Slashdot Mirror
End Of Support for Windows NT 4.0
IdleMindUI writes "This month is the last month that hotfixes for Windows NT 4.0 will be released. Security fixes will only be released to Microsoft customers with Custom Support Agreements. Custom Support Agreements are still available for customers that need them and can be obtained by contacting a Microsoft rep. More information is available on the NT 4.0 support lifecycle site."
It will be interesting to see how many people take the Linux plunge and break from the swirling vortex of regular, forced product updates. I am betting very few, unfortunately. It's just too much of a leap for most people...when Windows XP/20XX offers such a warm fuzzy UI feeling.
Let's exclude IBM Mainframes here -- despite the hardware changes and market drift over the last few decades, it's still IEBGENR & CORGZ under the skin. And they haven't dusted the o/s since the 70's...
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
We are still building new servers at work (a bank) to use NT4. By the time we are finished certifying Win2000 for internal use it will be 2007 at least. We still have a few dinosaurs running Solaris 2.1 (!!!) and no one wants to upgrade them because they run mission critical applications which don't allow for any downtime.
Is almost 10 years of support after two differnt major updates have been released really a forced upgrade? Besides, if you still really want it, you can pay for support. Try getting profesional support for Linux kernel 2.0 (okay I might eat it for saying that when someone tells me its easy, oh well, I dont think MS is doing anything evil this time)
"January 1, 2007 Online support is no longer available."
What do they mean by this exactly? Does this mean they pull the website for Windows NT 4.0 and deny that it ever existed? I know a many companies still run Windows NT boxes stand alone (in a lot of industrial control systems), denying access to existing patches or online help for this OS doesn't make too much sense. I could see many Windows NT boxes still running for the next 10 years or so.
Just out of curiosity, what other major software vendors are still providing security (or other) hotfixes for platforms two or three generations back? Do Oracle, SAP etc. and other major commercial vendors do the same?
I know Linux does. The 2.0 development cycle has seen work from July 1996 to February 2004. Since the source is open and I'm sure there's some 2.0 folks still around, any security fixes, as rare as they come up in the kernel, could easily be backported.
Companies EOLing stuff after 9 - 10 years scares me. With the notion of pervasive computing and kernels showing up in a wide range of things, the concept of software lasting far longer than we thought is now nothing new. Consider Y2K-affected machines--engineers never thought their products would still be running 30 years later, but somehow, they were.
You'd think that as big a company as Microsoft is, they'd support old crufty stuff ad infinitum to give their own products that lasting aura of strength and integrity. Of course, there's no money to be made in releasing patches for 10 year old stuff, but the simple notion that all customers could have access to them could be a major competitive advantage.
Just think, do you really know when you're going to be replacing that server you've just setup?
"[T]he single essential element on which all discoveries will be dependent is human freedom." -- Barry Goldwater
Microsoft commonly waits months before they fix a found announced vulnerability. In the past Microsoft has attempted to ignore vulnerabilities, forcing security heads to make public announcements.
Dont be fooled by the statistics, NT4 hasn't been supported for a while. When was the last service pack for NT4?
The difference between support on linux and support on windows is mostly statistical. Look at debian, gentoo, even freebsd. You can upgrade to stable packages (maybe not gentoo) dynamically without running a time wasting installer.
I personally dont like these automated tools, but I'd probably use them before windows update on a critical security network.
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
1 John 4:14
So you're saying that the firewall should be implemented in the IP stack.
No, he's saying that a proper IP stack will not respond to a request for service from a TCP/UDP port that has no service listening to it on that machine. I'm not 100% sure of the veracity of the statement, but I'm pretty sure XP does this as prescribed.
Whether the firewall is a separate service or whether it is built into the networking stack or whether it is a separate machine sitting at the root of the network, a firewall is needed.
Yes, for any external communications, a firewall (and encrypted links if you want to be picky) is a neccesity, and has been for quite some time. SP2 finally provided a firewall on by default, and gives the average user a fighting chance.
If you are cleaning out "mal|spy|ad-ware SP2 machines every day", you work with idiots. Or perhaps you are the idiot to continue working with them. Either way, I'm glad I don't work where you work.
I'm a BOFH. I work with lusers. Lusers are SpongeBob Squarepants without the personality. They are un-intelligent generally, but more so when it comes to computers. They don't know about computer security, nor do they care, since it's not thier job to administrate thier machine. The luser should be able to log on, go about it's business and not concern itself with what is in my prevue - making sure our comapnies data is safe.
Now, the problem XP, Win2K and NT present is that I, as an intelligent, responsible admin, do all that I can to prevent security issues and they still occur regularily, despite my best efforts. In order to be truly protected, I'd need to remove some of the machines functionality, which kinda removes the point of having the bloody PC there in the first place.
When I need to teach a luser how spyware gets on to thier XP SP2 machine - firewall and all - in order to try and prevent that event from happening is when I begin to question how much value XP really provides.
Soko
"Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
Just for giggles is anybody reading this currently using NT4?
So it's better to be forced to upgrade every 6 months or risk losing support than to have a single product supported for 8 years? Talk about vendor lock-in...
Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru?
I can't speak for DLing, but my company still sells PC based devices that run NT4 and will continue doing so for at least another year, perhaps two. It all depends on how much continued demand there is for these products (low, but enough to keep selling them), as well as if we can continue to get licenses for NT4.
Windows 2000 Embedded style licensing (which we use on most PC based products now) is preferred, but there are issues in upgrading these devices. Of course, Windows XP Embedded just plain stinks for what we are doing, and XP Pro OEM licensing is a nightmare for a company like us (ie we would not qualify for corporate licensing and we cannot pre-activate the OS).
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
... my poor customers who can't enter into any kind of support agreement other than me keeping their systems running?
There is software that won't run on 2k or XP. Some small companies can't afford to upgrade their software, with the economy the way it is.
At least we have Ghost to take working snapshots...
Kenny P.
Visualize Whirled P.'s
I propose that after a company/vendor ceases ALL support for a specific piece of software, they are legally considered to have deemed the software obsolete. Thus, they are no longer legally liable for the software, and more importantly, cede all rights in relation to the software. Additionally, I propose that the company retains rights to the software as long as they are providing updates and support to keep the software useful , current, and relevant.
I figure that this makes sense, but others may have other insights.
My NT4 machines are the cleanest running machines - no spyware malware etc. No more support means no more hackers trying to get in.
That's not a bad idea, an unpatched Windows XP it's a time bomb ready to explode. People that format their pc usually just grab their 2001 Windows XP CD, put it in and proceed with the instalation. Once finished, they connect to the internet without patching and 1 minute later their PC it's a spam sending zombie.
NT4 Workstation was state of the art at the time...
What? NT4 was a step back from NT3, and UNIX had already gone SMP and 64-bit when NT4 came out. After having seen the glory of Oracle on NT4, I'd even go so far as to say that NT4 was a steaming pile of shit. I was always in the process manager fighting with "you don't have permission to do that, loser" error messages, and I was "administrator"! It was awful!
-- Microsoft is the most expensive commodity operating system and office suite vendor in the marketplace.
It is a bit unfortunate that MS offered more support for NT than RH would for RH 5.0 and try getting suppor for Mandrake distros before 9.x--prety thin on thr ground I'd guess. To be fair MS is huge and sitting on a few billion so I thing they can foot the bill for the support. I do tend to cut Mandrake some slack being they had to pull themselves out of bancruptcy protection and all.
Ultimately, we don't need to expect a Linux vendor to have as long a support cycle. One thing that is different is that the Linux distro companies is that they do not control the source code, and that code is publicly available to anyone forever (the Linux kernel right back to the first 0.whatever release is available). Not only that, the Linux kernel support team DOES support old kernels--a lot of relevant patches are still backported to the 2.0.x kernels (which are as old as NT4). That is one of closed sources disadvantages-the vendor has to either open the source or offer indefinite support or the project is 100% guaranteed to become extinct.
Honestly, if your system is SO critical that you cannot change the core of your OS once every eight years then you either have the skills to deal with the lack of vendor-specific support for the old distro, or you more likely you made the wrong platform choice. If you needed a system that could be locked away and continuously run ontouched--with no mainteneance and upgrading--for THAT LONG, then you wouldn't use a PC-based server, you'd have gotten an IBM 390/Z-series/AS400 or a DEC/Compaq/HP VMS system and paid the boatloads of money to the vendor for support (REAL support, which MS has never been known to provide).
Interestingly enough, even today MS Windows platform is not an option on REAL "big iron" (well, anyways your choices are severely limited), while today linux is a valid choice. And downtime due to upgrades is not a concern on these big Linux systems, because you can stage the upgrade on another partition on the same hardware and just switch over when everything is set up. totoal downtime would be measured in milliseconds.
Isn't this a bit like a car company coming out with a release that their car has some serious defect, but since they took so long to find it, they now get to make a profit on the recall?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't Ford be in just a bit of trouble if they came out every five years and said "Our 1998 model vehicles have serious flaws, but have been EOLed, so please purchase a recall contract, or buy a new high quality Ford vehicle".
I can understand charging people for a new version of software, but with hotfixes, we are talking about making the software DO WHAT THEY SAID IT WOULD DO when you bought it in the first place. And since they are resorting to this strategy, obviously a large number of people felt that a new version of the software with its attendant features had nothing to offer... if that wasn't the case they wouldn't use EOL as a tool to force upgrades.
Someone needs to call MS on this -- software, after all, does not wear out... if it did it's job five years ago, it should continue to do so. In this case, the only reason that it has stopped working is that it was defective in the first place (and yes, a major security exploit is a defect in the product.)
What we really need is a ten day waiting period and a background check before you can buy a congressman.
...do you? Get out of your little bubble man! As if Linux systems are all PCs!
Msec?? Really??. When is the last time your linux system booted within 10 seconds?
My email, web and firewall servers? Never. The handheld, wireless Linux terminals that had Linux in flash rom? They always booted up way faster than 10 seconds.
These are not your basic beige Intel boxesI was talking about, these are $250K z-series workhorses. And a "partition" isn't just a little piece of an ATA hard drive--it is a completely self-contained virtual system within the hardware. You can reboot any partitions you want to your hearts content so long as you leave the production systems up. When you are done staging an upgrade (install, configure, regression testing etc etc) you just boot it up (however long that takes) then "throw the switch" when it is up and ready to go. Until that time, the prodution system hums away undisturbed on another partition.
Result? Service disruption that is LITERALLY milliseconds. That's my point--if a solution is SO critical that it MUST stay on 24/7 for THAT long, you don't just throw any old commodity hardware at it running Windows. If you didn't have to pay six-figures for the hardware and software that is acutally scalable then upgrading once or twice a decade to maintain reliable support isn't a problem for you--it is something you are just whining about. Windows serves the small and midrange market fine but it is not and never will be a contender in the very-large-enterprise market where such extended support is required--period.
NT4 Workstation was state of the art at the time
Yeah? In 1996, when NT4 was released, I had two workstations on my desk. One was a PC running NT4 and the other was a Silicon Graphics Indy, running IRIX (don't remember the version number). There was no comparison between the two.
Performance, stability, security, graphics, UI, remote administration, development tools... I can't think of a single area in which NT could have been considered on par with IRIX, much less better. Oh, I guess NT4 did have ACLs, so in theory it had the potential of being more secure, but it wasn't.
And, frankly, IRIX in 1996 looked pretty weak compared to the NeXTstep system I had at home in 1992.
NT4 was not state-of-the-art in 1996, it was still trying to catch up to the Unix workstation platforms.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.