M$ reneges on supporting Win98

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

 

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

 

Shane scribbled:

By their own choice....

Again by their own choice....

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?

 

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

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?

 

Shane scribbled:

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

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

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?

 

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

 

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

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

 

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.

 

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

 

T'was the Sun, 11 Jun 2006 09:30:34 +1200 when I remembered Shane

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.

 

Shane scribbled:

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.

 

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

 

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

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

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

or otherwise permit free upgrades to the

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.

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

regards

Thing

 

Fred Dagg wrote:

8><----

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

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

 

very true.

regards

Thing

 

s/1003/2003

regards

Thing