Slashdot Mirror
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."
And yes thanks people I already have Fedora on some machines and Red Hat Enterprise on the rest, I just wish support for 7.3 and 9.0 had been extended by Red Hat and not left to third parties..
I don't read your sig, why do you read mine?
Having to support their own old buggy products are their biggest liability. Popularity does have its downside.
"Backups are for wimps. Real men upload their data to an FTP site and have everyone else mirror it." -- Linus Torvalds
This is good news for the people that provide support for friends and familys that have not gone to XP, don't have to worry about new holes that will not be patched I still think some one that does not know computers should really go MAC OS X.
Corporate usage of this OS is still widespread, mainly due to inertia more than anything else. Microsoft is desperately trying to get companies to switch, but getting Officer Level peeps to understand the inherent benefits is proving to be... difficult...
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,
Yet "Red Hat will discontinue maintenance and errata support for Red Hat Linux 9 as of April 30, 2004"
Someone, quick, find out how this makes Microsoft... bad and Red Hat... good....?!
rule yu.
Even if support had been switched to a CD, MS had still pledged to provide security related fixes, AFAIK.
Where is my Windows *95* support CD?
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.
I actually helped two people switch from 98 this week. They both started over the phone almost identically.
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.
Microsoft Customer "care": "Welcome to Microsoft how may we victimise you?" Customer: "My system has just been hacked. What do I do? what do I do?" Microsoft Customer "care": "Nothing my dear, YOU'RE NOT QUALIFIED!"
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.
--- any post that takes longer than 20 seconds to write, isn't worth writing
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.
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?
The IT section color scheme sucks.
I find that all the time I've used Windows (since 3.1), I've never had to call tech support, and most users would be fine without ever calling. Most users will just stay with the older, outdated systems then upgrade, so Microsoft can get even more money from the few people that do call in with Windows 98 issues as last I checked they still made you pay by the minute. It doesn't require as much effort to patch an issue in 98, and the amount of money from tech support that you could rake in from keeping it supported could be a very considerable amount.
This signature was left intentionally blank.
Seriously. Ignoring all other concerns, if they extend the release date of their next OS a couple of years, they should extend the same treatment to their last supported. If anything, this is the most solid admission (in public terms) I've seen of the admission of a very delayed Longhorn release date.
Other than that, no reason.
Overrated / Underrated : Moderation
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.
Granted the following:
1) I run a hardware firewall and Anti-Virus on subject computer so Security from the Operating system doesn't concern me hugely
2) The system runs fairly stable (not quite as stable as XP, but I crash maybe 1x per week).
3) I dual-boot with XP for everything that is XP only
4) Re-installing MS Office and the zillions of other programs that require serials that I may or may not have turns me on to no end...
Bottom line, I'm not leaving Win98 anytime soon if I can help...
...in bed
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.
"Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield
- 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.Continued security updates for ... 8 years? You will be lucky get 8 months from Fedora. Somebody please point me to a Linux distribution that offers that duration of support at any price. Wow.
This is an extremely good thing for people who use Microsoft products, both in terms of what it will do now, and in terms of what it seems to hint at regarding how Microsoft will support its discontinued products.
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.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Vapour Support.
If a new vulnerability were to surface, and MS refuses to provide an update for the millions of Win98 users, and this causes a lot of trouble for them, it just looks bad for MS. Fair or not, given the way they are portrayed, saying, "hey, we told you, we aren't supporting that anymore" isn't going to stick. It's going to be another case of how Microsoft is responsible for another security problem.
Perhaps they're extending it to 2k6 because of Longhorn? I mean, it makes sense. Just before they released XP they stopped support of 95. They probably want to wait for Longhorn before they drop support of 98. I can't see any other reason they'd support an OS for so long. (Let's ignore the fact that perhaps they should support all of their OS's regardless. Though that'd be some task.)
Who doesn't like free music?
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.
I don't think it has anything to do with them not promoting XP. I think MS has simply realized that many people who use Win98 simply don't care enough or don't have a need to move to XP. Once they made that realization, it couldn't have taken long for them to see the money they could make in an extra two years of support.
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.
Well, people have been suffering under Windows 98 for years. Microsoft oughta be stuck supporting the crap they served us in the first place.
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.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
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.
www.thejulingtoncreekplantaion.com
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?
Windows Server 2k3 & XP would be a better choice, as Win2k is the older release, no reason to not come all the way up to the latest for an upgrade.
I know Win2k & XP have almost the same core, but still a good idea to go up to XP.
In fact, all words, phrases, and acronyms of length greather than 10 letters, and less than 12 letters, add up to 11.
-1 Offtopic
For God's sake, WHY??
95, 98x, 2k, they're all far beyond their useful life.
"I am glad to see that it was worth paying the 'MS tax' on the new computers I recently purchased."
Glad it worked out for you, but I wish I had a choice in the matter, because I don't use Windows at all, and I have to pay the tax anyway.
Say Bill, your last name wouldn't be Gates would it?
From excellent karma to terible karma with a single +5 funny post...
The problem for Microsoft is that Average Joe home users, by and large, do not upgrade their OS.
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.
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, has its own bugs, has a completely new driver model, may require new application software, has the same rate of discovery of extreme security vulnerabilities, has a new, forced contract EULA, has more limited security in the case of password-protected network shares, and requires more training.
If you want to stay with an old version of Red Hat Linux, you have many companies willing to patch important old components, which are available completely separately, including source code, and can be installed completely separately. There is not a lot of pressure to upgrade, since the old versions didn't have many security vulnerabilities, either.
If you decide to upgrade to a new version of Red Hat Linux, the upgrade can be free, will not require new hardware (Linux runs fine on an old Pentium II, I've found.), does not require new training, and requires only the old contract.
Note that the principle of abandoning its own products is still there, Microsoft just pushed the date back. Also, those who don't work with Microsoft software may not realize that, without support, Windows 98 users are forced to upgrade, because Microsoft has given itself so many security vulnerabilities.
My penis is 11 inches long.
I accidentally pointed this out in the original article about 98 being phased out.
Namely: Extended Support: June 30, 2002 - January 16, 2004 (Extended hotfix support ends June 30, 2003. After January 16, 2004, this product will be obsolete and assisted support will no longer be available from Microsoft. Online self-help support will continue to be available until at least June 30, 2006.)
There are some reasons some people absolutely need some version of Windows handy, even if on a separate boot partition. For one thing, you cannot set up a Verizon DSL account -- absolutely the most affordable broadband around -- without running their custom Windows or Mac software.
I use Windows 98 at the office. I use Linux and Win2k at home. Quite truthfully I have no need for Windows 2000 or Windows XP at the office. My desktop works fine and supports all the apps I need.
Imagine the uproar if every five years the manufacturer or your razor stopped supplying blades or vaccuum cleaner manufacturer stopped making bags. All the while cornering you to 'upgrade' to a new product. I myself would go with different manufacturers. Sadly, in the OS market we have a limited choice.
Maybe I'm stretching the anology here but quite truthfully, I'd have to have a hardware upgrade to accommodate a newer Win OS. I have no reason to do so, and hence, my post.
These things can't be had for love nor (reasonable quantities) of money --- they sell on EBay for twice what they cost from Microsoft ($19.95 originally).
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 first edition, but it won't get one to Second.
William
(who would switch the system to Linux if there were Linux alternatives for Fractal Design Expression, Macromedia FreeHand, FutureWave SmartSketch and IBM InkManager and PenOffice 2.5e --- it's a Fujitsu Stylistic pen slate)
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
If execs were smart, they would demand to know for how long current versions of windows will be supported, before entering into a large licensing deal. Most people won't buy a car without knowing the details of the warranty. It shouldn't be any different for corporate software purchases.
The logistics of this is NOT a nightmare. The procedures and tools were evolved/acquired through trial and error. A process the client does NOT want to even chance at repeating.
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.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
During a meeting a month or two ago someone mentioned that we had 20,000 Windows 98 support calls in the previous month (at $35 a pop) and when 98 support is ended, that is a loss of $700,000 a month of revenue. These customers who many of which bought their computers during the internet craze are limping along at 200MHz or so and a new OS for them means a new computer. So we considered this pretty much a bad move. (As contract people not MS employees)
I hate to admit it but in one way, its a smart step because of the number of users still on 98.... on the other hand... .it's also like keeping your 120 year old grandfather on life support "just because"...
Or did the penguin?
MS just says whatever they think the public will buy.
So is there going to be a MS apology to Sun? Or can companies publicly lie about others and get a pass?
Weird: a few years back (98-ish?) I was running Netscape on Linux and I'd have to exit Netscape about once a month because the memory got too fragmented: otherwise it was rock-solid for the time.
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.
I switched to an eMac last night.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Wasn't it the Australian MS office that screwed up the annoucement that Outlook Express was no longer being developed, and then backed it off a week later?
; [ln];LifeWin
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=fh
Unless MS just hasn't updated this, the date of June 30th has been there for months, and it's only the on-line support. It actually says: Extended hotfix support for this product will end on 30-Jun-2003. After 16-Jan-2004, this product will be obsolete and assisted support will no longer be available from Microsoft. Online self-help support will continue to be available until at least 30-Jun-2006.
Seems like no big deal...this has been this way for months.
In my opinion, this sucks.
Windows 98 is done. It's 2004. People who are still running 98 should really consider performing some upgrades to newer (and, in theory, better) operating systems. Whether it's Windows XP or the newest version of Linux, there is newer stuff out there that has more support and better features.
By supporting 98, Microsoft is, in essence, holding back part of the market. When old systems are still being used, new technology must support these systems.
I hate that.
Okay, I'm done. Rant over.
Typical scenario:
*ring ring*
Me: Hello?
Grandparent: My Microsoft's gone funny again.
Me: (Grits teeth, wondering, what the hell...) OK, what exactly is the problem?
Grandparent: I've tried every option / checkbox / dropdown / thingumy I could find, still not fixed.
Me: (I suppose I *could* tell them to call MS support, but even if they are monopolistic scum, I couldn't possibly subject them to my grandparents... ;) Ok, drag the window with your mouse...
Grandparent: Mouse?!
Me: (sigh)
Stuck down a hole! In the middle of the night! With an owl!
Linux: The world's best text-adventure game.
Either way Microsoft has a problem.
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'..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Or they can download Mandrake (or SuSE, Debian, etc) and not worry about the redhat EOL and get free updates without worrying about or paying out to a third-party.
I don't understand the redhat cheerleading, they ditched the home and small business people, no need to go back begging for scraps. There are other and better distros out there.
Now all us Windows 2003 users can continue to look down our snobby noses and snear in derision at the heathen still using Windows 98, the scum.
Or Msft marketing could created a stratified social class plan, like the old GM model:
Chevrolet - blue collar factory laborer
Oldsmobile - factory management
Cadillac - executives
Buick - retirees
Corvette - factory owners son
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Apple doesn't seem to have learned this yet.
they have a machine that cannot be upgraded to run Windows 2000 or XP. If they want to run 2000 or XP, they need to buy a brand new machine.
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.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
Long live the pentium 200.
First I have to upgrade everybody immediately, now I don't. Geez, can I submit a reimbursement to MS for the whiplash I suffered while supporting Win98 users?
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
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.
Now tell me, what benefits there are for us in switching from our current Win98SE/Win NT 4 machines, which we are all very familiar with, to WinXP/2000? And if there are any benefits, do they offset the costs?
I personally answered the first question with "increased security" and the second with "no". There's nothing stubborn about sticking with Win98SE; it's just common sense.
Microsoft:
Pro - doesn't lose people to another os.
Con - loses potential new sales
White-box retail:
Pro - wins customers through continued support, or upgrades, either way there's money here
Con - not many when charging by the hour, but you can make customers into enemies quickly by telling them "there's no way to fix this"
Users:
Pro - don't have to shell out $300 for a new email client.
Con - have to pay for their old box to be reloaded and fixed after the oldest of the old spyware/viruses take over and trash their data
also isn't as easy to fix as the newer OSes, so it might cost more, like a used car, but they are sometimes easier to fix, also like an old car
- Dan
Put your hands in the air for DebianTroll'sBest!
There's a profit to be had, you opensores hippies just don't get it.
Microsoft won't be able to convince the user base to leave '98 until they can convince the application vendors to support XP. Most off-the-shelf software is not Windows XP logo compliant. Browsing the shelves at CompUSA I barely found an application with the logo, other than MS Office. (Not that all companies will pay to have the logo, even if they are compliant.) Until they get this type of compliance, you must run as administrator to use Windows XP, which defeats many of its advantages.
So your point is that you're too lazy and afraid to make any kind of switch. Are you one of those programmers that detests any kind of change and lives by the motto, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"?
I have one 98 box on my internal (private) network that has been running for over a year (this box has been largely trouble free since 2000, and it has been used as a development test platform and to run experimental code). Admittedly, it does not do much now. I use it as a backup repository for day-to-day stuff, and for testing code that I want to deploy to folks who just MIGHT be running 98.
In this case, there is nothing driving changing this os. I DO live by the motto "if ain't broke, don't fix it;" I imagine many folks have better things to do than upgrade os's just to upgrade os's. If the system is performing it's intended task, what's the point of changing it?
This isn't good for those of us that have been pushing customers away from Win98. Our points have been that other options are far more stable and easier to manage and that '98 is dead. Now MS backpeddles and we'll be stuck being the bad guys having to either support Win98 for another couple of years or creating a new support tier and charging a premium to support it since it doens't fit in any of our current support models (management/packaging/etc is all different).
I have a business DSL line with them, use a standard gateway/router.
However, some ISPs give their customers DSL modems which have to be plugged into the USB port and require special Windows/Mac drivers. Unlike regular broadband modems, there's no ethernet port on these.
(You'll see questions like this on USENET every so often.)
* Raises hand off of lathered-up cock * ME, ME!!
Also 2 years is enough time for any employer to have their employees trained to work under an OSS environment.
So in 2 years time win98 users are proposed with 2 options.
What are the odds that this is related to the gain in popularity of Linux and OpenOffice.org as well as a revival of the Mac in the form of OS X???
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.
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 radar as a desktop option for your typical "productivity suite" user. Any corporations you mention who actually care about the cessation of '98 support would probably have found some copies of Win2k, which they should have done long ago anyway, win98 sucks so badly.
Bottom line is, I use linux too, but I don't harbor illusions of any exodus to linux when the masses "see the light" after support ends for a particular windows product.
And anyway, I dare say that anyone still crazy/incompetent to run a business on a win98 box isn't exactly patching it all that much. As such, I imagine the number of people this proposed obselescence will impact is few.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
I have 98 on my second pc so I believe this relates pretty well:
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.
because of their last deadline, I already upgraded my OS on my 133 laptop to something newer - Gentoo 1.4 kernel 2.6. Its still compiling.... but i don't care because its not like I actually went out and bought another windows os license. Hey, there's a good oximoron when used in context with windows - "OS".
You are confusing me with someone who cares.
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....
I feel so sig.
Continued security updates for ... 8 years? You will be lucky get 8 months from Fedora. Somebody please point me to a Linux distribution that offers that duration of support at any price. Wow.
With Window 98, you get your OS, a web browser, and a few other pieces, but little more. With a Linux distribution, you get the OS and hundreds of other applications and utilities.
Linux just works on a different model than Microsoft products use. If a Linux distro provided as few programs as Windows does, it'd be a lot easier to support a particular version for extended periods of time.
Maybe MS figure that by 2006 loads more of the PCs currently running Win98 will have died, and been replaced by new PCs with WinXP preinstalled (as 90%+ do). Then they'll be able to drop support without too much hassle. I'd guess that by then Win98's 'market share' will have dropped from the current 20-30% to 5-10% maximum...
Too much time spent on a horrible TROLL.
But I liked it.
And there's nothing better than receiving your critical OS patches via snailmail. Even worse, it isn't like Microsoft is going to ship an extra CD for each bug they find. They'll wait to publish on a regular cycle unless something is so horribly critical it brings outrage and condemnation from everyone.
Providing online support is probably cheaper than CD support, anyhow. The only benefit going to CD does is to kill off the product.
And speaking of killing off the product, it would have brough nothing but bad PR, unsatisfied users, and more reasons to migrate to TheOther Operating Systems. Obviously, they're looking at their licensing revenue and looking for a flood of activations. It didn't happen. They're going to have to feed the baby until it gets old enough.
Have you actually looked at the EOL policies of Mandrake, SuSE, Debian, Etc.?
I have some old PII machines that are slow as a dead snail on XP but fly on W98. I can think of many reasons to keep using 98 on old hardware.
You're right in that there can be big benefits to eliminating win 9x from the IT picture (whether it be with NT/2k/xp or a Linux distro). However, none of the benefits you mention are significant AT ALL in the SME space. And by benefits, I mean DIRECT $$ SAVINGS. If it does the job Win 9x will stay there until it is forced out (ie. old machines that break down are replaced and new ones added--and 9x licences are no longer sold) or manager types are scared into upgrading (y2k and all--that's how a surprising amount of DOS/Win 3.x was cleared out).
Better automated distribution of patches? BIG FRIGGIN DEAL if you have only a dozen or less PCs to support. Better security? As long as you have a good firewall and anti-virus, etc it is of little to no concern if everyone in the company sees each other every day and knows where everyone lives. Not saying there is NO reason to think about patching and security--just in those situations you've got a lot of extra convincing to do. Especially if you tell mom-and-pop that their computers will run much better with an upgrade, but you'll need to spend $5000 or more to do it. Oh yeah, and that neat little VB4 app your nephew wrote in 1996 that you've come to depend upon will never run quite right again...
Even in a very large organization there is a point where there is no convincing argument to upgrade. My employer, a VERY large, global corporation just completed migration to win2k about a year ago (erasing the last of the win9x) that's lamost THREE YEARS after the product was released!
Win2k has all the security and administative benefits of XP and took a LONG time to fully deploy. A four year support cycle would be ludicrous as it would keep the IT dept busy almost perpetually upgrading and MS is starting to see that.
That is why MS is running into roadblocks with its licinsing schemes--it compels companies to upgrade too frequently. For a large corporation or government, they count on a three year MINIMUM life cycle. ROI better be even quicker than that too.
My employer is significantly larger than 10k users and also has volume license arrangements wirh MS. It also costs us no different for CALs regardless of windows version, however that cost is miniscule compared to the effort and money it takes to upgrade on that scale. thus, Win2k is expected to be present in our company until about 2006--about the time Server 2003 is completely established (It doesn't look like XP will EVER be formally rolled out as an upgrade--it seems to be just floating in as the sales people get new machines or machines with a WinXP sticker on them are sent in for re-imaging, and our techie types must stick with 2k as the software we work with hasn't been proven to our satisfaction to operate safely with XP).
Longhorn won't see the light of day here until near the end of the DECADE provided MS doesn't fall behind in its release schedule...
I think the reason why Microsoft is extending Windows 98/98SE/Me support is the fact that a lot of older computers out there are not ready to run Windows 2000 Professional and Windows XP.
For example, Intel motherboards made before the Atlanta (AL440LX) motherboard have very low RAM memory expansion limits; even the AL440LX and the Seattle (SE440BX) motherboards require a flash BIOS upgrade before they can use 168-pin 256 MB SDRAM modules, and these motherboards are limited to at most 768 MB of RAM, which may not be enough to run Win2K and WinXP plus Office XP/2003 in some cases.
I was really looking forward to not having to support 98 in the workplace any more. Now, I have to support 5 bugy POS OSes (98, 98SE, NT 4.0, 2000, and XP) instead of 3. What is next? Is someone going to revive MS Bob from the dead?
Can we have a '-1 (Speculation)' mod option?
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?
My experience has been that with Microsoft products in many applications, the OS puts the demands on the hardware configuration more than the applications themselves. So if you're using Win98 and it does what you need it to do, there is no motivation for upgrading. When I cannot get a Windows machine to perform adequately and its hardware isn't up to spec to run the latest, heavily-bloated version of Windows, that's the day the machine becomes a Unix box and has new life as a backup, firewall, syslogd, mail, DNS, web, ftp server or other workstation.
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.
Oh annonymous coward, it's all about the GOAT with you, isn't it?
Since its been around for so long, I bet one could find versions that would run under wine or a dos emulator.
"Corporate change requires urgency-borne motivation."
I had to visit HP a while back and they have this visitor login system that consists of a laptop running Win95 connected to a printer that spits out the visitor badge. Two days in a row when I went to use it the system had crashed and I had to reboot to get my badge. The guy at the desk just said "Yeah, that happens a lot."
Phase 1: Develop Win98
Phase 2: Profit
Phase 3: ?
Phase 4: Extend Support
That or 2K. Most 98 applications work on 2K, even XP. I'm guessing you don't use Windows too much, because most apps don't break. And most machines that will run 98 (except the absolutely oldest ones that sucked even when they were new) will run 2K fine. I run 2K on a PII 233 laptop, so don't give me that.
As far as breaking apps, I guarantee that the best way to break Win98 apps is to start using Linux. Surprisingly, Win98 and Win2K are more compatible with each other than either is with Linux.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
I guess MS is scared about a lot of people making the switch to linux.
These people are probably running 98 on some old hardware (if it was new hardware it would have another more recent OS pre-installed, right?), now they wanted to eol win98 but figured that linux on the desktop is just as good for these people and on top of that, they would not have to upgrade their pc's. So MS rather wants to continue the support a bit longer and not lose these users to linux (counting on the fact that most people will have bought a new pc by 2006 and the new windows will out then too, what a coinsidence!).
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
Just goes to show. Two Wongs don't make a right.
I know Win2k & XP have almost the same core, but still a good idea to go up to XP.
That assumes you've got the hardware for it. Win2k runs acceptably well on an old PPro 200 with 96 MB of RAM that I have. XP was almost unusable on it.
XP (and presumably every subsequent version) seriously jacks up the hardware requirements to run it well. It's kind of a Moore's law... every new version of a Microsoft OS requires twice the power to do the same thing.
NT 4.0 ran fine in 128MB. Win2k really needs 256MB. I run XP on my laptop with 768MB, and I wouldn't want to try it with much less.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Supporting a Linux server doesn't cost a clueful admin anything - he just patches the parts he has to, upgrades the parts that need patched but lacks patches (right down to the kernel), and carries on.
Replace the kernel with a generic one, replace the main server apps the thing uses with generic versions (clue: also rip out the ones that box don't use), replace any and all libs you may need to, and since you (should) have already ripped out the fluff ("...you say you have KDE installed on your mail server? WTF!?") It's no big deal... you can have Red Hat 5.1 running the latest and greatest this way with a vendor support cost of, oh... $0 if you know you're doing as the admin. If you don't know, then hire someone locally who does - they can provide the same basic support, and I bet the response time is much, much faster than MS OR RH.
OTOH, upgrading a Windows OS after support drops for it requires that you replace the entire OS (no choice here, kiddies), a large share of the apps that ran on the old OS, AND, there is no way on God's Green Earth(tm) that you'd ever be able to only upgrade the parts of the OS you like. Oh, and there's a hefty license fee involved.
This is why I just don't get why the two are being compared vis-a-vis support.. it's like comparing apples to railguns.
If RH drops support for a Linux version, BFD - the admins will bitch, but they can work around iteasily enough. If MS drops support for a Windows version, then the admins are well and truly fucked... and that's what it all boils down to.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
By pushing back the date they discontinue support for Win98, Microsoft may in fact prevent people from switching to a free alternative like Linux, but at the same time it means that they'll have to make certain that their newer application suites still work on Win98, and that will prevent MS from using new, undocumented operating-system "features" in their products for a while.
If their APIs stay stable, then the Wine development group will catch up to them, and it'll be an even bigger incentive to run the MS application suites on Linux!
Face it, Microsoft, you're a dodo-bird, an evolutionary dead-end, and no amount of effort is going to change that.
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
When I built my most recent computer a couple years ago, 98SE was the best winOS to run for games. It was more stable than regular 98, but didn't carry the overhead that the newer versions did. I made the system a dual boot with Mandrake, but spent most of my time in windows enjoying my (then high-end) video card.
I am personally pleased by this because it means that the new DirectX updates will work on my computer for a while to come. Not that my hardware can really handle all the games that are coming out now, but it's nice to know that my system will continue to be 'good enough' for a couple more years.
Yeah, I have a webcomic...
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!
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
I do tech support for a large ISP, most of the customers running windows 98 dont bother to update anyways. I'll have them go to windows update and there's 21 *critical* updates needing to be installed. Also, most of them don't even know what version of windows they run anyhow. To Joe Blow average user they could care less about microsoft support (until they try to install that new device that has no win9X driver). The continued support must be aimed at corporations to keep them using M$ products.
My ghEtt0 webpage.
You too can run XP on a PII/400 with the same performance characteristic of 2000. you just need to turn off themes, extra visuals, and a few of the other unneccessary background services. They even made a control panel out of most of the performance-related settings, which means you don't need to registry hack.
The only downside is Activation (hence my recommendation of finding a CVE install CD)
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
What did you think you were buying when you bought a retail copy of RedHat anyway? I mean, all the packages could be updated for free independantly anyway. IT WAS ALWAYS DONE BY VOLUNTEERS ::shrugs:: more power to them.
No, I think RedHat WOKE UP. Buy Workstation 3.0 ($99) if you want 1+ year support.
I've used it all along on some desktops for free. We pay for the Enterprise Server on the db server.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
You know, so that 1000 dpi optical mouse will actually improve your shot...
You know, so that you can still run limewire in the background while using a game with DirectPlay without compromising download speed/ping.
You know, to have SUPPORT FOR HYPERTHREADING.
No, no, no one would ever need stuff like that on a gaming system.
Also, I've found that 98 (especially in memory constrained situations) is ASS SLOW compared to an XP system with proper drivers.
I bet all those games based on the Quake ]|[ engine run real fast with the kernel emulation mode required for 98 support (bypassed in XP).
Keep pushing the limits of your system with Counterstrike.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
Two words can describe why most home users stick with Windows 98:
Product Activation
Describes me, anyway. Are you listening, M-soft?
Don't the first and last points kind of contradict each other? Why are you "fixing" (with Linux) what "isn't broken"?
I was hoping it would come. The anticepation was building and now WHAT A LET DOWN. The support community was actually looking forward to having "BUY A NEW ONE" not only the best answer, but the only one.
See the Pictures of the Flood of '08
NT 4.0 ran fine in 128MB. Win2k really needs 256MB. I run XP on my laptop with 768MB, and I wouldn't want to try it with much less.
I run my XP machine fine with 192MB ram. I think it depends on what you are using your system for, not necessarily what OS you are running on it.
Don't know what you screwed up on the install, or maybe it's that you need to re-install. My laptop is a Toshiba, a PII-266 with a mere 64 MB of RAM. It takes a few minutes to load, and I don't run 15 things at once, but it handles Office 2K just fine. Win2K isn't all that bad on older machines if you install it clean and don't junk it up. I don't know what's wrong with your box. That said, no one should be using machines of the vintage we have for business. Such machines can be replaced with better ones, used, for pennies.
My guess is that you don't use many old apps. I found a couple that don't run on W2K 10 minutes after installing it for the first time. So my newest machine (AMD XP2500+) is running Win98/Mandrake 9.2 dual boot. I have 3.5 machines running Windows (W98, WME, W2K*2), and 4.5 running Linux (Mdk).
You can always find some that apps that were made for 98 and don't run under Win98, but most do. Additionally, I believe XP has a "98 Compatible" mode that runs most executables OK. However, my original point was this: cessation of win98 support will not drive people to linux because of app breaking, as migrating to linux from windows will break 100% of your apps, as opposed to (rough, rough guess) 10% of your apps as occurs with Win98-->Win2K.
Thus, I still predict that MS dropping Win98 support will not send people to Linux, even had it occurred this year.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
I know of a lot more Windows 95 OSR2 installations (both home and corporate) than I do Windows 95 installations. Both have FAT32 support, so the one compelling reason to upgrade wasn't there in 1998, and yet the upgrade costs for OSR2 have been significantly higher than for 98, making it harder for people to justify the cost of a full replacement copy (unlike Windows 98 users, Windows 95 OSR2 users haven't been eligible for the various "upgrade" versions of Microsoft's OSes over the years).
I've got five OSR2 installations myself at home, and for me to upgrade would cost over $1000!!
I'd love to upgrade my PPro boxes to XP, but I've been priced out of the market...
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
If you are putting Windows 98 on a new system, you may not be able to get 98 drivers for it. A lot of OEMs seem to support 2000, XP, 2003, etc but not the older Windows 9X drivers. Good luck trying to get that USB 2.0 or Firewire driver. Hope your video card has a driver, if not use the VGA driver all the way.
You are giving the middle-finger to Microsoft and ignoring the EULA. Good thing they only audit large companies for software audits and not home consumers. Only way they can find out about it is if you call them for tech support and your hardware configuration has changed from the last time you called them and you have the same product key.
Also consider that 98 won't run the new Napster client or the Windows iTunes client. More software will come out that will require Windows 2000 or above to work.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
im sure the main reason they will continue to support win98 is that if they quit making patches for it but the basic user doesnt quit using the product then harmful crap will be pinging around the internet forever.
Any day of the week, I would rather rebuild from scratch some files in /etc that got fscked than try and fix a corrupted Windows Registry.
I don't care how knowledgeble the Microsoft community is. There is no one out there who can rebuild the registry from scratch. However, on linux it is possible to rebuild /etc from scratch
I guess what I am saysing is if all of your binaries are 100% ok, and some of your configuration information gets hosed, there is always a possibility to fix it in linux (and a comunity that will help with it) whereas with Billy Boy's beast, there is no one who can fix a sufficently corrupted registry.
vi +
Ok, so to summarize all arguments put forward to this point:
.conf files intact (since that's where anything interesting with your setup is going on anyway), ultimately it shouldent be impssible to do (I can back up my .conf files manually and then overwrite as long as there structure hasen't changed between versions), just a matter of making a special package (weither it be RPM, DEB, or source) that replaces your files with those of a new version, and simultaneously updates any .conf's that need it done; however for this to work I believe that the individual Software writers will need to post a 'how to change from 3.1->3.2' guide for the disto's to follow.
(/No longer informative rant)
1-Microsoft should support there products ad-infinium!
2-Microsoft supports it's products for what appears to be an average of 5 years (4 for windows 95, NT, 6 for windows 98)
2-Redhat (and most linux distro's) dose not support it's products for more then a year
3-You can pay someone else to support those products for more then a year at ~$5/year
4-You cannot pay someone else to support windows (due to closed source nature, or maby just because microsoft dosen't see it as a viable buisness model to contract out there support)
So what's the final verdict? In my humble opinion; Microsoft's long support contracts are good things(tm), however; you can purchase 5 years of support for your linux product for $25; which is generally a lot less then the difference between buying a microsoft OS/Word Processor and buying a Linux OS/Word Processor- but it's a major inconvience to have to purchase support from a company which is not the orriginal one you bought the software from.
(No longer informative rant) I think that what linux needs to counter this 'viscious cycle of expirations' is develop a method for updating the whole system to the newer system while leaving your
-Millions of Monkeys, Millions of typewriters, 6 hours of sorting through faeces encrusted pages to find: This post
Oh, I used to run Win2k with 64MB of RAM. It ran fine, as long as you didn't load more than one big program at once.
You're right. I use compilers, memory-intensive games, graphics manipulation programs, stuff like that, and I tend to have a bazillion windows open at once, so memory matters to me.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Oh Yay, MS is continueing support of 98 I'm so thrilled I might just poke my eyes out with a can opener.
While I've got nothing against people using 98 and I understand the cost of upgrades isn't easy to cope with think of those of us who write software for the windows market. There are so many problems and bugs that ONLY crop up under 98, and when so many people are running this system they expect you to support it.
When I heard MS was dropping support of 98 I was over the moon, it meant we had grounds to drop our own support of products running under 98, now I learn I have to support this travesty for longer, oh gee, fun... NOT
Awww... I wanted to explode - GIR
that's beautiful, that is.
...nope...not convinced yet...
All most Win98 users in a small shop have to do is periodically run Windows Update, and if you've so long that you have 30 critical updates then you probably don't give a damn about more security or stability. And I don't recall having to reboot for each patch---only one after all are installed, except for major WMP and IE upgrades. The difference between that and Win2k and XP in this environment is barely perceptible at present. now for THOUSANDS of PCs scatterd around the world...yes...more automated update facilities are essential...
"Mom and Pop" say: Hmmm nasty trojans and worms eh? SQL Slammer, Blaster, Welchia, Nachi... Those were the REALLY nasty ones...damn we gotta get rid of Win98...what? What do you mean those only infect NT/2000/XP (and slammer only infects database servers)? That means win98 is immune? Damn I think I'll stick with win98 since all these newer, nastier viruses are going after the newer stuff. Plus I don't need to spend more money or worry about pirating stuff.
Also, clueless laptop user gets what's coming to him if he neglects to keep his anti-virus program up to date and habitually puts his laptop in suspend mode when moving from home to work networks (my employer mandates regular anti-virus updates and it's against policy to hook your laptop into the company network when in suspend/hibernation). None of that involves upgrading and can affect ALL OSes (especially all MS OSes).
BTW...That hibernation feature is how SQL slammer infested many sites (salespeople with SQL server running to demonstrate high-end software). Upgrading wouldn't have saved anyone there--but turning of the SQL server service and/or not using suspend would've and that costs nothing.
Right now, to convince businesses, especially SMEs, that spending big $ to upgrade their OSes, basically requires MS and all software makers to ABANDON older OSes...they'd all have to work in consort to confiscate their paddles and launch 'em into 5h1t Creek...
Oh, be fair to them. It runs just fine in 640 MB.
(which is somehow fitting)
Once the mindshare for something which runs on a P133 starts slipping away, then the Microsoft Office monopoly starts leaking big-time.
My other car is a 1984 Nark Avenger.
I hope this ends the discussion on redhat dropping upgrade support. That's all that microsoft offers anyway, it's not like anyone calls them for support (at least anyone who does doesn't bother to call a second time).
The source for linux is open, and thus updates continue whether or not the original company continues to put them out. Yes it's true, not everyone can update the packages themselves, due to technical ability, time constraints etc. But maybe this will help you understand why we linux users consider ourselves a COMMUNITY.
http://apt.freshrpms.net
It has more than just baseOS updates, from 6.2 on. The rpm installs flawlessly on your redhat system and then apt-get update, apt-get upgrade will get you all your updates.
No kidding on the P2, we currently have a production mail server, running spam (spamassassin with bayes) and virus (mailscanner+clamAV+alittlescript that downloads and installs updates) filtering for 30 users. Runs squirrelmail as well so they have webmail, it also runs apache (for the squirrelmail) and a simple redirect script (if anyone wants it let me know, simple enough to write) that invisibly redirects mail.theirdomain.com to https://mail.theirdomain.com/webmail/. This helps because your average user has trouble with domains (and understanding msn search box is NOT where they go) and even the more tech savvy users are a little slow on the pickup with https addresses.
The server is running clarkconnect 1.3 (redhat 7.3 with an easy web interface), on a P1 (non MMX) 233 with 64mb ram, 128mb swap and a 2gig hard drive.
Purrs like a kitten. This was old when deployed (they wanted a solution for under $200) and has been running for 2yrs without an issue the only instance of downtime was for a couple hours and scheduled to add the virus and mail filtering. It only took that long because we needed to resize a partition and enlarge the swap (was 64mb) and the partitions were ext3 (so had to tar'd out to another drive, part resized, ext3 recreated on larger size then untar'd back in).
At some point unless VERY vital we setup all our linux servers/workstations/desktops to download and install updates automatically. Never had an update cause a problem yet.
Yet another +5 Troll from Debian Troll's Best! You rule, please have my baby. I follow your apt-get adventures every day. I bet someday you'll find a way to cure cancer with apt-get! Keep on apt-getting!!
Well, all the newer ones have to be runnable under XP, which should translate to 2K as well. I will admit, I switched my home box to 2K and switched it back to 98 when I found a couple of games that wouldn't install, but they were both a few years old.
This should be a dead issue in a few years, right in time for Longhorn to screw everything up again.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Make Linux user friendly and everyone will switch
Step 1 - Write Windows 98.
Step 2 - Stop supporting Windows 98, making everyone upgrade.
Step 3 - Profit.
Step 4 - Reveal that it was only a joke (wait... the end of support or the operating system in general?)
Sigh..
Some of us have very different reasons for not "upgrading" to Win XP and are very glad that Win 98SE still has more life in it no matter what the 'crosoft future holds in store for us.
Not being a quintessential geek or Joe "case of 24", product activation has been a deterrent to "upgrading" no matter how the "upgrade" is obtained (cracked versions are available but why bother). There are many offices/households that have multiple computers in them. For all of Win 98SE deficiencies, and there are many, there are still many applications that run on it.
Some of us have no interest whatsoever in the latest version of Win XP only "software". Time and time again I am amazed at how much of a slug Win XP is. The more adventurous of you out there will have noticed that Win 98SE running on the latest Pentium or Athlon will always be much faster than Win XP, at least from a subjective usability point of view.
Sure there are limitations in Win 98 SE but these are outweighed by economy (one license, MANY machines) and of course infinite "backupability". It is possible to have multiple versions of Win 98SE (or Win 95) available on one machine. One setup for writing progams, another for 'crosoft's slugware (sorry office), another for games. etc. You just can't do that with Win XP. Win XP's resource "footprint" is just too big for people who just want to run a simple internet browser.
Personally I am buying extra consumables in the hardware department to ride out 'crosoft's DRM slugware fantasy that is apparently coming. I might be using Win 98SE for another five years at least. Contrary to popular belief it is possible to use Win 95/ Win 98SE safely as long as you steer clear of trash like IE and the like. Sure I'm not riding the wave of new "hypeware", but I have enough computing power to be writing this message on a Mozilla browser. 'crosoft better pray that there aren't more people like me. People "will" become very resourceful if they feel that choices are being limited to perverted expensive alternatives. Computing does not necessarily follow the fashion paradigm regardless of what some "Harvard dropout" might say.
Proudly Anonymous, wisely a Coward.
It's nice to see that the community is actually listened to every now and again.
I think that the actual cost the full version of Windows 98 is around $300. The upgrade was $99 and the OEM version sold for about that too. Notice that MS does not technically support OEM versons, the OEM is responsible for that.
Dissolve... Resolve... Evolve...
microsoft has started to support win98. Woooooww.