Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > M$ reneges on supporting Win98

Reply
Thread Tools

M$ reneges on supporting Win98

 
 
Have A Nice Cup of Tea
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-10-2006
http://blogs.technet.com/msrc/archiv...09/434300.aspx

"" Specifically, after extensive investigation, we’ve found that it’s
not feasible to make the extensive changes necessary to Windows Explorer
on these older versions of Windows to eliminate the vulnerability.

This is because during the development of Windows 2000, we made
significant enhancements to the underlying architecture of Windows
Explorer. ""

Translation supplied:

"We now refuse to support Windows because it's so badly broken and because
we've made so many changes for incompatibility purposes that we can't just
plonk in the explorer we're currently using for WindowsNT."


Have A Nice Cup of Tea

--
1/ Migration to Linux only costs money once. Higher Windows TCO is forever.
2/ "Shared source" is a poison pill. Open Source is freedom.
3/ Only the Windows boxes get the worms.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
E. Scrooge
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-10-2006

"Have A Nice Cup of Tea" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news(E-Mail Removed)...
> http://blogs.technet.com/msrc/archiv...09/434300.aspx
>
> "" Specifically, after extensive investigation, we've found that it's
> not feasible to make the extensive changes necessary to Windows Explorer
> on these older versions of Windows to eliminate the vulnerability.
>
> This is because during the development of Windows 2000, we made
> significant enhancements to the underlying architecture of Windows
> Explorer. ""
>
> Translation supplied:
>
> "We now refuse to support Windows because it's so badly broken and because
> we've made so many changes for incompatibility purposes that we can't just
> plonk in the explorer we're currently using for WindowsNT."
>
>
> Have A Nice Cup of Tea


Ford no longer supply parts for the Model T, or in your case the Model Tea.

Why don't you get a job at Microsoft (LOL)?
You could come up with a termination program for Vista with it dated to make
sure that all copies of Vista no longer work after 2020.

After just deciding to no longer support old products is hardly good enough
when a program could be put in them that would kill them off some years
later.
HP and other brands of PC could have small plastic explosives in them that
would blow up the PCs 10 years after the date of purchase.

The PC is getting very boring, some excitement to later look forward to
needs to be put in them when they're manufactured. At the time of
destruction a 5 second countdown could appear on the screen just to give you
enough time to rush out of the room.

E. Scrooge


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
thingy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-10-2006
Have A Nice Cup of Tea wrote:
> http://blogs.technet.com/msrc/archiv...09/434300.aspx
>
> "" Specifically, after extensive investigation, we’ve found that it’s
> not feasible to make the extensive changes necessary to Windows Explorer
> on these older versions of Windows to eliminate the vulnerability.
>
> This is because during the development of Windows 2000, we made
> significant enhancements to the underlying architecture of Windows
> Explorer. ""
>
> Translation supplied:
>
> "We now refuse to support Windows because it's so badly broken and because
> we've made so many changes for incompatibility purposes that we can't just
> plonk in the explorer we're currently using for WindowsNT."
>
>
> Have A Nice Cup of Tea
>


This is an eight year old product....while I think 5~6 years is a
reasonable length of time 8 is getting a bit silly.....at some point you
stop supporting something...same with all products......no one supports
RH 5.0 any more.....

Translation, things have moved on and a 11 year old OS based on Dos is
not fixable.....

regards

Thing
 
Reply With Quote
 
Shane
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-10-2006
thingy wrote:

> Have A Nice Cup of Tea wrote:
>> http://blogs.technet.com/msrc/archiv...09/434300.aspx
>>
>> "" Specifically, after extensive investigation, we’ve found that it’s
>> not feasible to make the extensive changes necessary to Windows Explorer
>> on these older versions of Windows to eliminate the vulnerability.
>>
>> This is because during the development of Windows 2000, we made
>> significant enhancements to the underlying architecture of Windows
>> Explorer. ""
>>
>> Translation supplied:
>>
>> "We now refuse to support Windows because it's so badly broken and
>> because we've made so many changes for incompatibility purposes that we
>> can't just plonk in the explorer we're currently using for WindowsNT."
>>
>>
>> Have A Nice Cup of Tea
>>

>
> This is an eight year old product....while I think 5~6 years is a
> reasonable length of time 8 is getting a bit silly.....at some point you
> stop supporting something...same with all products......no one supports
> RH 5.0 any more.....
>
> Translation, things have moved on and a 11 year old OS based on Dos is
> not fixable.....
>
> regards
>
> Thing



Trouble is there is still a large installed base of windows 98, people have
to pay to upgrade, and in some cases their hardware isnt up to win2k or xp
specs.
With a Linux upgrade, theres no cost (except for time and bandwidth) and
their hardware is still up to scratch

--
Rule 6: There is no rule 6

Blog: http://shanes.dyndns.org



 
Reply With Quote
 
Max Burke
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-10-2006
> Shane scribbled:

>> thingy wrote:
>> This is an eight year old product....while I think 5~6 years is a
>> reasonable length of time 8 is getting a bit silly.....at some
>> point you stop supporting something...same with all
>> products......no one supports RH 5.0 any more.....


>> Translation, things have moved on and a 11 year old OS based on Dos
>> is not fixable.....
>> regards


> Trouble is there is still a large installed base of windows 98,


By their own choice....

> people have to pay to upgrade, and in some cases their hardware isnt
> up to win2k or xp specs.


Again by their own choice....

> With a Linux upgrade, theres no cost (except for time and bandwidth)
> and their hardware is still up to scratch


OK Shane, a business comes to you for support because you know how to use
Linux and they dont. Are you going to support them for free?

--
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)
Replace the obvious with paradise.net to email me
Found Images
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/~mlvburke

 
Reply With Quote
 
Shane
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-10-2006
Max Burke wrote:

>> Shane scribbled:

>
>>> thingy wrote:
>>> This is an eight year old product....while I think 5~6 years is a
>>> reasonable length of time 8 is getting a bit silly.....at some
>>> point you stop supporting something...same with all
>>> products......no one supports RH 5.0 any more.....

>
>>> Translation, things have moved on and a 11 year old OS based on Dos
>>> is not fixable.....
>>> regards

>
>> Trouble is there is still a large installed base of windows 98,

>
> By their own choice....
>


????????????????

>> people have to pay to upgrade, and in some cases their hardware isnt
>> up to win2k or xp specs.

>
> Again by their own choice....
>


???????????????????
Are you going to pay for the new licenses and possible hardware upgrades?

>> With a Linux upgrade, theres no cost (except for time and bandwidth)
>> and their hardware is still up to scratch

>
> OK Shane, a business comes to you for support because you know how to use
> Linux and they dont. Are you going to support them for free?
>


Ok Max, if I sell the product with support in the first place, would you sue
me for failing to comply with the terms of sale?


--
Rule 6: There is no rule 6

Blog: http://shanes.dyndns.org



 
Reply With Quote
 
Max Burke
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-10-2006
> Shane scribbled:

>> Max Burke wrote:


>>> thingy wrote:
>>> This is an eight year old product....while I think 5~6 years is
>>> a reasonable length of time 8 is getting a bit silly.....at some
>>> point you stop supporting something...same with all
>>> products......no one supports RH 5.0 any more.....


>>> Translation, things have moved on and a 11 year old OS based on
>>> Dos is not fixable.....> > > > regards


>>> Trouble is there is still a large installed base of windows 98,


>> By their own choice....


> ????????????????


They choose to use old hardware and software by their OWN CHOICE....

> people have to pay to upgrade, and in some cases their hardware
> isnt up to win2k or xp specs.


>> Again by their own choice....


> ???????????????????
> Are you going to pay for the new licenses and possible hardware
> upgrades?


Yes, when *I* choose to, just like you do.

> With a Linux upgrade, theres no cost (except for time and
> bandwidth) and their hardware is still up to scratch


>> OK Shane, a business comes to you for support because you know how
>> to use Linux and they dont. Are you going to support them for free?


> Ok Max, if I sell the product with support in the first place, would
> you sue me for failing to comply with the terms of sale?


Microsoft is NOT failing to comply with the terms of sale.

Now, how about answering my question.....

OK Shane, a business comes to you for support because you know how to use
Linux and they dont. Are you going to support them for free?

--
(E-Mail Removed)
Replace the obvious with paradise.net to email me
Found Images
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/~mlvburke

 
Reply With Quote
 
E. Scrooge
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-10-2006

"Shane" <(E-Mail Removed)-a-geek.net> wrote in message
news:e6fdks$fqs$(E-Mail Removed)...
> thingy wrote:
>
>> Have A Nice Cup of Tea wrote:
>>> http://blogs.technet.com/msrc/archiv...09/434300.aspx
>>>
>>> "" Specifically, after extensive investigation, we've found that it's
>>> not feasible to make the extensive changes necessary to Windows Explorer
>>> on these older versions of Windows to eliminate the vulnerability.
>>>
>>> This is because during the development of Windows 2000, we made
>>> significant enhancements to the underlying architecture of Windows
>>> Explorer. ""
>>>
>>> Translation supplied:
>>>
>>> "We now refuse to support Windows because it's so badly broken and
>>> because we've made so many changes for incompatibility purposes that we
>>> can't just plonk in the explorer we're currently using for WindowsNT."
>>>
>>>
>>> Have A Nice Cup of Tea
>>>

>>
>> This is an eight year old product....while I think 5~6 years is a
>> reasonable length of time 8 is getting a bit silly.....at some point you
>> stop supporting something...same with all products......no one supports
>> RH 5.0 any more.....
>>
>> Translation, things have moved on and a 11 year old OS based on Dos is
>> not fixable.....
>>
>> regards
>>
>> Thing

>
>
> Trouble is there is still a large installed base of windows 98, people
> have
> to pay to upgrade, and in some cases their hardware isnt up to win2k or xp
> specs.
> With a Linux upgrade, theres no cost (except for time and bandwidth) and
> their hardware is still up to scratch


A computer that's worth damn near nothing running an old OS that isn't worth
anything might as well keep going as is, or be used just to play round with
Linux on.

E. Scrooge


 
Reply With Quote
 
Shane
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-10-2006
*sling wrote:

>
> "Shane" <(E-Mail Removed)-a-geek.net> wrote in message
> news:e6fdks$fqs$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> thingy wrote:
>>
>>> Have A Nice Cup of Tea wrote:
>>>> http://blogs.technet.com/msrc/archiv...09/434300.aspx
>>>>
>>>> "" Specifically, after extensive investigation, we've found that it's
>>>> not feasible to make the extensive changes necessary to Windows
>>>> Explorer on these older versions of Windows to eliminate the
>>>> vulnerability.
>>>>
>>>> This is because during the development of Windows 2000, we made
>>>> significant enhancements to the underlying architecture of Windows
>>>> Explorer. ""
>>>>
>>>> Translation supplied:
>>>>
>>>> "We now refuse to support Windows because it's so badly broken and
>>>> because we've made so many changes for incompatibility purposes that we
>>>> can't just plonk in the explorer we're currently using for WindowsNT."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Have A Nice Cup of Tea
>>>>
>>>
>>> This is an eight year old product....while I think 5~6 years is a
>>> reasonable length of time 8 is getting a bit silly.....at some point you
>>> stop supporting something...same with all products......no one supports
>>> RH 5.0 any more.....
>>>
>>> Translation, things have moved on and a 11 year old OS based on Dos is
>>> not fixable.....
>>>
>>> regards
>>>
>>> Thing

>>
>>
>> Trouble is there is still a large installed base of windows 98, people
>> have
>> to pay to upgrade, and in some cases their hardware isnt up to win2k or
>> xp specs.
>> With a Linux upgrade, theres no cost (except for time and bandwidth) and
>> their hardware is still up to scratch

>
> A computer that's worth damn near nothing running an old OS that isn't
> worth anything might as well keep going as is, or be used just to play
> round with Linux on.
>
> E. Scrooge



I have a pentium 200 circa 1998, still running (OpenBSD) it currently has an
uptime of 87 days with load averages of 0.47, 0.18, 0.11


Its previous uptimes were, 149 days, 156 days, and 113 days, the only reason
it has gone down have been kernel updates, and power outages

It is currently running an old version of OpenBSD but current is fully
supported

Purely because youre not capable of using hardware for its entire lifetime
doesnt mean its useless

--
Rule 6: There is no rule 6

Blog: http://shanes.dyndns.org



 
Reply With Quote
 
Have A Nice Cup of Tea
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-11-2006
On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 09:09:32 +1200, thingy wrote:

> This is an eight year old product....while I think 5~6 years is a
> reasonable length of time 8 is getting a bit silly.


WIN4.9 is only two releases before the current version of WinNT that is
supposed to be the successor to WIN4.9.


> ....at some point you
> stop supporting something...same with all products......no one supports
> RH 5.0 any more.....


RH5, RH6, RH7, RH7.1, RH7.2, RH7.3, RH8, RH9, Fedora Core 1, Fedora Core
2, Fedora Core 3, Fedora Core 4, Fedora Core 5.

Let me see... RH5 is at least 13 releases behind the current release of
the RedHat product. And all those releases were and are freely available
on the WWW.

Win4.x were purchased - people had to pay a *lot* of money for that
software. It's only two releases old - Micro$oft *should* continue to
support all it's recent releases or otherwise permit free upgrades to the
current version, so that people can continue to use their software safely.

After all, what we're talking about are bugs and security defects in
purchased software.


Have A Nice Cup of Tea

--
1/ Migration to Linux only costs money once. Higher Windows TCO is forever.
2/ "Shared source" is a poison pill. Open Source is freedom.
3/ Only the Windows boxes get the worms.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
CompTIA reneges on agreement with CompTIA cert holders walterbyrd A+ Certification 0 01-23-2010 08:24 PM
Win98 vs Win98 SE - Bobb - Computer Information 12 12-14-2006 10:46 PM
Re: Win98 vs Win98 SE - Bobb - Computer Information 2 12-06-2006 06:52 PM
Linux reneges on Supporting RH 5.0 Fred Dagg NZ Computing 3 06-12-2006 02:03 AM
win98/xp dual boot- how to remove win98 Roger Marriott NZ Computing 1 11-17-2003 08:53 PM



Advertisments