M$ reneges on supporting Win98

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Have A Nice Cup of Tea, Jun 10, 2006.

  1. http://blogs.technet.com/msrc/archive/2006/06/09/434300.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.
    Have A Nice Cup of Tea, Jun 10, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Have A Nice Cup of Tea

    E. Scrooge Guest

    "Have A Nice Cup of Tea" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > http://blogs.technet.com/msrc/archive/2006/06/09/434300.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
    E. Scrooge, Jun 10, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Have A Nice Cup of Tea

    thingy Guest

    Have A Nice Cup of Tea wrote:
    > http://blogs.technet.com/msrc/archive/2006/06/09/434300.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
    thingy, Jun 10, 2006
    #3
  4. Have A Nice Cup of Tea

    Shane Guest

    thingy wrote:

    > Have A Nice Cup of Tea wrote:
    >> http://blogs.technet.com/msrc/archive/2006/06/09/434300.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
    Shane, Jun 10, 2006
    #4
  5. Have A Nice Cup of Tea

    Max Burke Guest

    > 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?

    --

    Replace the obvious with paradise.net to email me
    Found Images
    http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/~mlvburke
    Max Burke, Jun 10, 2006
    #5
  6. Have A Nice Cup of Tea

    Shane Guest

    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
    Shane, Jun 10, 2006
    #6
  7. Have A Nice Cup of Tea

    Max Burke Guest

    > 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?

    --

    Replace the obvious with paradise.net to email me
    Found Images
    http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/~mlvburke
    Max Burke, Jun 10, 2006
    #7
  8. Have A Nice Cup of Tea

    E. Scrooge Guest

    "Shane" <-a-geek.net> wrote in message
    news:e6fdks$fqs$...
    > thingy wrote:
    >
    >> Have A Nice Cup of Tea wrote:
    >>> http://blogs.technet.com/msrc/archive/2006/06/09/434300.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
    E. Scrooge, Jun 10, 2006
    #8
  9. Have A Nice Cup of Tea

    Shane Guest

    *sling wrote:

    >
    > "Shane" <-a-geek.net> wrote in message
    > news:e6fdks$fqs$...
    >> thingy wrote:
    >>
    >>> Have A Nice Cup of Tea wrote:
    >>>> http://blogs.technet.com/msrc/archive/2006/06/09/434300.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
    Shane, Jun 10, 2006
    #9
  10. 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.
    Have A Nice Cup of Tea, Jun 11, 2006
    #10
  11. Have A Nice Cup of Tea

    Fred Dagg Guest

    On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 13:17:05 +1200, Have A Nice Cup of Tea <>
    exclaimed:

    >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.


    I don't know why you insist on referring to the internal product
    number. It really is quite silly.

    Two quick points:

    1. People did NOT have to pay "a lot" of money for Windows.
    Considering the usage people get out of an operating system, it really
    is bugger all.

    2. 13 releases of an operating system? You seem to think that that's a
    good thing. If you think that there is cost involved in purchasing a
    couple of Windows upgrades over a number of years, maybe you should
    consider the cost of upgrading an operating system 13 times!!!

    It's called "Total Cost of Ownership", and it's why Linux is generally
    actually *more* expensive than Windows.
    Fred Dagg, Jun 11, 2006
    #11
  12. Have A Nice Cup of Tea

    Gordon Guest

    On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 14:49:48 +1200, Fred Dagg wrote:

    > Two quick points:
    >
    > 1. People did NOT have to pay "a lot" of money for Windows.
    > Considering the usage people get out of an operating system, it really
    > is bugger all.
    >
    > 2. 13 releases of an operating system? You seem to think that that's a
    > good thing. If you think that there is cost involved in purchasing a
    > couple of Windows upgrades over a number of years, maybe you should
    > consider the cost of upgrading an operating system 13 times!!!
    >
    > It's called "Total Cost of Ownership", and it's why Linux is generally
    > actually *more* expensive than Windows.


    Another quick point. Patches, all software requires it to improve it.
    Gordon, Jun 11, 2006
    #12
  13. T'was the Sun, 11 Jun 2006 09:30:34 +1200 when I remembered Shane
    <-a-geek.net> saying something like this:

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


    Don't think so. Try running Fedora Core 4 on the default say
    workstation setting using a Celeron 366 with 64MB of ram. Good luck.
    Perhaps Puppy Linux, but lets not kid people and say that Linux just
    revives old hardware like oil's reviving Russia. It's just not the
    case.
    --
    Cheers,

    Waylon Kenning.
    Waylon Kenning, Jun 11, 2006
    #13
  14. Have A Nice Cup of Tea

    Rebel Guest

    Waylon Kenning wrote:

    > T'was the Sun, 11 Jun 2006 09:30:34 +1200 when I remembered Shane
    > <-a-geek.net> saying something like this:
    >
    >>With a Linux upgrade, theres no cost (except for time and bandwidth) and
    >>their hardware is still up to scratch

    >
    > Don't think so. Try running Fedora Core 4 on the default say
    > workstation setting using a Celeron 366 with 64MB of ram. Good luck.
    > Perhaps Puppy Linux, but lets not kid people and say that Linux just
    > revives old hardware like oil's reviving Russia. It's just not the
    > case.



    While that has little or nothing to do with support of an OS it is a sort
    of valid point. The best older hardware distro with GUI I have used is
    indeed a Russian one called ASP. However in saying that Kubuntu Dapper
    works fine on this 366 albiet with 256M ram.
    Rebel, Jun 11, 2006
    #14
  15. Have A Nice Cup of Tea

    Max Burke Guest

    > Shane scribbled:
    > 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


    I had a P4 100mhz with 64Mb ram running Windows 95a up until october last
    year when it finally died from a hardware fault that wasn't worth fixing. It
    had run numerous versions of windows since 1992 without a hitch. It didn't
    need to have a runtime log/record because I turned it off when I wasn't
    using it.

    --

    Replace the obvious with paradise.net to email me
    Found Images
    http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/~mlvburke
    Max Burke, Jun 11, 2006
    #15
  16. Have A Nice Cup of Tea

    thingy Guest

    Shane wrote:
    > thingy wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Have A Nice Cup of Tea wrote:
    >>
    >>>http://blogs.technet.com/msrc/archive/2006/06/09/434300.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
    >


    This is a different argument, MS is a commercial company, I and indeed
    it fail to see why they should continue to support the OS free of
    charge......

    regards

    Thing
    thingy, Jun 11, 2006
    #16
  17. Have A Nice Cup of Tea

    thingy Guest

    Have A Nice Cup of Tea wrote:
    > 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.


    and anything older than and incl RH( went out of support in 1003 I think
    it was.

    >
    > Win4.x were purchased - people had to pay a *lot* of money for that
    > software.


    You could pay for RH support for RH(, some did, didnt stop RH deciding
    to no longer support it.

    It's only two releases old - Micro$oft *should* continue to
    > support all it's recent releases


    It is not recent.....have you flipped or something?

    or otherwise permit free upgrades to the
    > current version,


    yeah right....if you paid via subscription you could, I can upgrade my
    RHAS2.1 and RHAS3 to RHAS4 because I pay a yearly subscription....

    so that people can continue to use their software safely.

    People choose to run an obsolete OS that needs replacing is not MS's
    problem.

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



    > Have A Nice Cup of Tea
    >


    Absolute rubbish, FFS get a life, all software has bugs....

    regards

    Thing
    thingy, Jun 11, 2006
    #17
  18. Have A Nice Cup of Tea

    thingy Guest

    Fred Dagg wrote:

    8><----

    > 1. People did NOT have to pay "a lot" of money for Windows.
    > Considering the usage people get out of an operating system, it really
    > is bugger all.
    >
    > 2. 13 releases of an operating system? You seem to think that that's a
    > good thing. If you think that there is cost involved in purchasing a
    > couple of Windows upgrades over a number of years, maybe you should
    > consider the cost of upgrading an operating system 13 times!!!


    In terms of RH for the versions mentioned, no software cost.

    > It's called "Total Cost of Ownership", and it's why Linux is generally
    > actually *more* expensive than Windows.


    Actually it is not......generally more than enough independant studies
    show the reverse or at least break even.

    The problem with most TCO's is they only suit specific circumstances and
    are usually biased, like dont incl anti-virus softare costs.....in a
    word credibility....

    regards

    Thing
    thingy, Jun 11, 2006
    #18
  19. Have A Nice Cup of Tea

    thingy Guest

    Gordon wrote:
    > On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 14:49:48 +1200, Fred Dagg wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Two quick points:
    >>
    >>1. People did NOT have to pay "a lot" of money for Windows.
    >>Considering the usage people get out of an operating system, it really
    >>is bugger all.
    >>
    >>2. 13 releases of an operating system? You seem to think that that's a
    >>good thing. If you think that there is cost involved in purchasing a
    >>couple of Windows upgrades over a number of years, maybe you should
    >>consider the cost of upgrading an operating system 13 times!!!
    >>
    >>It's called "Total Cost of Ownership", and it's why Linux is generally
    >>actually *more* expensive than Windows.

    >
    >
    > Another quick point. Patches, all software requires it to improve it.
    >


    very true.

    regards

    Thing
    thingy, Jun 11, 2006
    #19
  20. Have A Nice Cup of Tea

    thingy Guest

    thingy wrote:
    > Have A Nice Cup of Tea wrote:
    >
    >> 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.

    >
    >
    > and anything older than and incl RH( went out of support in 1003 I think
    > it was.
    >
    >>
    >> Win4.x were purchased - people had to pay a *lot* of money for that
    >> software.

    >
    >
    > You could pay for RH support for RH(, some did, didnt stop RH deciding
    > to no longer support it.
    >
    > It's only two releases old - Micro$oft *should* continue to
    >
    >> support all it's recent releases

    >
    >
    > It is not recent.....have you flipped or something?
    >
    > or otherwise permit free upgrades to the
    >
    >> current version,

    >
    >
    > yeah right....if you paid via subscription you could, I can upgrade my
    > RHAS2.1 and RHAS3 to RHAS4 because I pay a yearly subscription....
    >
    > so that people can continue to use their software safely.
    >
    > People choose to run an obsolete OS that needs replacing is not MS's
    > problem.
    >
    >> After all, what we're talking about are bugs and security defects in
    >> purchased software.

    >
    >
    >
    >> Have A Nice Cup of Tea
    >>

    >
    > Absolute rubbish, FFS get a life, all software has bugs....
    >
    > regards
    >
    > Thing
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >

    s/1003/2003

    regards

    Thing
    thingy, Jun 11, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. - Bobb -

    Win98 vs Win98 SE

    - Bobb -, Dec 6, 2006, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    721
    Grappletech
    Dec 14, 2006
  2. - Bobb -

    Re: Win98 vs Win98 SE

    - Bobb -, Dec 6, 2006, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    528
    k35454
    Dec 6, 2006
  3. Roger Marriott

    win98/xp dual boot- how to remove win98

    Roger Marriott, Nov 17, 2003, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    521
  4. Fred Dagg

    Linux reneges on Supporting RH 5.0

    Fred Dagg, Jun 11, 2006, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    314
    Jennings
    Jun 12, 2006
  5. walterbyrd
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,984
    walterbyrd
    Jan 23, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page