Microsoft Extends Win98/SE Support

An anonymous reader writes "ZDNet reports that Microsoft is extending technical support for Windows 98 till 30 June 2006, despite being days away from switching support to a CD. It seems Windows 98 will also have all necessary security updates till the new expiry date." The article states that Microsoft will have "...During that time paid over-the-phone support will be available, and "critical" security issues will be reviewed and "appropriate steps" taken."

I am actually impressed...

[garcia]

Wow. MS has really been listening to users recently... This particular move came even faster than the idea to include a more configurable firewall and popup blocking! I am actually quite impressed. Perhaps they are learning THIS from Linux? Listen to your users and make changes quickly to fit what they want and need?

At first you would think that they would want to "force" users to upgrade to XP/beyond but they realized that it probably will not happen for most users that are still running 98. If you can't beat them join them?

Being a recent re-convert from Linux back to Windows (still use Linux for a lot but Windows solely for "desktop stuff") I am glad to see that it was worth paying the "MS tax" on the new computers I recently purchased.

Just my worthless babbling,

Well, good.

[Metallic Matty]

I won't claim to have ever been a fan of Microsoft, but this seems this seems like a genuinely nice move. Rather than force many people to either a) live without continued updates and tech support or b) upgrade to newer Microsoft OS software (which isn't cheap by most people's standards, including mine.)

The consumer wins in this one. Yay for that.

Re:Sadly Enough

[garcia]

Well I think MS realizes that if they start a push towards upgrades there is the possibility that the fees involved might push the coporates to free alternatives... Maybe by pushing for upgrades only with Office and backend items they can leave 98 on the desktops and save themselves from companies going with a mass conversion to Linux?

Well done

[relrelrel]

Well done to Microsoft, they're showing greater care to their clients, better than some Linux companies are doing at the moment. One thing Microsoft does offer you is good, free support, and when Linux ('Free OS') is charging for their product, and then updates and support are costly, it isn't a way to make friends.

Security?

[Shakey_Jake33]

Perhaps MS is trying to look at the big picture? I mean, like it or not, a large amount of internet users, especially coperate and home users who see little reason to upgrade from their 200's, are still using Windows 98. And rightly so from their perspective. Many people just want to use the internet, do a bit of word processing now and then and so-on, and from their perspective, there is little reason to move OS, or even upgrade computer. And with such a large amount of internet users still on this OS, maybe MS saw that keeping this secure is a near-requirement? I'm sure MS would love everyone to move to XP, but I'm sure even they know that that's not happening.

Longhorn release date?

[Dreadlord]

I wonder if it has anything to do with longhorn release date, which is supposed to be released in 2006, or maybe they've found that they won't be able to release longhorn in 2006, so decided to extend their old OS's support?

Repackage and Sell Again

[JoeCommodore]

I think they should try and clean it up an then start selling it as "Windows Classic" for whatever faults it has is has been an extremely popular OS for the consumer market.

Re:Sadly Enough

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't inertia, it's ROI. I'd bet you a million dollars that if you magically and seamlessly transformed every Windows 98 corporate installation into 2003 or XP Pro today, that by the end of the year revenues would not be affected... at least not positively.

Corporate change requires urgency-borne motivation. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" may be a highly ironic cliche to wield when discussing Windows 98, but it's the fundamental reason for upgrade lag.

Re:I am actually impressed...

[gl4ss]

they are still forcing the same way they have been forcing for a few years.

there's practically no new stuff coming out for win98(drivers, software, hardware..) and this 'support' doesn't mean that it's getting everything patched either and made sure it would run on modern hardware, it just would mean that there's somebody that would take your support call(and may or may not prove assitance enough to be of any use). now they don't just act as if win98 doesn't exist(which is pretty much what they threated to do).

if you can't milk them one way milk them/us the other way.

Re:Heh

[LehiNephi]

Popularity is not a problem in an of itself. It merely multiplies the liability of buggy code.

If M$ had actually written decent code, encouraging bug-free and secure design (ie firing anyone responsible for a buffer overflow bug), Joe sixpack-type people would have no reason to upgrade to 2k or XP.

Of course, that may have been M$'s intention from the beginning...

Other countries out there

[aml666]

I do some projects with companies in other countries (Venezuela, Brazil, ...). I have yet to do business with a company that has an OS later than Windows 98. These poorer countries/businesses(US as well) simply can't afford to upgrade. Unlike most "consumer-minded" Americans, there are a lot of people out there who actually can not see any benefit in upgrading from an OS that does what they need.

Windows 98 works fro most small business needs (especially if they are not on the internet). I believe that this also applies to Office 97. I still use Office 2000 and OpenOffice.

Jumping to Linux.

[Anonymous Coward]

My previous computer (450Mhz PIII with 64MB ram) was a Windows 98 machine. I was fed up Windows Failing me, and with Windows XP out (no way was it going to run on my machine) and MS trying to make me switch, so I switched, to Mandrake Linux in December 2001. I kept windows on there until April 2002 for the transition period though.

KDE 2.2 was a lot better than the Windows 98 desktop and thanks to Wine I got my legacy applications working and I was incredibly happy.

Now Ive got my new computer with SuSE 9.0 (1666Mhz with 768 Mb RAM), I won't ever want to go back to Windows if they paid me. Still I know two freinds still on Windows 9x, both with older machines, (233mhz with 32Mb RAM and 800mhz with 64Mb ram) Should I convince them to switch or convince them to get a new computer?

Re:Well done

[LS]

relrelrel,

You missed the point entirely. Microsoft's business model is to charge for their products. They make billions of dollars from this, so they provide the support for free.

Linux is not a product or a company - it is free, almost a natural resource. So a third party will come in and charge for support for those individuals who WANT it for the FREELY available Linux.

It's like complaining about the helicopter skiing company that charges for rides up an isolated mountain, when a ski resort provides the lift rides for free once you buy your ticket. whatever. Why do I waster my time. You are obviously a troll.

Re:Sadly Enough

[aheath]

There are many people who are quite happy with Windows 98 or Windows Me because the can do everything that they want to do with these operating systems. I suspect that Microsoft decided not to alienate the trailing edge of their customer base.

All the friends and family members that I support are running Windows 95/98/Me unless the bought a new computer after Windows XP was released. Many people see no need to go through the hassle of an OS upgrade unless they are also moving to a new PC. Microsoft would sell more OS upgrades, and manufacturers would sell more computers if it was much easier for the average person to migrate to a new OS or a new computer.

I also suspect that Microsoft has a legal obligation to support a product for 7 years after its initial release date. I'm fairly certain that consumer protection laws require that spare parts and repair services be available for products for 7 years. It is my understanding that fixes for the Year 2000 bug must be available for 7 years.

Re:Sadly Enough

[greenhide]

inherent benefits

What inherent benefits?

Okay, granted, Windows 2000, 2003 or whatever version they're peddling now is supposedly more secure and offers more features, but if an operating system works for you and you're familiar with it, what is the benefit in upgrading to an unfamiliar system?

I think within the geek mindset, there's an assumption that of course people would always want the latest and greatest. The truth is, they want what works.

Now, I myself use OS X, but my boss's computer runs Windows 98. He doesn't want to send Microsoft another dime -- he's somewhat upset with their crazy licensing. However, he still wants to be able to use the Windows-based software that he's got on his machine, and no, uninstalling everything and running some windows emulator on top of Linux is not something I can get him excited about.

If it has to be called inertia, then inertia can sometimes be a good thing. I call it pragmatism.

Or,

"If it ain't broke..."

Re:I am actually impressed...

[gad_zuki!]

> Wow. MS has really been listening to users recently..

Maybe, maybe not. Homeland security is now in charge of taking care of the net. Perhaps BillG got a phone call from Tom Ridge saying, "You will patch those systems." For good or bad. Leaving Win98 root exploits alone would be problematic to say the least. Its either this or the *shudder* the mandatory federal firewall.

The above is all conjecture, but what else could make MS change its mind so quickly?

The FDA probably called them(+)

[Mycroft_514]

See, I still have one life support ap running under Win 98SE - and I can't upgrade to Win XP yet. My blood meter code is not certified for XP yet, so there you go. (Before an upgrade is released, it has to be approved by the FDA, which can take 18 months). The good news is that I was finally able to upgrade the other 2 life support aps forward last year to a version that will run across the various Win systems.

But then I still have 2 other machines running "classic" OSes - 1 is a Win95c machine - Why?, Well I can't get a newer driver for the high end scanner still in that machine. And I can't afford to replace the scanner right now.

And then there is my DOS 3.3 laptop - 4.77mhz. It still runs, and it still has 2 programs on it that I am saving it for. 1 is Procomm - which was still the only way to talk to 1 employer's mainframes as little as 3 years ago, when I was last there. The other is an old Norton Utilities version, which has a great hex editor, if you need one.

Re:Sadly Enough

[jsupreston]

Actually, it is Reader Rabbit. My two boys (4 and 2) play educational games on the computer. Stuff like Reader Rabbit, Dora the Explorer, Clifford the Big Red Dog, etc. Another reason why I run WinXP on the kids' box is because my wife is the main one supporting them when I'm at work. She doesn't even install her own software on OS X 10.2.x, so trying to teach her anything about linux is out of the question. Her quote: "That's why I married you."

Re:Sadly Enough

[ndqc]

just what i thought. they are trying to prevent mass defection of win98 users to alternatives. smart move. just in time by 2006 longhorn will be out.

Re:Sadly Enough

[JediTrainer]

It only makes sense that 98 is still widely used, as upgrading to 2K/XP costs more than my mother-in-law is willing to spend on the stuff that lets her read her email...

Ok, I confess...

I'M still running 98SE on my home machine. Yes, still. I dual-boot with Linux, of course, but in order to use the VPN software my company provides (no, our VPN is not IPSEC unfortunately), I need Windows. And Outlook so I can get my email.

Why haven't I upgraded? Because it's good enough. I don't want to give MS any more of my money, where I trade a working OS with bugs I'm now fairly familiar with for a new OS that's going to cost me more money and give me little benefit.

If it ain't broke...

Re:Sadly Enough

[westlake]

But is third-party commercial support for an older O/S sn affordable option for ordinary users?

Re:Sadly Enough

[ckaminski]

Is first party support from Microsoft at $99/h an affordable option for ordinary users?

Here's what I don't understand.

[Ayanami Rei]

Start off with a base Win98 operating system (Gold release). Add 1998-era virus check, Office 97, etc.

Now, install all the service packs, IE 6, OfficeXP SP1. Upgrade your virus scanner using LiveUpdate.

Same software suites, but most of it jumped a few minor versions, and some of it a few major versions.

Now consider RedHat 9 (shrike). Notice they "pick" a whole bunch a software known to work well together. Note that whenever you apply updates, not even the minor version of any package changes. Never mind that any of these updates had to be backported by RedHat themselves, because the individual projects themselves probably only patched the few head releases they maintain, possible upgrading the version number.

If you install whatever the latest release of Fedora on top of RedHat, you will squash bugs, and upgrade your product through a few versions. You will always have support in the form of updates against the most recent Fedora, or newly packaged RPMs of new versions of components.

You are accomplish the same thing that you would with your Win98 box. Only thing is Windows 98 doesn't tell you exactly what version each constituent component is during the upgrade progress. You could check this yourself by dumping the version info in various system DLLs, which is a little less friendly than rpm -q.

So what is RedHat doing "wrong" or differently, other than choosing to not make itself responsible in a financial sense for software packages that most of the teams who develop them have moved beyond? Microsoft doesn't even do this. Do you see patches for Windows Media Player 7? No! They tell you to upgrade to version 9!