«

I run NT 4 on an old Pentium, simply for email and accountiing
software, and is ideal for this. However due to these recent security
problems with MS software, I can't use it for connecting to the net
anymore, due to MS not providing patches for their older software . I
really do wonder if Microsoft have intentially made their software
with flaws, so that people are forced to update to newer versions,
simply to allow them to be patched. I have paid for a full version of
NT 4 (with no expiry date) , and it should be able to continue to be
used, and I shouldn't be forced to upgrade my computer due to MS
software flaws, and them not wanting to help their customers who have
older software. The fact is the software can't be upgraded to a newer
version as the computer is old and doesn't have another memory or
speed to use thenew bloated windows software. I would go to linux, but
the accounting software doesn' support it. I do believe that MS do
have a moral obligation to provide patches for their older operating
systems.

"max" <> wrote

> I run NT 4 on an old Pentium, simply for email and accountiing
> software, and is ideal for this. However due to these recent security
> problems with MS software, I can't use it for connecting to the net
> anymore, due to MS not providing patches for their older software . I
> really do wonder if Microsoft have intentially made their software
> with flaws, so that people are forced to update to newer versions,
> simply to allow them to be patched. 3

Whoa, that's a fine crop of paranoia you have growing there, Max!



> I have paid for a full version of
> NT 4 (with no expiry date) , and it should be able to continue to be
> used, and I shouldn't be forced to upgrade my computer due to MS
> software flaws, and them not wanting to help their customers who have
> older software. The fact is the software can't be upgraded to a newer
> version as the computer is old and doesn't have another memory or
> speed to use thenew bloated windows software. I would go to linux, but
> the accounting software doesn' support it. I do believe that MS do
> have a moral obligation to provide patches for their older operating
> systems.

So what you are saying is that you can **phyiscally** no longer connect to
the internet, yes?

Or are you really saying "I am scared of the consequences of using this
software in case I download something, like a virus, or I am subjected to an
attack by someone exploiting a security hole in my OS, that might take me
off the air"

While I feel for you, the nature of business is that tools and plant do go
out of fashion, out of style, wear out, and all of the rest. That is why you
can claim depreciation on your capital assets every year - they have a shelf
life and a use life.

Given that NT is about 10 years old, and most software goes bellyup (in
terms of currency and usefulness) in about 3 - 5 years, I would say you have
well and truly recouped your investment in it. Move on.

BTW - what happened to the farriers when the automobile was invented? Did
they all claim GM and Ford was morally obliged to keep them in business by
buying horseshoes they no longer needed, or did they go out and learn how to
be motor mechanics?

Or when cars become computerised, did motor mechanics claim moral obligation
on carburettor manufacturers to not make electronic ignition systems, or did
they upskill...

Cheers,

Brenton

"BTMO" <> wrote in message
news:_Y98b.144905$...
> "max" <> wrote
>
> > I run NT 4 on an old Pentium, simply for email and accountiing
> > software, and is ideal for this. However due to these recent security
> > problems with MS software, I can't use it for connecting to the net
> > anymore, due to MS not providing patches for their older software . I
> > really do wonder if Microsoft have intentially made their software
> > with flaws, so that people are forced to update to newer versions,
> > simply to allow them to be patched. 3
>
> Whoa, that's a fine crop of paranoia you have growing there, Max!
>
>

Ooooh look! A grassy knoll.

"Rob King" <> wrote in message
news:3f612eeb$...
>
> "BTMO" <> wrote in message
> news:_Y98b.144905$...
> > "max" <> wrote
> >
> > > I run NT 4 on an old Pentium, simply for email and accountiing
> > > software, and is ideal for this. However due to these recent security
> > > problems with MS software, I can't use it for connecting to the net
> > > anymore, due to MS not providing patches for their older software . I
> > > really do wonder if Microsoft have intentially made their software
> > > with flaws, so that people are forced to update to newer versions,
> > > simply to allow them to be patched. 3
> >
> > Whoa, that's a fine crop of paranoia you have growing there, Max!
> >
> >
>
> Ooooh look! A grassy knoll.
>
Mmmm. Grassy...

In article <>,
says...
> I run NT 4 on an old Pentium, simply for email and accountiing
> software

so you pay for a 7 year old car and am shocked and surprised when its
manafacturer refuses to give you free tune ups?

go figure.
--
================================================== =
Steven H

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 15:15:42 +1200, Steven H <>
wrote:

>In article <>,
> says...
>> I run NT 4 on an old Pentium, simply for email and accountiing
>> software
>
>so you pay for a 7 year old car and am shocked and surprised when its
>manafacturer refuses to give you free tune ups?
>
>go figure.


Software can't be compared to a car, otherwise I would have crashed or
the car would have seized up the first day I got it. So many people
use this comparison, even MS have used it, but really they are like
chalk and cheese.

Under the CGA, the product should last a reasonable period of time. I
purchased NT4 in 98 or 99, and it is now 03, so I don't believe it has
lasted a reasonable period of time. The fact that I am now restricted
in its use(due to the chance that it may be compromised if connected
to the internet), means that the product is defective and not suitable
for its purpose that it was purchased for.
I do believe MS do have a moral obligation to provide patches for
known security flaws when they occur, for a reasonable period of time.

Maybe installing a freeware firewall package will be of help.

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 14:13:17 +1200, "BTMO" <> wrote:

>Or are you really saying "I am scared of the consequences of using this
>software in case I download something, like a virus, or I am subjected to an
>attack by someone exploiting a security hole in my OS, that might take me
>off the air"
>
Yes, and I don't want to be accused of not patching my unpatchable
computer, when it gets exploited.


>While I feel for you, the nature of business is that tools and plant do go
>out of fashion, out of style, wear out, and all of the rest. That is why you
>can claim depreciation on your capital assets every year - they have a shelf
>life and a use life.

I purchased it (software new) in 98 or 99, so I think it should have
lasted longer than 3-4 years. I don't know when MS stopped seling the
software but they were still probably selling it when win2000 came
out, which wasn't really that long ago. NT 4 hasn't been around for 10
years, more like 7, but was sold for 4-5 years after that.
It is a home computer so not depreciated, and I don't believe software
manufacturers should be able to dictate when a computer should need to
be replaced. The difference between NT4 and Win2000 for my needs is
almost non existant, and they even use exactly the smae user
interface.


>
>Given that NT is about 10 years old, and most software goes bellyup (in
>terms of currency and usefulness) in about 3 - 5 years, I would say you have
>well and truly recouped your investment in it. Move on.
>
>BTW - what happened to the farriers when the automobile was invented? Did
>they all claim GM and Ford was morally obliged to keep them in business by
>buying horseshoes they no longer needed, or did they go out and learn how to
>be motor mechanics?
>
>Or when cars become computerised, did motor mechanics claim moral obligation
>on carburettor manufacturers to not make electronic ignition systems, or did
>they upskill...
>

The cars could still be used in the same fashion they were designed
for. Due to security defects , I can't connect to the web (or fisk
problems), and the software was designed to connect to the web when I
purchased it.

See comments below -

"BTMO" <> wrote in message
news:_Y98b.144905$...
> > I have paid for a full version of
> > NT 4 (with no expiry date) , and it should be able to continue to be
> > used, and I shouldn't be forced to upgrade my computer due to MS
> > software flaws, and them not wanting to help their customers who have
> > older software. The fact is the software can't be upgraded to a newer
> > version as the computer is old and doesn't have another memory or
> > speed to use thenew bloated windows software. I would go to linux, but
> > the accounting software doesn' support it. I do believe that MS do
> > have a moral obligation to provide patches for their older operating
> > systems.
>
> So what you are saying is that you can **phyiscally** no longer connect
to
> the internet, yes?
>
> Or are you really saying "I am scared of the consequences of using this
> software in case I download something, like a virus, or I am subjected to
an
> attack by someone exploiting a security hole in my OS, that might take me
> off the air"
>
> While I feel for you, the nature of business is that tools and plant do go
> out of fashion, out of style, wear out, and all of the rest. That is why
you
> can claim depreciation on your capital assets every year - they have a
shelf
> life and a use life.
>
> Given that NT is about 10 years old, and most software goes bellyup (in
> terms of currency and usefulness) in about 3 - 5 years, I would say you
have
> well and truly recouped your investment in it. Move on.

NT which is being talked about here was released in 1996 and was the current
NT OS up until Windows 2000 became available in 2000. After that both
operating systems were available from system manufacturers for a period of
time.

That means many users of NT4 have only had 2-3 years use of the product.

Moving on is not always a solution. Many IT organisations lag behind on
upgrades so bug fixes can be made etc, they should be given the ongoing
support they need. Forcing upgrades through increasingly bloated software
just isn't acceptable IMO. I have an old P166 running as a server... works
perfectly, I have no need to upgrade it. Why should I be forced to buy new
hardware to run a new accounting package or other system just because it
contains more compulsory eye candy, or is dependent on certain OS-specific
APIs, when it could be written in ANSI C to run on anything, and without a
bloated interface?

Yes, context menus are nice, but Microsoft Word 2.0c had these... a 32bit
bersion was available for NT which most likely contained threading. What has
Word 95/2000/XP actually added over and above that to justify the additional
expence, and why does it use so much CPU power to do little more than it did
ten years ago.

I certainly don't expect software vendors to continue to support their old
software indefinately (We do), but users should not be left out just because
they choose to stick with something that works and meets their needs.
Software should not be written to require modern hardware. Certainly make
use of it if it is there, but there is no reason to force eye candy and
useless features upon those who don't need them. It is a sensible business
decision on their part to not invest in equipment and software they don't
need.

> BTW - what happened to the farriers when the automobile was invented? Did
> they all claim GM and Ford was morally obliged to keep them in business by
> buying horseshoes they no longer needed, or did they go out and learn how
to
> be motor mechanics?

Did they all change over night to the new method? No.

> Or when cars become computerised, did motor mechanics claim moral
obligation
> on carburettor manufacturers to not make electronic ignition systems, or
did
> they upskill...

When cars became computerised were end users expected to upgrade their cars?
No.

It makes no sense replacing something that works just because something
theoretically better has come along.

The Other Guy

"max" <> wrote

> >Or are you really saying "I am scared of the consequences of using this
> >software in case I download something, like a virus, or I am subjected to
an
> >attack by someone exploiting a security hole in my OS, that might take me
> >off the air"

> Yes, and I don't want to be accused of not patching my unpatchable
> computer, when it gets exploited.

Ok - I understand where you are coming from now.

> >While I feel for you, the nature of business is that tools and plant do
go
> >out of fashion, out of style, wear out, and all of the rest. That is why
you
> >can claim depreciation on your capital assets every year - they have a
shelf
> >life and a use life.
>
> I purchased it (software new) in 98 or 99, so I think it should have
> lasted longer than 3-4 years. I don't know when MS stopped seling the
> software but they were still probably selling it when win2000 came
> out, which wasn't really that long ago. NT 4 hasn't been around for 10
> years, more like 7, but was sold for 4-5 years after that.
> It is a home computer so not depreciated, and I don't believe software
> manufacturers should be able to dictate when a computer should need to
> be replaced. The difference between NT4 and Win2000 for my needs is
> almost non existant, and they even use exactly the smae user
> interface.

Work started on NT in 1989. NT 3 shipped in 1993, NT 4 in 1996. Lets split
the difference and say it is (nearly) eight years old.

But NT will do just what it was designed to do in 1989, or 1993, or 1996. It
won't do what it wasn't designed to in 2003.

Point taken re: home computers being loaned to small business - hey, I do
that myself, but I am also transferring ownership of any assets the business
uses more than I use personally, because it makes better sense to do that.

BTW - the software manufacturers aren't mandating anything. The market is.
Customers want more features, faster machines, shinier graphics and all of
the rest. The hardware and software manufacturers understand this, and
create new products accordingly.

> >Given that NT is about 10 years old, and most software goes bellyup (in
> >terms of currency and usefulness) in about 3 - 5 years, I would say you
have
> >well and truly recouped your investment in it. Move on.
> >
> >BTW - what happened to the farriers when the automobile was invented? Did
> >they all claim GM and Ford was morally obliged to keep them in business
by
> >buying horseshoes they no longer needed, or did they go out and learn how
to
> >be motor mechanics?
> >
> >Or when cars become computerised, did motor mechanics claim moral
obligation
> >on carburettor manufacturers to not make electronic ignition systems, or
did
> >they upskill...
> >
>
> The cars could still be used in the same fashion they were designed
> for. Due to security defects , I can't connect to the web (or fisk
> problems), and the software was designed to connect to the web when I
> purchased it.

Yes, they can. And so can your computer. However, to follow the car analogy,
you still get 17 miles to the gallon, blow black smoke, and need a new
warrant of fitness every 6 months.

A new car (or the same engine capacity) gets 35 miles to the gallon, is
cleaner burning and needs a warrant every year. It also has a stereo system
better than the one in my house, has airbags on every hard surface, and in
real terms cost less than a similar vehicle did 10 years ago.

It also requires less maintenance, is quieter and much more comfortable.

Like I said, I know where you are coming from (and I can't believe I am even
half way defending M$!!!), but the reality of business is that tools age,
and businesses need to plan accordingly.

Even if you can't depreciate your equipment, you should plan for its aging
and obsolesence.

Wishing it all away, or hoping for altruism from M$ (that feels better!)
won't make the reality any different.

Cheers,

Brenton