Not even a wormable flaw could convince them to patch Vista, apparently (assuming it's not somehow magically invulnerable when the versions before and after it weren't).
It makes sense not to mention Vista in a headline consider the very low usage rates.
If anyone should not expect security update news via popular news outlets its Window's Vista users. There are plenty of niche channels for niche product releases.
My perception for a long time has been that Vista, from a technical perspective, was leaps and bounds above XP, but the end user experience was sometimes lacking; 7 didn't provide drastic technical improvements so much as offering a much-polished Vista.
I think Vista was the least popular as you say, but I think that was because the upgrade path/incentive wasn't there.
The upgrade from XP to Vista meant a lot of software stopped working, especially from a driver perspective. If you're using some niche software that "just works (tm)", why change? Especially if it costs a lot of money to upgrade or your system isn't networked. The UK tried to upgrade its XP running backbone years ago, failed - and still got billet £10+ billion.
There was the popular perception at the time that every other version of Windows was good, while the in-betweens sucked. Vista followed that expectation perfectly, as did Windows 8.
Not surprised the 2008 patch is intended to work on Vista, I was more bemused that they had an otherwise exhaustive list of versions and how to patch them, and just...left it off, not only in the headlines, but in a number of the enumerations.
8 and 10 aren't vulnerable, according to their writeup about it.
As someone commented above, there's a footnote about how Vista users can use the Server 2008 patch, I was more amused that in an apparently-complete enumeration of versions in a table, they just...left it off.
That crosses into personal attack and you can't do that here, regardless of how strongly you feel about someone or their employer. Please don't do that here.
That was a joke, but it's why the OP was so ironic.
Google has absolutely terrible support. You can't even use their products when they discontinue them, and they discontinue them all the time. Maybe I should have used Nest for my example, which people actually paid for, put in their houses, and now can't use any more.
Last release of XP was 11 years ago. Extended support ended 5 years ago. Yet people who want to use it still can, and even still get occasional security patches. Even Vista is still usable and gets updated, as mentioned in a sibling comment.
The difference is probably in part caused by the markets for Google vs. Microsoft products that we are discussing.
If Google shafts a private person they might get angry and buy Apple next time, and Google loses a few hundred bucks. But if Microsoft shafts the XP machine in a hospital that runs their old MRI machine or whatever, that's a potential PR crisis and possibly a million-dollar lawsuit.
