Creaky Operating Systems Form IT Foundations 478
maotx writes "The Washington Post has an article on how aging operating systems are still widely used. The article states that "The research firm IDC estimates that of the roughly 514 million paid-for copies of Windows on desktops and laptops worldwide at the end of 2004, almost 21 percent were the aging Win 95, 98 and Millennium Edition releases." That equates to around 108 million copies being used."
Banks (Score:2, Interesting)
Maybe a wake up for the OS Companies? (Score:5, Interesting)
Not everyone is a geek (Score:5, Interesting)
It's like the toaster to them. Who buys a new toaster or blender until the old one breaks? Same with computers for a surprising number of people. I've seen it with my relatives, I've seen it with friends. I've been appalled by what some of them use, but talk to them about upgrading and it's "No thanks, it works just fine."
I used NT 4.0 for a long time because (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, ObOnTopic, the most interesting thing to me about this topic is how easily Microsoft killed NT 4.0 by simply witholding support for USB. NT4 actually was, ah, very workable, if not workmanlike, except for that crucial missing USB connectivity in the later years.
I still use win 98s (Score:5, Interesting)
you want believe what some government agencies ... (Score:4, Interesting)
I used to work for the company that wrote a software for IBM mainframes. We had to deal with the different agencies. each used something REALLY old, I had to maintain virtual machine environment, so we can bring up some of those older OS versions if necessary for debugging. I remember one funny case when someone called from the agency I won't give a name (but you can figure it out), the guy said he had the software crashed, but he DID NOT WANT to give any details of what was wrong, neither to tell which operating system he was using. We had to deal with his boss and his boss' boss to get the information we needed to debug the problem.
Well, there were two reasons why they've used OS'es that old. First, if it works, don't upgrade it. It ain't broken so don't fix it. Second, upgrade may require bigger hardware, and you have to justify the cost of upgrade, so why bother?
For those familiar with the history of IBM mainframe-based OS'es, we had to maintain OS/VS1 (or something like that). blah.
And there's some very good reasons... (Score:2, Interesting)
2) DOS-based (which is to say, 95, 98 and ME) OS's are not nearly as widely targeted by virus writers. The vast majority of new viruses target the 2k/XP/2k3 systems, for the simple reason that they're SOOOOO full of holes.
3) 95 and 98 (ME, eh, not so much) have been out long enough that 99% of the problems with them have been fixed. Of course, I wouldn't go to 98 until ME came out. My rule of thumb is go with whichever MS OS is the second most current one. That said, I still don't feel the burning need to upgrade to XP, and I doubt I ever will.
4) Like somebody already said, if it's not broke, and it's paid for, why change? Why waste money on the new version and then waste more money on the man-hours for MicroServices to install it, migrate everything, deal with all the users whining about where all their desktop wallpaper went, etc... just to wind up with a system that's ultimately slower and more vulnerable to attack?
So what about Linux? (Score:3, Interesting)
It's very frustrating. Yeah, you can use Fluxbox and Dillo and stuff like that, but it's hardly an enterprise desktop, is it?
Much as I love Linux, it's painful to see massive Microsoftian bloat in the major desktops and apps, all the time removing an incentive to upgrade. Or, in cases like this, eliminating an upgrade path altogether!
If Linux was slim, fast and snappy, it'd be an absolutely perfect solution. But while it offers barely any perfomance advantages over XP/MSO, it's not so attractive.
These 100 million machines could and should be running Linux, if we'd paid attention to elegant code and performance. But instead we're seeing ever more newcomers turned off by the weight and sluggish performance. It's distressing.
Qemu, vmware, bochs as archival software. (Score:5, Interesting)
Not good, to say the least, but the server in question hadn't been fired up in years.
Since then I've been putting disk images of our currently running database software on a Qemu image along with a copy of the qemu source and binaries on a DVD (and in the future the media might change, but you get the idea).
For emergency situations I can put a dvd into any available machine and have a "live" version of our DB running in minutes. I'd have loved it if I could've booted that PICK server in an emulator.
-dameron
OS does not age... (Score:3, Interesting)
Sometimes maintaining an old OS for an old system can be the best use of time and money. I have a 10-year-old machine that does a great job scanning old slides, negatives, and photos. And another 10-year-old laptop ($20 for the laptop, $2 for a WiFi card for it) that is perfect for light editing jobs and running a much-loved application that is no longer supported on newer machines (and that has no modern counterpart). So many common computing tasks don't need GHz speed or the latest OS.
Sometimes the best tool for the job is an old tool because old software never wears out (and old hardware is so delightfully cheap).
Re:If it's not broken.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Windows 3.11 (Score:0, Interesting)
No worries about viruses, trojans, popups, pupunders, spyware, flash animations, redirects, and so on.
No worries about upgrading. If a site doesn't work with these clients, generally there is nothing there I want anyway. The only problem is some pdf files won't work in Acrobat 3. Then I use Linux with Suse. YMMV.
All the best,
Mike Monett
Re:Windows 3.11 (Score:2, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:There are many good reasons to run an "expired" (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:3.1 (Score:3, Interesting)
I booted it up to get the files off of it, and was very surprised at how reponsive it was. 16 Mhz and I was flying though menus, and bringing up Wordperfect in seconds.
Now it's the same thing. She's still using the same computer from 1998, and I figure it's time for a replacement. I decided against it when I went home for Christmas and cleaned it out and patched it up. Windows 98 was flying. The thing could use some more memory, but other than that it worked great.
So I set up a script to backup all her files to a zip disk and told her to call me when the PC dies.
Re:I used NT 4.0 for a long time because (Score:3, Interesting)
Even Linux didn't get USB until 2.4 came around. That might be a long time for most people reading this, but I remember when AGP and USB were shipping on hardware but Linux and Windows couldn't use them (sort of). For a while after AGP came out, the AGP bus enumerated as PCI, and you couldn't use that nifty 'borrow some system RAM for textures' feature (this was back when really good video cards had 4MB onboard). USB only worked for keyboards and mice, and only if you enabled 'HIDBP' in the CMOS, it basically told the BIOS to translate the HID devices to standard PS/2 devices for the OS.
I've been thinking recently about the direction of computing, it seems everything is 'going serial'. SCSI, ATA, FireWire, HyperTransport, USB, these are all serial protocols. It's time an OS focused on having fantastic and robust serial capabilities, and defined the various busses as limits against the entire set of capabilities. Maybe this is getting more towards the microkernel state of mind, but shouldn't all the serial protocols share a command set as far as the kernel is concerned?
Anywho, enough ranting, I'm gonna finish these beers and pray that GCC-3.4.3 compiles cleanly on OS X, wish me luck!
Re:What a non-story (Score:3, Interesting)
This may seem amazing to some slashpeople, but not everyone can afford a computer upgrade and a new OS every couple of years.
If what they have works, why bother spending the money? After all, there are other useful endeavors the money can be spent on.
Like beer.
~X~
Re:I used NT 4.0 for a long time because (Score:3, Interesting)
(I'm not sure what that has to do with microkernels....)
The fact that the low-level transport for some interconnect mechanism happens to be bit-serial doesn't mean that it has any deeper relationship to any other interconnect mechanism that also happens to be bit-serial. The SCSI command set can be transported over the serial SCSI transport, FireWire, and even a certain other long-lived serial transport [ieee.org] (iSCSI with IP running over Ethernet, as well as some SCSI-over-Ethernet transport), but that doesn't mean that the lower layers of the protocol share anything.
UNOFFICIAL Updates (Score:2, Interesting)
http://www.majorgeeks.com/download4131.html
Rhapsody
(work in progress)
http://www.openstep.se/
Re:And there's some very good reasons... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Insurance company. (Score:5, Interesting)
The system uses an ISA hardware encryption board and runs on DOS.
In the late 90's, the Fed was working on developing a Fedline system for Windows (NT at the time), but was unable to deliver it.
They are now working on a web based solution (not sure about how much more secure that will be than an NT based solution...) which, if adequately secure, will be much nicer to work with than the old Fedline solution.
The one nice thing about Fedline is that it gives you a place to put old, out of service machines. My most current Fedline machine is a Pentium-90 with a bunch of RAM - horribly over performing for the task, but it met the specs required to run Fedline (ISA slot, DOS compatible) when the last one died.
Re:Maybe a wake up for the OS Companies? (Score:3, Interesting)
Guilty as charged.
"Three things you do not discuss in polite company: politics, religion, and operating systems. It can only get ugly."
Funny, those are probably my three favorite topics here...
"I've only used 95 and ME extensively, which may have jaded me"
Mos def. 95 was a good idea but not mature at all, not even the first edition of 98 was mature (no uDMA support or WDM model), ME was a giant turd. 98se, with 98lite installed, is the best MS OS I've ever used. If you haven't ever tried it, you really should, if just for comparison and contrast.
And you might just never go back.
"it's plenty fast when you turn off all the visual noise and plenty secure when you firewall it and stay the hell away from IE"
Tried turning off all the noise and it didn't help much. A little, but not nearly as much as just running a mature, well-patched and updated OS with a much smaller footprint.
And I didn't think XP let you uninstall IE like 98lite does - it wouldn't even let my roommate select any default app for email other than either outlook or hotmail (like, NONE, maybe). If there is a way to uninstall IE from XP I would LOVE to hear it. Last I heard it was directly built into the OS so that you couldn't remove it. The 2k side of my machine doesn't want to work right now so I can't check, but I know on the 98 side there's explorer.exe and ie.exe, two separate things... aren't they the same in 2k/xp?
Now, to be fair, I'll admit that there are things that you need XP for (some apps and games require it). And there are some things XP does that 98 doesn't - transparencies, and suggesting computer names like "Mary's computer" and "Kitchen computer", and menus that fade in and out... it's pretty. And it comes with lots of pretty pictures of flowers and cute little doggies. And heck, by MS's track record, in five years or so XP might just be a mature OS. That's usually when they stop supporting it in order to force everybody to betatest their newest and crappiest OS. That's been the distinct trend. Every windows ever released has sucked when it first came out (as evidenced by the frequent revisions thereafter, remember 3.1, 95osr2 and 98se were basically the DOS kernel's version of service packs done to correct MAJOR problems with 3.0, 95a b and c, and 98 first edition), was pretty stable and solid about 3-5 years after initial release, at which point MS promptly discontinues support.
And, lest we forget, the NT kernel was just a revision of the os/2 kernel anyway, from back when os/2 was a joint MS/IBM venture. OS/2 actually came with a windows 3.1 emulator that ran pretty well. Then they split it and IBM came out with os/2 warp and MS came out with NT 3 (at least that's how I remember it, I could always be wrong I suppose). So we're talking about a glorified DOS hack versus a glorified os/2 hack.
But hey, if it works for you, then more power to you man. It's a free country. Sorry I came off like an asshole before.
Re:Windows 3.11 (Score:2, Interesting)
This equipment does the job, but it ain't exactly Hot Shit anymore. Personally I think it says alot about how schools here in Sweden are low priority. Much more important to let the politicians buy luxury apartments.
(alas, they do have two high-powered Pentium2-400's with a whopping 128 meg RAM that they use for the kids who want to do video-editing. Also some Pentium-133 class machines in the teachers lounge. These run 98 First Edition.)
Re:Single app, single task - no need for newer OS (Score:4, Interesting)
Even working hardware should be refreshed every few years just to keep up with the times and decrease the possibility of losing the whole operation because of outdated hardware and software. Sure it's not as cheap as keeping the old junk, but I think ultimately it's a better practice.
You can then donate the old hardware and write it off for tax purposes... not bad at all...
Re:Single app, single task - no need for newer OS (Score:4, Interesting)
Once the standard hardware stops support their DOS stuff they can get/buy the cheapest hardware, and run their app using emulation/virtualization. VMware or something similar - see MAME32 for evidence of old hardware being emulated.
Could even be better = snapshots etc.
AFAIK you can also run many DOS apps on one of those DOS emulators on Linux. Not games. But I'm sure most business apps are OK.
I dare say many plain data entry stuff is fine with DOS.
"Refreshed to keep with the times".
LOL. This IT. Not the fashion industry. As long has they have backups and don't do crazy stuff - like improper power and cooling, they'll be fine.
Old hardware isn't a problem in itself. Crappy faulty hardware is. Whilst some old stuff is crap, lots of new stuff is crap too. In fact, if you have 4 year old hardware that still works within specs, it's likely to work for as long as brand new hardware. Most new stuff fails soon after the warranty
Best machine in my house: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, we have just got one school left which is running 98 in any significant amount. For large installations and computers which "need" to be up 24/7, you do need a nice shiny new OS. Most of the schools have a mixture of XP and 98, one has 95/98, one has 2000 throughout.
I can see the argument for those having to be upgraded, but there is a significant cost involved in doing so that means a complete upheaval of the entire computer base.
However, at home my most powerful machines run 98SE. It's cheap, easily available, VERY easily repairable. If maintained properly, there are no security problems, you just have to not rely on the OS seperating out user privileges like in XP.
I've actually seen people deliberately run commands (e.g. testing their unverified downloads out) on their computer just because they believe the OS will seperate the danger out enough because it's under a non-privileged user.
Most home users don't want the hassle and thus most home machines are probably running under a single, full-access account anyway. Also, an experienced user, with some simple freeware and an adequate firewall, is just as well protected as a modern OS user.
The older OS are not as stable, no, unless they are well-maintained (not installing crap just to see what it looks like). If the older OS's do go belly-up, though, they are VERY easy to recover (even down to the filesystem level, FAT is much simpler to recover from than NTFS).
I bought this machine 2-3 years ago, installed 98SE that I had bought an auction and it replaced my 6 year old machine that has been running 98 all that time.
Point 1) I've never had to reformat. This "do it every six months" is NOT a solution, not practical, nonsensical, inconvenient and totally unnecessary. I've worked on home machines that have been collecting spyware, viruses etc. for years and brought them back from the dead without having to reformat.
Point 2) My computer HAS NOT slowed down just because it's had more software installed. I carefully control exactly what software I use and how it's set up. On machines that have been allowed to do that, I've seen ten-fold increases in speed just by running AdAware, Spybot and getting rid of 90% of the crap using Startup Control Panel.
OS's do not get slower the more you install, they get slower the LESS you manage WHAT you install. They can ALWAYS be brought back to speed.
Point 3) Stability is not that great a problem compared to modern OS's. Yes, XP is less likely to crash Word on me and need a reboot but similarly if 98 goes COMPLETELY belly up, I can bring it back by copying an day-old registry file over the current ones.
I don't get stuck in constant blue-screen reboot loops (seen at least 6 of these in schools recently that, because the computers can be booted over the network and restore to their original configuration, I end up just reinstalling). If 98 ever did do that to me, it's much easier to fix. Additionally, 98's are used as home machines where 24/7 stability is not essential and most people use them for an hour or so at a time.
Point 4) I refuse to fund an organisation that is demanding money from me if I wish to upgrade to a "stable" system. Stability problems didn't suddenly get discovered in the year 2000, they were ALWAYS in there. The fact that every few years MS redesigns it's systems, charges EXTORTIONATE amounts for the next version, drops support for older versions and then discovers that they are just as buggy as the older versions makes my blood boil.
In my early years, Microsoft made more than enough money from myself. DOS was worth it. Windows 3.0/3.1 were worth it. Office up to and including 2000 was ALMOST worth it. After that, it just got silly. Now I buy my OS and Office packages from eBay. Money is VERY important to home use
Re:No kidding! (Score:2, Interesting)
"IBM Job Control Language was written when Kennedy was President, and before some of you were born, concepts in computing have changed somewhat since then".
Unix is a newbie in the software survival stakes, when you've maintained Fortran code obviously written for a pre-Fortran 66 compiler the 1970's begins to feel quite sophisticated.
But the thing that is most impressive about the Unix API is how well it still works. The old IBM mainframe stuff was full of stupid limits, but part of the philosophy that grew at that time was not to have these arbitary limits. But IBM was obsessed with backward compatibility, so many of them still applied last time I touched a mainframe.
No one mention time as a signed 32 bit integer, or 15 character filenames.