play specific newer direct X PC titles, but for the rest of us XP serves it's function perfectly adequately.

    Hell even TRIM support isn't required come to find out you can basically do your own manual TRIM garbage collection with software like CCleaner.

    Ready boost is a complete joke for malnourished starved systems which could be malnourished and starved as a result of the additional system requirements of Vista/7/8 OSes themselves it's basically like using USB flash for a page file device wow how awesome.

    Boot times IDK why people act like 7/8 boot so much faster than XP personally I can't really notice in fact I think they may have taken longer how I have XP booting setup because I use msconfig and /noguiboot /sos to make booting up quicker and well XP uses less resources.
  • 0 Hide
    apache_lives , October 19, 2013 4:31 PM
    Quote:
    XP requires less hard drive space, uses less processes, and uses less memory and has full GDI acceleration support plus it doesn't have all the UAC nagging and pestering that Vista and beyond do nor any of the XP program compatibility problems either.

    It lacks some of the newer features and conveniences, but unless you explicitly need them all they are is bloated crap you don't in fact need that will just slow your PC down and take up more space.

    Chances are Microsoft has you by the balls if you want to play specific newer direct X PC titles, but for the rest of us XP serves it's function perfectly adequately.

    Hell even TRIM support isn't required come to find out you can basically do your own manual TRIM garbage collection with software like CCleaner.

    Ready boost is a complete joke for malnourished starved systems which could be malnourished and starved as a result of the additional system requirements of Vista/7/8 OSes themselves it's basically like using USB flash for a page file device wow how awesome.

    Boot times IDK why people act like 7/8 boot so much faster than XP personally I can't really notice in fact I think they may have taken longer how I have XP booting setup because I use msconfig and /noguiboot /sos to make booting up quicker and well XP uses less resources.


    Lame excuses for owning a crap computer, but keep trying