Microsoft Extends Win98/SE Support 415
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."
Shame Red Hat didn't do the same! (Score:3, Offtopic)
Re:Shame Red Hat didn't do the same! (Score:2, Informative)
Heh (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Heh (Score:2, Interesting)
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...
Re:Heh (Score:5, Insightful)
So why do SuSE/Mandrake/RedHat/et. al. keep coming out with new versions of their products, then? Oh, silly me, I forgot -- you want to have it both ways. MS bringing out new versions = proof of terrible code. Linux vendors doing exactly the same thing = proof they listen to the customer.
too late for me, billg (Score:2)
Re:Heh (Score:5, Funny)
Microsoft is renewing support for Windows 98/SE. Those damn buggy insecure products will never die! Pitchforks ready!!
Re:Heh (Score:5, Funny)
Sadly Enough (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sadly Enough (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Sadly Enough (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Sadly Enough (Score:2)
So we need a Windows version of SETVER.EXE?
Re:Sadly Enough (Score:2)
Regards,
Jurgen
Re:Sadly Enough (Score:3, Funny)
Does she have a sister?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sadly Enough (Score:5, Insightful)
How is it that the devil [microsoft.com] can decide to extend the end-of-life of a 6 year old operating system for another 2 years, and yet we blast them for not thinking of it earlier and point out how many would have been burned by this abandonment, yet Our Neighborhood Hero [redhat.com] decides to end-of-life an operating system that's slightly more than a year old, which many people just adopted, and which they didn't even have to write, just published, and we forgive them their tresspasses and blame it on the economy or whatever?
I'd say that the end of life of redhat 7.3 and 9 is going to hit me much harder than the end of life of Windows98. My customers, too.
But, whatever, go ahead and tell me how extending the life of an essentially dead OS just barely saved them in the zero hour from a mass exodus to linux, even though the historically most-popular linux distro wants to charge people almost twice the amount - per year [redhat.com] - that windows costs in a one time charge (that includes, appearantly, 6 years of updates). Oh, and that verson of linux only comes with... wait for it... zero hours of tech support, and.... quarterly updates and... in downloadable format, with no physical media!
Tell them what they've won, Bob!
Well, Johnny, today's contestants will receive a lifetime supply of "Microsoft is not stupid", in addition to a chance to appear on the lightning round "Companies that can do no good versus companies that can do no evil". Runners up will receive Rice-A-Roni, the san francisco treat.
~Will
Re:Sadly Enough (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sadly Enough (Score:4, Insightful)
So those Win98 users - the ones whose needs aren't sophisticated enough to justify upgrading to Win2K or WinXP - are all kernel developers now?
You can wriggle all you like, but the fact is that Microsoft is offering a near-unprecedented level of support for an EOL'd product, and Red Hat dropped the ball bigtime.
Here's what I don't understand. (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:Sadly Enough (Score:5, Insightful)
There are already several companies that will offer support for older versions of RedHat Linux. The only reason these companies can offer this service is because the source code is available!
It doesn't matter if you can actually read the source to fix things! I don't buy a car because I know how to fix it, but I sure as hell want to be able to go to different mechanics across the country and have them be able to fix things!
Re:Sadly Enough (Score:3)
And how many of those few people will want to support an old OS? Would they be more motivated to support something new since they are doing it for free?
If I posted that I have a problem with an application and an OS from 6 years ago, wouldn't the obvious answer would be to upgrade the OS since everyone else has the the application running on that?
Re:Sadly Enough (Score:3, Insightful)
So like did you just log off the internet the day Red Hat announced their changes and just logon again today? Because that's the only way I can fathom that you would write what you just wrote.
Red Hat has been crucified all over the internet and here especially for their decision. I can't count how many posted here that Red Hat has "screwed them" and how they'll never use them again. They've lost a good deal of users so don't y
Highly Doubtful (Score:3, Insightful)
The first proof that what you describe likely won't happen is that it *didn't* when MS axed Win95.
Second, While Bill has nightmares of Linux on servers, it's barely on his r
Re:Sadly Enough (Score:5, Insightful)
Corporate usage of this OS is still widespread...
Not just in the office, but the home user market still has a huge installed base for Win98. To completely drop Win98 would further anger a large number of customers. I am no fan of Microsoft, but I would have to say that keeping support alive for another couple of years if a wise choice if they don't want to further upset their customers.
Some will leave Microsoft anyway, and that's unavoidable. However, this way they have time to evaluate a little better what transition to make. Microsoft will of course hope that they will all go for XP or whatever is next.
Re:Sadly Enough (Score:5, Informative)
I ran 98SE for *years* before switching to Linux, and for John Q. Homeuser who has AOL and doesn't use the internet for anything more than checking local movie start times and ordering flowers for his wife's birthday, it's enough.
Re:Sadly Enough (Score:5, Interesting)
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...
Not broken? (Score:3, Insightful)
If it ain't broke...
And I always thought that we had agreed long ago that it is in fact severely broken.
I am confused now....
Re:Sadly Enough (Score:3, Interesting)
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 se
Re:Sadly Enough (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other hand, people who bought your product once in last century and do not plan to buy another in next two years... are not exactly the kind of customer base you proudly display on shareholders meeting. Looks like Microsoft has reached a dead-end. They don't know how to persuade their user base to upgrade - but they cannot make them do it by enforcing it. From the Microsoft's point of view, people running Win 98 are almost as evil as people running Linux - one way or another, they don't buy Win XP.
Re:Sadly Enough (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Sadly Enough (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Sadly Enough (Score:3, Informative)
XP is also an OS which is securable. 9x is not. Where
Businesses still need CONVINCING (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sadly Enough (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Sadly Enough (Score:2, Insightful)
What you say is true, however I would suggest that the real reason that Win9x is still so widespread is that the software meets the business' needs and they don't see a reason to spend more money on new software "just because". Remember, software is a tool - a means to an end. Is it the business' fault that the software maker failed to design a robust product?
Re:Sadly Enough (Score:5, Interesting)
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..."
I am actually impressed... (Score:5, Interesting)
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,
Re:I am actually impressed... (Score:5, Interesting)
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:I am actually impressed... (Score:2)
Before there was nothing for Linux. Didn't stop that OS in its popularity.
And really, if someone hasn't upgraded Windows, its a good chance they are quite satisfied with their hardware and performance right now.
Re:I am actually impressed... (Score:4, Insightful)
I can't believe we didn't hear this news sooner, Win98 is by far the largest userbase of all the MS systems, especially at home/school. Looks like they finally realised that they cant force things onto people... yet
It's simply capitalization (Score:2, Insightful)
Slightly stereotypical observation: People that use older OS's don't mind having to or think they have to pay support fees, because they don't want to change what already works for them.
Re:I am actually impressed... (Score:2)
Re:I am actually impressed... (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Red Hat (Score:5, Funny)
Someone, quick, find out how this makes Microsoft... bad and Red Hat... good....?!
Re:Red Hat (Score:2, Insightful)
Someone quick, find out who has a copy of the Win98 source code so we fix it ourselves or contract with with someone that does. Oh wait.. One vendor and no source. Damn, locked in again.
Re:Red Hat (Score:2, Insightful)
Speak for yourself. We bought plenty of copies of Red Hat Linux 9 with support contracts. Little did we know support meant 12 months and then time to upgrade again. I wish I would've known that before I deployed a new RH Linux 9 box into production 2 months ago.
Error in ZDNet article. (Score:5, Informative)
Hey! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hey! (Score:5, Funny)
Well, good. (Score:4, Interesting)
The consumer wins in this one. Yay for that.
Re:Well, good. (Score:2)
Heh (Score:5, Funny)
Friend(s): I can't make a boot disk, it doesn't recognize the drive anymore.
Me: You have to go into the BIOS, change the boot order and pop in a cd.
Friend(s): The what-os?
Me: I'm on my way.
These aren't dumb people, but I installed their OS's and now they think they can't handle it on their parents' computers. I do like impressing people with simple things though, like showing my nephew a yo-yo for the first time.
Re:Heh (Score:2, Informative)
Security? (Score:5, Interesting)
Longhorn release date? (Score:5, Interesting)
It just helps MS make mroe money (Score:4, Insightful)
What choice did they have? (Score:2, Insightful)
This is bad for Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
This may have been a nice thing to do, but it's a bad business move IMHO. Companies still using Windows 98 have been shown that if they're stubborn enough, they'll get their way. Not only did Microsoft lose out on the Windows 2000/XP licenses they would've bought, they have to continue to pay to patch up the old workhorse.
A similar thing happened with NT 4, although Microsoft didn't give in. I think they'll have a hell of a time when it comes time to EOL Windows 2000.
Re:This is bad for Microsoft (Score:2)
Customers are going to get their way whether MS likes it or not. They are no longer the only viable game in town. Free software has shown that it is slowly starting to be taking hold by some early adopters...
If I was MS I would fear that if I didn't listen to the users that I
Repackage and Sell Again (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Repackage and Sell Again (Score:2)
What would be nice (pretty damned unlikely but nice...) would be if they GLPd (or similar) the Win98 core.
It would be interesting to see what (if anything) the various OSS Hackers would do with it.
Maybe nothing. Maybe people would just start rolling their own patches and fixes. Maybe some brave (or foolish...) souls would even try to fork it.
That and you could imagine the boost it would make to Wine.
But if nothing else, MS could finally drop support that they're obviously reluctant to continue. As the
I'd like to know why (Score:5, Funny)
- Some government somewhere muttered "Anti-Trust..." or
- Overseas retailers started threatening a mass migration to some form of Linux or
- IBM's decision to migrate to Desktop Linux played a factor or
- Some other factors were involved.
Some might argue that Microsoft cares about their customers but then again, some people believe in the healing power of crystals.That is a long, long period of support (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:That is a long, long period of support (Score:4, Insightful)
But then again, any free version of Linux will be upgradable to another free version of Linux. So, it kind of makes 8 years of support unnecessary in most cases.
Re:That is a long, long period of support (Score:2)
As others have said, MS probably have other reasons for this move, including not wanting to encourage folk to switch to Linux.
None of that is to dis Microsoft in any way - offering the security updates is going to
Re:That is a long, long period of support (Score:5, Insightful)
Given that Linux distributions are open source, if there were a market for such long support, someone would sell it. Much like a company [progeny.com] other than RedHat is supporting old RedHat distributions. I like to call this effect "free market done right."
Damn. (Score:5, Insightful)
This means it's a horrible thing for the rest of us, because it will slow the rate at which people are becoming disillusioned and ultimately fed up with Microsoft. I had always thought that Microsoft's stringent policy of bullying and abandoning anyone who won't go along with their periodic forced upgrades is the best gift MS's competitors could have possibly recieved; now the chance to take advantage of that gift is to a certain extent gone.
After all, it's hard to give people reasons to switch away from something they're used to, and hard to convince people to switch away from something they're used to. It's just so much easier when Microsoft creates the reasons and does the convincing for us. If they stopped doing that, we'd have to win on the actual merits of our products, and we don't want that, do we? This is a black day indeed.
Could have been a black eye for MS (Score:5, Insightful)
2006 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:2006 (Score:2)
That's a good point. If they EOL Windows 98 before Longhorn is out, then a lot of people will switch to XP in the year before Longhorn arrives. This means that when Longhorn is released, the pressure to upgrade will have been significantly relieved. If they make the two dates relatively close together, a lot of people will simply go straight from 98 to Longhorn.
I guess businesses are finally fighting back. (Score:3, Insightful)
I think Microsoft has forgotten over the last few years that people still keep their old computers, and businesses don't like upgrading their operating systems every 18 months. Any reasonably large systems platform, be it Windows or Linux, requires huge amounts of effort to correctly integrate applications. And once you get it right, changing things is a very tough sell.
I've been a Windows admin for quite a while, and I've worked in some very complex environments. In some cases, we're talking about over 50 "supported" applications that the IT department has to ensure work with each other and the OS. The other end of the spectrum, of course, is small business and home users, who don't want to change until they absolutely have to.
The thing that has had me most upset with MS in the last 4 years or so (besides all the security holes and worms...) has been their assumption that everyone will instantly upgrade to the next version of the OS as soon as it comes out. Lots of places still use NT 4.0, both on the client and server side. Try getting support for it now...Microsoft couldn't be bothered. I know you can't extend support indefinitely, but Microsoft should at least acknowledge that there are thousands of copies of Win9x and WinNT still in production.
My software is rolled out to WinNT 14+k desktops (Score:2)
The expense is astonishing.
The latest OS with all the multimedia geeegaws need not apply. These desktops are owned by an employer. People are supposed to be working. Internet access is restricted and email goes through better software than Outlook.
Well, people have been suffering under WIndows 98 (Score:5, Funny)
Just desserts, man.
I'm in the process of helping the parish office at my church to upgrade to Windows 2000, because their Windows 98 network gets screwed up about once a month. I want Microsoft to feel some of my pain, since it's their fault in the first place.
MS, You made your crap, now sleep in it.
This is good news because I figure it's much less likely for them to pull support for Win2k any time soon, which is actually decently stable. Anyone who needs a reliable system should upgrade from Windows 98 because it's crap, but I see no little or compelling reason to upgrade Windows 2000. Therefore, I was expecting MS to drop it like a hot potato to force upgrades. The problem with Win98 is that a lot of people are using it because they can't afford to upgrade. Therefore, MS shouldn't screw these people by forcing an expense on them they aren't willing to support this dog.
I expect Windows 2000 will be used for a long, long time.
Other countries out there (Score:5, Interesting)
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. (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Jumping to Linux. (Score:2)
The one with 800 MHz and only 64 MB RAM should get more RAM (get atleast 256MB) and switch to either Windows 2000 or Mandrake 9.2
Why people need Windows (Score:2)
Re:Why people need Windows (Score:2)
Not true AFAIK. I had Verizon DSL in 2001 (and please let me know if they've since changed things) and my gateway/router was able to use the service just fine, regardless of what OS the machines connected to it were running.
Why? (Score:2)
95, 98x, 2k, they're all far beyond their useful life.
Re:Why? (Score:2, Insightful)
Why upgrade to newer more buggy Sw with more bloated and less productive features just to put up with more bugs?
Windows 98SE is stable enough to justify it's use. Windows XP has nothing at all to justify it's expense, M$ invasion of privacy, and putting up with more bugs that inevitably exist with new bloated feature laden and bug laden SW.
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Windows 95 I'd agree with you. But not really with any of the other two.
Win2K still works fine. Apart from a few issues, there's very little in XP over Win2K. And the improvements which are there aren't really worth the hefty price-tag. And that's just for home use.
Corporately, why should companies have to spend stacks of money on replacing software that not only does it's job, but would require newer hardware to support the change.
Hell, where I work I'd dearly love to be able to switch them out of
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft has an obligation to issue security patches for these older systems, as these correct faults in the package as supplied years ago. If the systems were shipped with sloppy code and buffer overruns they were not fully fit for the intended use.
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Because they continue to do the job that they were originally purchased for. Yes, they are not without problems, but when the problems are minor (or are just plain annoying) it is difficult for your average consumer to justify spending $500+ on a new computer.. not to mention the inconvenience of having to move everything from the old machine to the new one.
Heck, I'll even admit that I have an old Win98SE box sitting around here. Never got around to updating it to Win2k. It gets about 10 hours a month of use, so it hasn't been a high priority.
Most home users don't upgrade (Score:4, Insightful)
If you think back a few years to when the public were really starting to get turned on to the Internet - this would be the time of Win98 or its SE sequel.
It was also at this time that PCs started to reach the speed and capacity that gave most people what they would want for ever more - Web, Email, Word etc.
Quite a few of my friends and family bought computers for the first time around this period and not a single one of them is even thinking about upgrading. It's just not something that comes into their heads. They switch their computers on, check email, write a letter, book a ticket etc. and then switch them off again.
Ergo, the home user market for Win98/SE is huge and will probably remain so for a long time to come.
NO comparison between Microsoft and Red Hat Linux. (Score:2)
This is good news. Microsoft gives itself an enormous amount of bad publicity by being the "Doctor Death" of assisted suicide for its own products, particularly when such a large percentage of its customers use the old product.
Note that there is NO comparison between Microsoft and Red Hat. If you are forced by Microsoft to move away from Windows 98, you can only move to a completely new operating system, Windows XP, which almost certainly will require new hardware, is very expensive due to new licensing
Yes but can you get a 98 Second Edition Update CD? (Score:2)
Unfortunately I bought a system which was supposed to have Win98SE on it, it didn't I didn't fuss 'cause I heard Win98 was more stable, then when I went to purchase some accessories found that there's a _lot_ of stuff which only works w/ Win98SE or later (and doesn't w/ Win98 first edition).
The weird thing is MS will sell one a CD w/ patches for Win98 fi
We discussed this at a meeting (Score:2)
Between a rock and a hard place (Score:3, Insightful)
If they don't extend the patch cutoff date on what is perhaps
still the most commonly used OS out there, they are sort of liable for
damages incurred by the PC's. ( and piss off a LOT of future upgrade
customers ) Perhaps not legally liable, but morally..
if they DO patch, then people will expect support forever on what
is outdated software, which isn't realistic, and wont upgrade to something
more current and 'supported'..
Some users are stuck with 98 (Score:4, Insightful)
Ironically I still know people running Windows 3.X or Windows 95 or even DOS. They cannot afford to upgrade to a newer machine or newer software. They could; however, run Linux or *BSD Unix on their systems if they knew how. Not as fast as modern machines, but enough to limp along.
New machines can cost like $500USD to $600USD, and then they have to buy the modern software to run on them, as they cannot use the older software as the EULA usually does not allow them to switch it from one machine to another. Plus it may not run on the newer machine or use all the features.
An alternative is to head to Wal-Mart or some other place that sells a $400USD Lindows machine and use OpenOffice.Org etc. Then they need to be retrained for the new OS and software. Then use OSS software for everything else. This of course would require the assistance of someone like a Slashdotter who is Linux savvy and can train them.
Another alternative is to buy a used machine with 2000 or XP on it, or 2000/XP ready. Still the softare will need to be upgraded. The hardware costs will be less than the new machine.
Yet another alternative is if they have an ATX case, to just get a new ATX motherboard, CPU, Memory, and ATX power supply. Get an all-in-one motherboard with built in Video, Audio, LAN, Modem, etc. Like an NForce2 chipset motherboard. Still need to buy 2000/XP and the software upgrades. The hardware cost will be lower than a new machine, and may be lower than an used machine.
No matter what the option, the 98 user may have to buy new hardware to migrate to 2000/XP.
Competition... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm almost certain that M$ would rather lose a little cash than see users start jumping ship. What M$ is starting to realize is that when your customers are forced to upgrade, they can still choose your competitor's product.
OEM support in other industries. (Score:3, Insightful)
My second car is a 94 Ford Tarus, built in 93, and the company has put out an incompatible upgrade every year since the model's release.
But I can still get oem parts, support and even factory recall notices on this car.
Ford got a lump sum from me 10 years ago, no support contract, and yet they mailed me a notice about a free "patch" for a "bug" 8 years after the model was released. I took this car to the local dealer, and they fixed a potential problem completely free. My particular car did not have the defective part, but they replaced a perfectly good part just in case.
Yes they tried to sell me on a new car, but they still make model specific parts for this car and older models.
I wonder if.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact is, that is it is not of merchantable quality, or fit for the intended purpose, it has to be repaired, replaced (with what? XP will not run on most hardware that runs 98), or the purchase price refunded.
In the UK, a court case established that software is in fact goods. If someone has stitched them up with threats of a class action, which would result in them replacing or refunding every single copy of 98, all I can say is well done.
If it happened as a result of legal pressure somewhere else, again well done. The sad thing is that we may never know why, I sense the outcome of some out of court settlement with someone, somewhere, lying behind this.
Polite request to Bill: Can I please have my money back for the copy of ME which I purchased to try to get a bug fix for 98, but which in fact never worked properly? Or, do I have to take you to the UK Small Claims Court?
evolution of OS (Score:3, Insightful)
I suspect I'm not alone. Microsoft's desire to try to force users to upgrade will only backfire on them in this respect. The more useless older hardware becomes to their newer OS versions, the larger the market will be for the Unix and open-source community.
Re:Almost 10 years of a crappy OS (Score:5, Insightful)
Other than that, no reason.
Re:Well done (Score:2)
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.
OK. Who modded this up?
MS may "support" their customers in the sense that they still provide security updates, but they sure don't give free tech support. No one should be expected to give
Re:Well done (Score:4, Insightful)
MS may "support" their customers in the sense that they still provide security updates, but they sure don't give free tech support.
Oh but they do. Kind of. The KB and MSDN articles are available for free. There are also many MVPs (and many more non-MVPs who just want to help people out) who respond to questions in the microsoft.public.* newsgroup hierarchy. Technically that's not MS support but many MS employees, some more knowledgeable than any support hotline rep could ever be, also frequent these forums.
If the Linux "community" counts as support then so does the Microsoft "community". You don't necessarily need open source to take advantage of a large community of users sharing their knowledge.
Re:Well done (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:Well I still use Win98 (Score:5, Insightful)
Note how Windows has changed our way of looking at computer systems & technology in general - something that only breaks down about once a week is considered fairly stable. Makes me shiver...
Re:Well I still use Win98 (Score:2)
Its not like Microsoft invented crap software, its been around forever.
Netscape and Solaris (Score:2)
Then again, I remember when J. Random User could cause a kernel panic and reboot on Solaris just by opening the floppy device and sending the right IOCTL: I suspect the OS was the problem, not Netscape.