Help! I am unable to download iTunes bc Windows XP support has ended!

TH55

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Nov 5, 2011
3,108
119
I am getting the error that I require service pack 3 on Windows XP, and when I attempted to do this I learned there is no longer support for XP. What are my options? What is the most recent version of iTunes that is supported by Windows XP version 5.1, service pack 2?
 
Last edited:

chrfr

macrumors G3
Jul 11, 2009
9,246
3,202
I am getting the error that I require service pack 3 on Windows XP, and when I attempted to do this I learned there is no longer support for XP. What are my options? What is the most recent version of iTunes that is supported by Windows XP version 5.1, service pack 2?
You can (and should) still download the existing updates for Windows XP. Service Pack 2 has been out of support for years already so you will need to download Service Pack 3 first. http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=24
 

TH55

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Nov 5, 2011
3,108
119
You can (and should) still download the existing updates for Windows XP. Service Pack 2 has been out of support for years already so you will need to download Service Pack 3 first. http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=24
Oh crap I didn't realize I could. I tried to and it recommended going to Microsoft Update which said support was ended. Big surprise they want you to buy their latest product rather than simply update your perfectly working old one. Thanks!

----------

Go to windows updates and install sp3 then.
After it's done install the latest iTunes.
Great, thanks
 

C DM

macrumors Sandy Bridge
Oct 17, 2011
48,130
16,778
Oh crap I didn't realize I could. I tried to and it recommended going to Microsoft Update which said support was ended. Big surprise they want you to buy their latest product rather than simply update your perfectly working old one. Thanks!

----------



Great, thanks
You do realize they supported that OS for years and years after 3 brand new versions of the OS has been released. Things can't be supported indefinitely.

That said, in your case, there isn't an issue at all except you apparently running without quite a few of the latest updates that have been released long ago--it seems like you aren't even updating when updates are available (and for a long time too), yet want to complain about them stopping updates at some point way way down the line after the lifetime of the OS.
 

TH55

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Nov 5, 2011
3,108
119
You do realize they supported that OS for years and years after 3 brand new versions of the OS has been released. Things can't be supported indefinitely.

That said, in your case, there isn't an issue at all except you apparently running without quite a few of the latest updates that have been released long ago--it seems like you aren't even updating when updates are available (and for a long time too), yet want to complain about them stopping updates at some point way way down the line after the lifetime of the OS.
Up until this point not updating hasn't effected me
 

C DM

macrumors Sandy Bridge
Oct 17, 2011
48,130
16,778
Up until this point not updating hasn't effected me
So why are you complaining about it no longer being updated if you don't care about it and were years behind on the available updates?

And, yeah, sure, ignore the security updates. You likely wouldn't even know you were affected by something and your computer could already be part of some botnet used to spread more garbage around it.
 

bradl

macrumors 601
Jun 16, 2008
4,022
11,940
Up until this point not updating hasn't effected me
Said the ostrich.
So why are you complaining about it no longer being updated if you don't care about it and were years behind on the available updates?

And, yeah, sure, ignore the security updates. You likely wouldn't even know you were affected by something and your computer could already be part of some botnet used to spread more garbage around it.
Agreed. From installation, it takes roughly 90 seconds for a newly built XP machine on the internet to be exploited. Because of how far out of date the OP's machine is, it would exploited faster than it would take for the service pack to be downloaded. There is nothing 'perfectly running' about that at all, especially if you can't keep your data secure; this is without even mentioning that they are running an OS that is 11 years old.

Ostrich and head in the sand, indeed.

BL.
 

TH55

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Nov 5, 2011
3,108
119
So why are you complaining about it no longer being updated if you don't care about it and were years behind on the available updates?

And, yeah, sure, ignore the security updates. You likely wouldn't even know you were affected by something and your computer could already be part of some botnet used to spread more garbage around it.
Because I needed it to install iTunes! Didn't you read my op?
 

C DM

macrumors Sandy Bridge
Oct 17, 2011
48,130
16,778
Because I needed it to install iTunes! Didn't you read my op?
And none of that applied to that. You were (way) behind on updating your computer, it had nothing to do with whether or not XP is still supported or not or anything of the sort.
 

Xenomorph

macrumors 65816
Aug 6, 2008
1,307
552
St. Louis
I am getting the error that I require service pack 3 on Windows XP, and when I attempted to do this I learned there is no longer support for XP. What are my options? What is the most recent version of iTunes that is supported by Windows XP version 5.1, service pack 2?
Service Pack 3 was released April 21, 2008.

You have really allowed your system to go without updates for over six years???
 

Jalopybox

macrumors 6502a
Nov 13, 2012
699
5
Agreed. From installation, it takes roughly 90 seconds for a newly built XP machine on the internet to be exploited. Because of how far out of date the OP's machine is, it would exploited faster than it would take for the service pack to be downloaded. There is nothing 'perfectly running' about that at all, especially if you can't keep your data secure; this is without even mentioning that they are running an OS that is 11 years old.

Ostrich and head in the sand, indeed.

BL.
I agree 100% with the security issues.

But there wasn't/isn't anything wrong with using a 11 year old OS when it works. Just because it's old doesn't mean it's useless. Heck, Office 2003 is still working fine for me. No need to upgrade, the newer version are bloated.

And what's wrong with Duke Nukem, Quake, Doom, Team Fortress 2, they are great games!
 

scaredpoet

macrumors 604
Apr 6, 2007
6,627
342
I agree 100% with the security issues.

But there wasn't/isn't anything wrong with using a 11 year old OS when it works.
Except that, it's starting to not work. It's only a matter of time before current software will stop working on Windows XP.

Also, being insecure and unpatched, in my book, absolutely counts as "not working," particularly when hackers have a very real interest in finding those vulnerabilities and gaining at the expense of those users still using that OS for their daily computing.

Just because it's old doesn't mean it's useless. Heck, Office 2003 is still working fine for me. No need to upgrade, the newer version are bloated.
While I can totally understand that there are edge cases and specific reasons why some people might want to hang on to using an older OS for a while, 12+ years is really starting to stretch it.

And actually, Office 2003 is kind of poster child for why people should upgrade, at least to Office 2007. In addition to 2003 having its own software vulnerabilities, it uses legacy office file formats. The rest of the world is moving to the Open Office XML specification, which was introduced in Office 2007. I'd be very surprised if within the past 7 years, you haven't received at least a few office documents you've had trouble opening.

And what's wrong with Duke Nukem, Quake, Doom, Team Fortress 2, they are great games!
Yes they are, and you don't need XP to run them.
 

Jalopybox

macrumors 6502a
Nov 13, 2012
699
5
Except that, it's starting to not work. It's only a matter of time before current software will stop working on Windows XP.

Also, being insecure and unpatched, in my book, absolutely counts as "not working," particularly when hackers have a very real interest in finding those vulnerabilities and gaining at the expense of those users still using that OS for their daily computing.



While I can totally understand that there are edge cases and specific reasons why some people might want to hang on to using an older OS for a while, 12+ years is really starting to stretch it.

And actually, Office 2003 is kind of poster child for why people should upgrade, at least to Office 2007. In addition to 2003 having its own software vulnerabilities, it uses legacy office file formats. The rest of the world is moving to the Open Office XML specification, which was introduced in Office 2007. I'd be very surprised if within the past 7 years, you haven't received at least a few office documents you've had trouble opening.



Yes they are, and you don't need XP to run them.
But up until a few months ago it was patched and working. My point is just because it's old doesn't mean it's useless or inherently bad. First world societies are really caught up on newer, better, etc. There is a reason it's still the second most used OS in the world.

As far as Office 2003, there have been 2 office files in 10+ years I could not open-have the compatibility pack installed-and those 2 files couldn't be opened with newer Office versions as well, corrupted.
 

C DM

macrumors Sandy Bridge
Oct 17, 2011
48,130
16,778
But up until a few months ago it was patched and working. My point is just because it's old doesn't mean it's useless or inherently bad. First world societies are really caught up on newer, better, etc. There is a reason it's still the second most used OS in the world.

As far as Office 2003, there have been 2 office files in 10+ years I could not open-have the compatibility pack installed-and those 2 files couldn't be opened with newer Office versions as well, corrupted.
If all the released security fixes are there and patched, then yes, nothing wrong with it, otherwise, just that by itself makes it bad in practically all cases.
 

Jalopybox

macrumors 6502a
Nov 13, 2012
699
5
If all the released security fixes are there and patched, then yes, nothing wrong with it, otherwise, just that by itself makes it bad in practically all cases.
I agree. It's one way to force the upgrade....
 

C DM

macrumors Sandy Bridge
Oct 17, 2011
48,130
16,778
Well, this is the first month that XP stopped getting updates, so until this month there was no need to update to any other OS to get the security patches. And at this point XP has been supported for years and years after Microsoft stopped even selling it, let alone since it actually came out.
 

scaredpoet

macrumors 604
Apr 6, 2007
6,627
342
But up until a few months ago it was patched and working.
Yes, and we've known for several years that a specific date would come that Microsoft would stop supporting this operating system with patches. that date has now passed.


My point is just because it's old doesn't mean it's useless or inherently bad. First world societies are really caught up on newer, better, etc.
While I can understand such a point, I think in this case it's not consumerism that's driving the march ahead. It has been well know for a long time now that there are inherent limitations and flaws in the Windows XP architecture. For several years now, the resolution to those flaws has been to use a newer operating system that has those issues mitigated.

You're right that "old" doesn't necessarily mean "bad." But in Windows XP's case, it was "bad" long before it was "old." And there is a limit to how long a vendor can reasonably continue to patch holes in a bad architecture. We're past that limit now. It's time to move on.


There is a reason it's still the second most used OS in the world.
I would chalk that up to Microsoft doing a very poor job of offering and promoting better alternatives, and because users are fearful of switching to different, more modern platforms... NOT because XP is such a good architecture given the current computing climate.

As far as Office 2003, there have been 2 office files in 10+ years I could not open-have the compatibility pack installed-and those 2 files couldn't be opened with newer Office versions as well, corrupted.
Welp, I can tell you with certainty that you will see more issues crop up over time. Bellyaching over why you should be allowed to continue to use such a "good" OS well pat its prime, is only going to fall on deaf ears. The decision has been made by Microsoft. You can acknowledge that now, or have a really hard time of it later. The choice is entirely yours.
 

Similar threads

  • CrystalChrissy
2
Replies
2
Views
324
  • richardjhurst
3
Replies
3
Views
351
Replies
4
Views
535
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.