Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Stops Supporting Win98 Early
Christopher_G_Lewis writes "Today Microsoft announced that it is 'not feasible to make the extensive changes necessary to Windows Explorer on Microsoft Windows 98, Microsoft Windows 98 Second Edition (SE), and Microsoft Windows Millennium Edition (ME) to eliminate the vulnerability' to fix Security Bulletin MS06-15. Granted, the vulnerability is easily prevented by basic firewalling, but this basically is the first time Microsoft has admitted that Windows 98 is so broken that it's crazy to be running it on today's Internet."
Maybe I'm crazy, but that OS is, what, 8 years old? How many OSes from that time would be safe to run on today's 'net? Mac OS... what? 8, maybe 9? Solaris 7/8? HP-UX 10?
Ok, Sol8 I could see I guess, but for all that I'm a Mac bigot these days, I can't really blame MS for being unable to support software that old. Sure, it was broken as hell when it came out, but at this point, I'd really rather they try to keep XP or (/sigh) maybe Vista reasonably up-to-date.
I think Microsoft is missing a serious opportunity here. It's called branching.
If they are forced to fix vulnerabilities for an old piece of software without getting paid I can see how that doesn't make sense. But I cannot imagine that there is NOBODY who will pay for vulnerability fixes to their old line instead of upgrading.
Why? Because some software runs on 98 and not on 2000 or XP. Some software will probably run on XP and not Vista in the future. If they dealt with the branch constructively, this could represent another revenue stream for them.
I don't believe it's cannabilistic because the people who would stay on a branch have to because of other software, not because they are cheap. Eventually, they will spend the same amount of money on security updates that it takes to purchase XP but won't have to upgrade their custom software for the new environment.
Is there some reason this wouldn't work?
You are checking your backups, aren't you?
No, I'll get modded down, but... ;)
Look, the truth is that Win XP and to a lesser but still significant extent Win 2k are real, solid OSs. They're targets because of their omnipresence, and moreso because they're 'competitors' to Linux, which is so endeared unto a community like this one.
So we hear the most about the Windows vulnerabilities, yet I just updated some of the software on my Linux box to fix a few security holes, too. And in all honesty...like any other piece of software, if you keep up with the updates and are conscious of the risks and pitfalls of everyday use, it's a safe, fast, and secure OS. If you tossed a version of your favorite Linux distro released circa 1998 onto a computer you would have some VERY serious problems running it smoothly and/or securely.
ACs are modded -6. I don't read you, I don't mod you, I don't see you. Don't like it? Don't be a coward.
Support lifecycle ends on July 11, 2006, so it hardly seems worth the effort to patch for Microsoft. Besides, a pc still running Win98 on the internet without a firewall is probably already compromised, so this patch won't help anything.
If you need the "Windows" environment (for legacy apps?), then 98SE is a perfectly good operating system for computers over 5 years old. It runs almost everything (that the hardware could handle, at least), and is a whole lot lighter than XP.
:|
I mean, if you're not wedded to applications, you can get almost any Linux install to run, better, on a machine that can handle 98SE, but some people aren't down for that
Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
looks like they already did.
Since Windows 95, their whole design was based on extending their products (including Internet Explorer) with insecure features. MS-Word viruses, ActiveX viruses, javascript viruses, and now we even have DRM viruses.
It's not that Windows 9x was old, but that it was awfully designed. Linux is older than Windows 9x, and they got the privileges and file permissions right since the beginning.
Most security updates in Open Source software like Firefox or Linux are due to implementation flaws (i.e. buffer overflows), but the problem we're dealing with here, is a DESIGN FLAW.
Very different, indeed.
I'll miss you, I'll especially miss the times a full-blown OS was in the range of 50MB.
Vista is gonna be around 8GB (11GB with debug files in the Beta2).
Of course, I'm left with managing over 14 machines here (and it's pro bono) for a few kids centers here, and Win98 is about the only thing that runs decently on these machines.
They have a firewall and Firefox instead of IE. Firefox also drops Win98 support in the next release.
In our eternal quest for cooler and newer and neater, we're burning dollars like crazy throwing our perfectly working machines and software. When will we learn...
On the contrary, Windows 98 SE was a lot better than Windows ME. Mainly in the sake of program response, programmability, and overall computer usage. Also, it was less buggy in a sense of vulnerabilities. With ME being a newer operating system, it's sad that Windows 98 SE had a few hundred less vulnerabilities than it.
"Instant gratification takes too long." - Carrie Fisher
Without support for Windows 98, what will users with limited-capability computers (e.g., computers equipped with 300-MHz processors) do?
Release they got their money's worth out of an almost 10 year old computer, and plop down $300 for a newer one? Or they could install Linux, although they'd be able to do less than they do with their computers now.
Or, as the article points out, put the computer behind a firewall, which pretty much every home user should do regardless of OS.
Err... what if the router is running the same OS the computer is running? Would you trust the computer then?
VMWare.
Ditch the extra power-sucking hardware.
I wouldn't trust any computer directly on the wire without a router. I don't care what OS it's running.
Hmm. So much for linux based routers then, huh?
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
You do realize that you need to patch client application security vulnerabilities too? Sure, there may be no "invisible" wormable exploit such as that used by Blaster (since Win98 is running no services). But all of the holes in IE, AIM, MS Office, Quicken, Firefox, and whatever else you use are still there. A large amount of malware relies on client-application vulnerabilites (straight buffer overflows, file parsing errors, etc.) to spread.
Now, you can say, "I never use applications except games from Win98". And if that's true, good for you. But those games could have holes, or they could rely on DLLs that have holes (IE libraries in particular).
Even worse, a whole lot of other folks are browsing the web, answering email, and using IM from Win98. A firewall does not provide client-app security, and these folks will be quickly owned when patches stop coming. Nor does AV software protect you from a lot of attacks at the network protocol layer, as most AV software does not scan network connections in real time or only handles HTTP and POP3 scanning. Until we can formally prove the correctness of all software running on the device, patching will always be necessary for Internet-connected machines (no matter what the operating system).
Except I've seen a recent push in the media to ditch Win98. They're even pushing the, "You're Not Cool" buttons, which makes me think somebody is getting desperate. . . Now why on earth would the Big World Out There care which version of Windows the public is using? Here are a list of possible answers and general points which strike me off the top of my head. . .
1. Money. If you can convince a few million people that they need to spend a few hundred bucks on a new operating system, (Like, ooooh, say, Vista which is being released so very soon), what better way to increase initial sales on a new product? Mod me down, and I know some of you will want to, (hello MS astroturfers), but this seems like a fairly obvious marketing ploy to jeer and scare people into buying a new product. In other words, FUCK Microsoft; I'm not about to be manipulated by highschool popular kid tactics.
2. DRM. Later releases of Windows are linked to Microsoft and secret services in ways which allow the Powers That Be to keep tabs on you at all times. You want to control media? What better way than to put an OS with built in spy abilities on every desktop and lap top in the world? Win98 isn't so useful to the Black Hats this way; it was written too early in Microsoft's evolution; somewhat before their dance with the devil took it down the domestic spying and social control road.
3. Fear. Anybody who tells me that Win98 is not a safe system is a fool. Win98 has a very short list of vulnerabilities. Nobody attacks it. I don't run a virus checker and my very basic firewall takes care of every other danger. Look at the last three years of viruses and bugs which have hit the world; how many of them have affected Win98? Like 1 percent? Or less? Exactly.
I'll stick with Win98 until they make it illegal not to have government eyes installed in our homes. The way this is going, I probably won't have to wait too long. . .
-FL
I've read some of your comments, and most of them are crap. I'm a net engineer/tech of 20 years. This is the same old BS that software companies pull all the time. "We need more money, your software is old, give us more money 'cause we aren't going to support your product anymore." It's a crappy business practice.
Many people don't need the latest IE, media player, shockwave, java, directx, animated ads, 3mbit broadband, 256mb ddr3 PCIe vidcards (with cooling fans *sigh*), processors that use a rediculous amount of power in both the processor itself and the means to keep it cool...just to check their e-mail, do some word processing, surf, download some media, listen to some music, burn some stuff, and balance a checkbook. There are plenty of Win3.1 programs that do most of this, and I'd only upgrade to Win98se for the internet stuff and the CD functionality. The usefullness, to the average users I see every day, needs only to be upped to XP or 2000server if "little Timmy" needs to play some action game online, teleconference or watch a vid stream smoothly, or use a wireless router with some security. The majority of users aren't even planning on using these in the future. Let's not even talk about how fast a P3 800mhz running 98se with 256mbpc100ram, and a 128mb agp vidcard ran the programs of its day vs. how slow an AMD64, with 1gbDDR2, and a 128pcie vidcard run the larger, clunkier programs of today. I see no improvement, it's even slower. There have been very few actual improvements. One exception would be LCD screens, best thing to happen since broadband, and before that, the cd burner.
What about the old PC's we gave away to charitable organizations? or those that will now end up in the landfill? The end of Wme or W98se will surely mean most computers owned before 2002 will be in landfills.
If companies are going to do this, they should list how long they intend to support the product before you buy it. If this is capitalism, let the markets sort out support time as a factor. I'm sure when I pay $495 for my 5 w98se licenses in 2003 from the computer shop (which I didn't), I was expecting a little more than this. If micros*it had listed "were pulling the plug in 3years" on the box, I'd have looked a little more closely at the Red Hat sitting next to it on the shelf. The one good idea I saw was a pay customer service model, though we shouldn't have to pay it.
In any case, doesn't microsh*t make billions with every release of windows? Why is it too expensive for them to provide support for something that works, they made their money. It isn't fair to compare operating system support to, say, support for Madden '03. It's an operating system. Why don't you end support for ms calculator or solitaire instead?
(rant over)
(maybe not)
I suspect, slightly, that this move comes from the fact that 98se and ME are both so easily copied and MS wants everyone to pay. If this is their logic, while fair in a business sense, it's unfair to their paying users and the environment.
(ok, now end rant)
...that Win XP and to a lesser but still significant extent Win 2k are real, solid OSs.
I disagree. I would say that Win2k and to a lesser, but still significant extent WinXP are running on solid OS kernels.
Too bad that the layers of code on top of the kernel aren't so good.
Why is it fair to compare Linux from 1998 to Windows 2000? You don't think that Windows 2000 came out in 1998, do you?
The problem with security and Windows is that it can only come from Microsoft, updates are few and far between, and in order to get them you have to accept Microsoft Genuine Spyware(TM).
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
- Install your aged CDs. (Potato? I forget.)
- dselect update
- dselect select
- dselect install
- Repeat previous step until there's nothing left to install.
I should try this sometime on a stable install. I updated a sarge install and a sid install recently that had both been disconnected from the 'net for a couple years (the sarge was originally a Testing machine; while I was DSL-less, sarge was released; meant I had to edit myYeah, you can use apt-get too, but I found that dselect was smarter about the package install order.
The key difference, at least between Debian and Windows, is open ports. You toss on a potato or woody install, and there are no open ports. You toss on an XP install, and the stupid thing leaves a bunch of ports open, including freaking NETBIOS.
Closed ports by default gives you a chance to install updates, and not get creamed. That's the difference.
my old sig used to be funny, but then slashcode ate it and now it's not funny anymore
I think the Windows Genuine Advantage (98) finally caught up with him...
Considering that Windows 2000 was released before Windows ME, isn't this tantamount to Microsoft admitting what we all already knew: that releasing WinME at all was a mistake?
Web 2.0 == Giant Blogspam Circle Jerk
Congrats on repeating a thoroughly debunked meme promogulated by one Rush Limbaugh and the right-wing smear machine. Gore never said that he "created" the internet, and what he DID say was accurate. You should be embarassed for repeating obvious lies like that, even for the sake of a lame and tired joke.