Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Retires Windows 98
prostoalex writes "Complying with the court requirement related to Sun-Microsoft lawsuit over Java, Microsoft is retiring Windows 98, SQL Server 7, Office XP Developer Edition and some other products."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
I got windows 98 to run for weeks at a time on my machine. Its not stable compared to Linux, but it is stable compared to its predecesor, windows 95.
Viral software licensing is not freedom, it is in fact GNU/Socialism.
I walked him through the process and told him that Win 98 support was going out the window at year's end. This isn't the first time this story has graced /.. He didn't seem to care and has no plans to upgrade until the hardware gives out and the harddrive fails or something like that.
Then he's buying a mac...
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
Note that this says nothing about support for these products. Microsoft is going to stop distributing these products to comply with the court order, not support them. It really is two different issues.
Now, since some of these products aren't even sold anymore, the only reason this was noticed was because of the notice on MSDN, which is a place you could get these products if you had a subscription.
Forget the whales - save the babies.
Simple,
They'll use retiring all those products to move people to a newer version of Windows, which will arguably be EVEN HARDER for users to migrate away from!
Every time Microsoft is sentenced to a "penalty" they find some way of using it to their advantage.
No reason why this will be any different.
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
To get bad code out of public hands, they have to replace it with better code. This will just replace bad code with even worse code (XP is worse because it has more DRM).
The "activation thing" is a cripping feature. I can't accept that EULA in good faith, so I can't use XP at all (imo pirating XP would be sinking to MS's level). This just pushes me one step closer to a mac. I'm currently running win98 and win2k. The security issue is the major concern; now I can't use win98 on an important machine anymore.
Jason
ProfQuotes
...but what about those of us who speak Aramic?
The point is that it's there for those inclined to see, to do, to touch, and to modify. And it makes all the difference.
-Sara
But they can. No joe user would dwelve into kernel editing, but with linux a developer can, without having to pay $1000s to microsoft. In fact, the tools required to edit the kernel come with the linux distribution. Just because it's only 0.000000000001% of the users doesn't mean that it's still not a good thing.
What if MS released the windows 98 source code under the GPL or a BSD or Apache style license? Probably that 0.000000000001% of developers who care enough will take it, fix some of the annoying bugs and features in it and create a windows 99 release that can be used by anyone to patch windows98 and create a useable free version (think dr-dos being released and now used as a minimul dos environment by various companies, ie: apple's virtual pc uses it as a base dos install).
Maybe that wouldn't happen, maybe it would. Without he code being available, it *can't*.
I wonder if any of those TCO papers discuss what it costs to upgrade in the next ten years because MS decides to put something in their software to make you upgrade.
Yup, this is only too true. Using Windows 98 does not contain any risks. Unfortunately, whithout any firewalling, with NetBIOS enabled by default on all adapters, with a broken TCP/IP stack (and a completely bunk dial up networking) etc. I would be very hard pressed to recommend it as low end internet operating system.
Furthermore, it would be easy to use XP or Windows 2000 with the firewall enabled. That would be as safe (or safer) than using the Windows 98 operating system. IE and Outlook are just disasters waiting to happen (on your system, on the internet they are already happening) so using third party browser and email client is to be recommended in all circumstances.
The only thing worse than using Windows 98 may be Windows ME, but they fixed some serious dial up issues in that operating system, blurring the choice a bit.
WIN98SE: stable surfing the 'net & playing games as well as d/l via WinMX or Bit Torrent. I've had it running smoothly for 5-8 days at a time.
WINXP: stable for gaming? You're the one who's delusional.
I will probably goto Mandrake. I like Linux (been using PCs since 1982) I have a copy of the Windows eXtortion Program (pro edition). I might install it but I have it at work so there's no real point.
I did all my years of networks & servers in the 80s and early 90s. All i want out of my home computer is entertainment (surf the 'net and GAMES GAMES GAMES).
The biggest headache I have about XP is that there isn't an Expert Mode. I absolutely HATE having to waste my time going the baby steps that are there to help inexperienced users (i understand some people need this) but hinder those of us that know what they're doing.
As for stablility: Win2000. I haven't used it much but out of 30-40 techs & net admins that I've talked to, they all seem to agree on this...
The GEEK shall inherit the earth...
I regularly got 98 to run for 4 months at a time before finally it simply stopped responding requiring a reboot. I used it at work every day, lots of word processing, spreadsheets, some graphic design, web browsing of course. Played Quake after hours too.
Comparison: My record uptime on an XP box is 3 weeks (similar usage). NT/2000 servers at my work stay up for months at a time.
Sure it doesn't beat my Linux boxes which have stayed up for years at a time, but it's no where near the "crashing all the time" reports that I've read.
Windows Me on the other hand....