Slashdot Mirror
Windows 98 Phased Out
Via_Patrino writes "According to Microsoft on january 16, MS Windows 98 and 98se will end Extended Support Phase, that means they'll became obsolete and assisted support will no longer be available from Microsoft, affecting about 27% of the internet users. That means even if 98 is working well for your needs (and especially computer specifications) and you want to pay for support (because that might cost less than switching hardware) you can't, because who will be able to patch eventual new bugs (security related or not) besides Microsoft? So if you're not planning a switch it might be your last opportunity to update MS Windows 98, after that some software might disappear from MS website (just like MSIE 5.5 for 95 did)."
Why? People don't typically switch until they get a new PC. Witness the Google zeitgeist; though people are using Windows XP more, it is more than likely due to it being bundled with new PCs. (Consider how long XP has been out, as compared to how much it has been used. Also factor in that those XP and 2000 numbers liekly account for most of the corporate world.) There are a considerable number of people still using Windows 98, and it is likely to stay that way.
For home users who need Office, internet, and a gaming platform, Windows 98SE upgraded and patched does everything they need. It also runs reasonably fast on today's hardware, and there are a lot of "ain't broke, don't fix" people out there. There's really no compelling reason for people to switch, so they won't until they get a new PC.
libertarianswag.com
Screw Windows98, what about us MS DOS users?
Hack your mind out of its sandbox.
Sounds like that typical MS, screwing you out of support after a scant 6 or more years. BASTARDS!
Of course, when you try to update Red Hat Linux 5.2 or Apple OS 8.5, it still works flawlessly. But no, those greedy, awful bastards at MS are just continually SCREWING the customer.
On December 31, 2003, Redhat discontinued support for Redhat 7.3 and on April 30, 2004, Redhat 9, released less than a year ago, gets the support axe.
When compared to that, I think Microsoft has been damn generous. And if you look at my posting profile, you see i don't cut Microsoft much slack either...
that does not mean 27% of internet users use Windows 98. THere are many people who just use e-mail and hardly ever use google.
New year Resolution: Don't change sig this year
Before people panic in the streets, it should be made clear that MS still plans to patch vulnerabilities in Win98. Hopefully this means people will keep using Windows Update to keep their system as risk free (from viruses, trojans, etc.) as reasonably possible. (Besides using things like virus scanners and anti-spyware tools, of course!)
-Teckla
I work in a k12 environment, and this is going to be bad for us. We use win98 because its NOT a multi user operating system.
A lot of schools have netware/win98 combos.
Since win2k/XP require logins, we have to resort to novell zenworks to manage the automatic creation of machines accounts (our servers can handle it) or switching to AD (what ms wants, but our servers cant handle it).
This blows.
To open up the source for Win95/98/Me so the community can step in where M$ left off.
From a Network Support position at a University, I almost wished they discontinued Windows Me before they did 98. We have more problems with ME than any other OS, mostly due to it being a peice of shit.
Viva La Revolucion! Buy a Mac!
Well, my parents run Windows 98. My grandfather runs Windows 98. My other grandfather runs Windows 98SE. I have no intention of upgrading their computers now or ever.
I've long since put my trust in anti-viral software and AdAware. That's working far better for me than many of Microsoft's patches have. I still have IE trying to download stuff on my Windows Server 2003 laptop all the time, but thankfully VirusScan always catches it and AdAware makes a nice backup should VisusScan fail. If my fully up-to-date Windows Server 2003 machine fails, why should I even bother trying to lock-down or upgrade a windows 98 machine?
Microsoft isn't supporting me, so I'm not going to go out of my way to get any of my relatives to support them. In fact, I'm recommending they all get Apple laptops next time they want to do a major computer upgrade.
Bryan
Anyone still using win9x really ought to upgrade to windows 2k/XP. It will save you a lot of headaches.
...and upgrade the obsolete headaches to modern pain-in-the-asses.
My organization is on a 3-year desktop replacement cycle. Just this week, we fished the last five Windows 98 machines out of our pool and are now at XP across the board.
Yeah - I considered Linux, but then I considered retraining costs, application problems and general user resistance and decided it wasn't a battle worth fighting at this point. (not that I WOULDN'T like to get MS out eventually).
If it wasn't for the regular security threats that need patching these days, Win98 could go on for a long time.
OSX doesn't run too good on most machines that currently run 98. Something about a power something, or maybe a G something, i forget ;).
Microsoft's support phases last a lot longer than most proprietary software companies out there.
I expect that the next big virus will knock a bunch of the remaining 98 computers offline once Microsoft stops making patches. Zone Labs will probably experience a small surge in downloads of their free firewall product.
Software gets old and the best thing to do is officially put it to rest. If you want to continue to use it that's your choice. Just means you also don't plan to update your hardware.
IMO supporting old versions of software is a waste of energy. I'd rather see that energy put to drivers and updates for new systems. Things need to progress forward. WHen I got into Linux the community would brag that it would still run on 8086 or 286. That's over for mainstream Linux. Hardware moved forward and so did Linux.
Anyone who is happy with Windows 98 should not be required to upgrade
Where's the gun to the head?
Oh, wait -- they're not forced to upgrade!
You're just grabbing at straws trying to find things to bitch about regarding Microsoft. Red Hat drops support WAY sooner than Microsoft ever does (it's been 5 years for Windows 98 -- Redhat discontinued support for Redhat 7.3 at the end of last year and that's way newer than Windows 98.)
But no, instead of reasoning with your brain, you are going to play the part of the anti-Micro"$"oft troll.
evil adrian
I love OS X myself, but I still have to say you're off base a bit on '98. The nice thing about Win '98 is MS had the product out for so long, they did quite a few revisions to it, improving things like USB support and networking capabilities. The original '98 release might not have been spectacular, but most people I know found that '98 "Second Edition" was about as good as Windows ever got, before changing to the NT-based design found in 2000 and XP.
When they did the Windows Millenium version, THAT'S where they really blew it. All they did was add fluff, plus a half-broken system to roll-back to previous system states that ends up slowing the whole thing down.
I don't know how you can claim Windows '95 was superior to '98, when it lacked USB support completely, had very little native device driver support by comparison, didn't support Internet Connection Sharing or even support for internal ISDN modems (no native support for bonding multiple 64K "B" data channels together), and a slew of other things.
Operating Systems have a limited lifespan - don't tell me you hadn't noticed? RedHat doesn't support every single distribution they've ever compiled, and there's a reason for that: it's not the way the software industry works.
Sure, there are lots of people out there using Win98 still. Heck, there are still people using Win95! But can you really expect a company to invest in support for a product that is 3 generations out of date? For each OS a company (regardless of whether they're Microsoft, RedHat or Apple) it is necessary to have a testing environment, testing staff, developers, marketing, and who knows what else. Microsoft currently support Windows ME, 2000, 2003 and XP. Surely that's an impressive amount of supported products?
Or perhaps we should demand they support everything they make forever. You never know, there might be one or two Windows 3.1 users out there who still want hotfixes released. I have some DOS 3 floppy disks lying around, surely I'm entitled to lifetime support for these!
Typically enough though, this is Slashdot - every decision by Microsoft has to be wrong, evil, unthinkably unfair. And the link to linux under the word "switch" is a good example of how biased this site has become. After all, I don't see the same level of screaming about me being forced to switch my RedHat 7.0 and 8.0 boxes over to Red Hat Enterprise Linux... surely that is a far more shameful lack of support?
Why does everyone make a big stink and bi0tch at Microsoft for doing something like this? Very few companies provide any support at all for old versions of products. Many will cease support old versions the very instant a new version comes out, and will tell its users to upgrade to the newest version if they want support.
Microsoft, on the other hand, provides support for it's software for five (?) years, even after it's been succeeded by Windows 2000/XP!
Give me a fucking break!!! That's not the only option. I switched to OS X and have never been happier!
That's odd, because you sound decidely irritated.
Really, who actually calls Microsoft for support anymore? It's both expensive and usually an act of futility. Even the non-computer savvy usually call Dell or whoever they bought their PCs from instead.
The real problem is there will be no new patches and maybe old patches will no longer be available from windows update. The big reason it's a problem is people *won't* upgrade just because of this. Most hardly care about patches now, but may at least be coaxed into running windows update now and again.
This won't push the holdouts over to XP (which they probably don't even have a new enough computer to run well) - it'll just result in even *more* unpatched trojan-friendly PC out there.
Hmm..
Quite a few people still use Windows 98. I wonder if someone could make some money by doing third-party support of Windows98.
It would be a bit hard to roll out patches as a third-party, but if you supplied people with some sort of firewall package (to shield users from security holes that can't be patched otherwise) and migrated MSIE/Outlook Express users over to Mozilla, it seems like something that could be done.
Windows Media Player users could also be migrated to Winamp.. Pretty much anything that wouldn't be Microsoft supported could be replaced with still-developed Open Source alternatives.
It seems like businesses who don't have their own IT department and run a lot of Win98 PCs who have no other need to upgrade could benefit from this.
Do Win98 users really need official support from MS? I know nothing about M$ world, but if it is anything like the Mac world, then there should be a healthy range of thriving independent online support forums for obsolete hardware and software (You can even get support for ancient 68k Macs at places like Applefritter and 68k Mac Liberation Army. Official support from the official vendor is not really needed as long as someone out there has the answer to your question or can help point you in the right direction.
The only reason a computer user needs "official" support is if they have a pinhead boss or are worried about patches for security holes...... Oh, I see the problem now. Even so Win98 should be "usable" for decades to come if its users form a devoted community that provides mutual support.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
I know that everyone is going to this is all just a ploy by M$ to force people to upgrade to newer, expensive software (and is almost certainly so), but no software company is required to support obsolete versions of their software forever, this is not a reasonable idea. The /.'ers frothing at the mouth about this are the same ones who are first to also froth about how bad an OS Windows 98 is.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
This is no longer the case. Instead hardware designers will be required to get bogged down in driver developement, just to get the first few bits into and out of their systems. In my limited experience with MS Windows driver development, DDK information is 'restricted' and 'quick and dirty' tests are no longer possible.
It looks like I will be learning how to write a linux device driver (or reverting to a DOS replacement).
There are several issues with that:
* First, as others have mentioned, this may imply buying a new computer. Yes, US$200 can buy a computer well capable of running Windows XP. That is not much for a typical US household. A poor student in a third world country may have more of a problem.
* Some software, that runs on Windows 98, does not run successfully on Windows XP (and especially on Windows 2000). Sure, such software is usually woefully written but, if users rely on it, so what?
* Windows 98 SE came out in various language versions. In many cases, equivalent comfort levels for non English speakers are not readily available in Windows 2000 or XP. While the NT based systems allow input and output of the appropriate characters, this is not the same as having menus and error messages in ones native language. With 2000 and XP, multilingual user interface packs exist for many of the languages with specific language Windows 98 versions. These packs are only available to corporate customers.
* There is the cost of buying the new Windows version.
Obviously, Microsoft's priority is to make the maximum amount of money. Fair enough. But, the users need to consider how to get the functionality they need at minimum long term cost. If they need to change their operating system and some of their other software, perhaps they should consider an operating system that allows them to keep their existing hardware and that is less likely to require disruptive changes in the future.
Support yourself? Sounds like lack of support to me... sounds like you are trying to justify Red Hat's position by saying that open source is The Answer.
But what's with the lack of driver support? Sounds like it's 50/50 wherever you go. But I'm the idiot, you know, wanting my webcam and scanner to work with my OS.
evil adrian
No, because redhat is open source he does have an argument.
unofficial redhat patches nr. 1
unofficial redhat patches nr. 2
Now, where are those unofficial windows patches?
All these posts about the "idiots who use windows 98 should be shot" or "they should all switch to linux so they can fix their own bugs" is stupid and it misses the point. People who use windows 98 have old computers. They would buy a nice shiny new computer but they don't have the money or desire. They could find a pirate copy of windows xp but their hardware couldn't handle it. Support for windows 98 has gone on a long time. I'd rather the time be put into longhorn development to make it more stable and secure than time put into patching windows 98.
And these people aren't going to switch to linux. Didn't you see that 1% piece of the pie? I found suse and mandrake to seem a lot slower than windows xp on my p4 1.8 so I don't think on older pentium 2 hardware anyone's going to enjoy the performance of kde over windows 98.
Yeah, a lot of people here spend a lot of their time on computers. They love to hunt out bugs and recompile their kernels. But a lot of people don't and it's very elitest to put them down for doing so. Just because you're gentoo installation runs 8% faster than my windows xp installation, doesn't mean you'll have anymore insight into how computers work for people.
Oh, wait -- they're not forced to upgrade!
Wait until you ask for an XP activation code after MS has end-of-lifed it.
-------- This space intentionally left blank --------
When I install windows 98, and get MSIE 4, I have the upgrade burned to CD, for MSIE 6, and that takes about 10 minutes to install. Trick is, don't set up an internet connection until you do the upgrade, or the upgrade installer will try and phone home. (hundreds of times, if you let it.). I also have Netscape 4.79, and MozillaFirebird, Eudora, and Pegasus, to round out the installation of Windows 98. I always have Linux, usually Redhat, or perhaps SuSE, or Debian, and Mandrake on the box also. I use a menu to select the OS on bootup, and if already in Windows 98, I have Icons on the desktop to run linux.bat/loadlin for the distro I want.
Windows 98 closes, and my Linux boots up.
I can just use the original Windows 98 for that, without any upgrades, but I like to compare the Linux distro's to Windows 98 on the same box. Windows 98 does a fair job, still. I always run a firewall on it to be safe if going online. For Linux, I like Firestarter firewall.
So far no one has mentioned Microsoft's official excuse for terminating Windows 98--the termination was included as part of their settlement of a lawsuit with Sun. This is actually an excellent example of Microsoft's diabolical cleverness. They basically lost the lawsuit, but they used the settlement to kill off 98 so they can make more money on that XP garbage. You call that "punishment"? Hard to believe that Sun's lawyers were dumb enough to fall for that:
Brer Rabbit Microsoft: "Whatever you do, Brer Fox Sun, please don't throw me in that briar patch of dropping Windows 98 support!"
Anyway, my own timing is almost impeccable, which isn't so common. I hope it's a good sign for the new year. My last pure Windows 98 box apparently croaked last night (and all the data had been pulled off a while ago). I still have a couple of cross-booters just in case.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
how about people, like myself, that have hardware that will NOT run anything after Win98? I have a p133 laptop that I use for web, email, etc, that cannot run Win2k
How about it? You're running a 5-year-old operating system on 8-year-old hardware. What do you expect? The pace of software and hardware evolution will not slow down just for you. Sooner or later, you will have to upgrade.
Looks like MS is forcing me to upgrade my hardware too? Not cool.
Not cool? Neither is complaining about lack of support for something produced last century. Suck it up and buy something that'll run a newer operating system. Used laptops are cheap.
People on slashdot whine way too much.
- A.P.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
This is Microsoft's description from their Windows 98 Downloads page:
Download 'em all before January 16, them burn 'em onto a CD. We just don't know how long those updates will be available.Just because you might drive a 57 Chevy does NOT mean Chevrolet should still provide new parts for that car. If you really want to keep that car, then your only choice is to go with aftermarket parts (Linux as an OS for the PC) and/or parts from a junk yard or bought directly from someone else (EBay and computer swap meets)
Of course, it would just be more cost effective to buy a new car that comes backed by a warrenty. A shiny new PC with XP in this case from Dell.
Seriously, why should MS be forced to support there older software for as long as they do. I would say they are being more then fair about it with ample warning ahead of time. I doubt you can say the same thing for Apple. They are notorious for leaving their users high and dry when it comes to support after a few years of Mac ownership.
Life is not for the lazy.
For comparisons sake - as a Powerbook owner, should I be incensed that OS 6 is not maintained by Apple?
No, because there's not a Powerbook in existence that can boot OS 6. There are plenty of machines seeing daily use in this world that are still running Windows 98 and won't be replaced anytime soon. And what about the machines whose manufacturers won't support any other OS than what shipped with the hardware? I'm pretty sure Sony has that policy, and I think Dell will give you a hard time about it as well if you upgrade your OS and go calling them for support.
Also, Apple makes a great deal of their older software available for free download. You can get any complete version of OS 6, and the complete version of 7 up to 7.5.3. Microsoft doesn't even make DOS 1.0 available for free download anywhere that I can find.
~Philly
In the auto industry, any body shop can fix your door if it gets dented, and you don't face problems with patent owners preventing you from getting replacement parts.
With windows 95 (and likely 98 now), Microsoft is removing the availability of critical updates (equivalent factory recalls). They then wield the power via copyright law and DMCA to prevent anyone from making them available to people who run win 98, thus forcing a paid upgrade.
I don't care so much that they won't provide patches to any new exploits that are found after 5 years (providing they don't sue any white hats that fix them). I do care if they pull the patches and updates that already exist. It's like if you buy a car that ends up with a recall for the seat belt, you get it fixed, and ten years later when you bring it in for a new muffler, they put back in the original, defective seat belt.
BTW, if cars had as many defects and ran as poorly as windows, people would go back to riding horses. Luckily for them, microsoft fills their software with distracting bells and whistles.