Slashdot Mirror
End of Win 98 Support May Boost Desktop Linux
An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft kills off support for Windows 98 and Windows ME today, and ZDNet is reporting that the move will boost demand for Linux on the desktop. Unlike two years ago — when support for Win98 was extended because Linux was seen as a serious competitor — this time it seems there is no turning back."
Increased demand for Linux on the desktop? Highly unlikely. The machines still running Win98/ME are probably all older machines that keep on chugging. The users didn't bother to upgrade to Windows 2000 or Windows XP in the first place, and will just keep running Win98/ME until the machine dies. When that happens, the users will simply buy a new system and then get the latest OS that comes with it. Probably XP or Vista, depending on time when the old machine dies.
While Linux may be ready for the desktop, the people that stick to Win98/ME are the most unlikely to switch to Linux.
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
Add to the lack of support the fact that most machines we are talking about are old and slow by today's standards. Modern Windows OSes won't run well if at all on many of them. Linux is a natural choice, so this 'analysis' is fairly obvious and not really news per se. Linux can run quite well on marginal hardware, and is available basically for free, or a small fee if the user(s) want support.
Nothing really to see here. Move along.
What a useless article, the only section that actually mentioned Linux at all was
Silver still believes that some users may decide to switch to Linux instead of upgrading to XP but he said existing applications that require Windows are likely to stop a mass migration.
So how exactly is MS killing '98 support going to 'help linux migration'??
Microsoft confirmed that they would begin supporting Windows XP sometime during Q3 this year.
Ame
Unless the end of support means that all copies will explode and stop working. I know people that still run windows 95 and they dont care that it is "unsupported" the masses dont care if something is supported anyways, they dont call microsoft, they typically dont go patching or updating.
This means absolutely nothing, windows 98 installed bast sill remain the same and slowly dwindle as the poor upgrade their pc's and use what comes on that.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
The kind of people who are still running Windows 98 are exactly the same people who will happily run Linux. And these same people really care about whether it's supported by Microsoft or not.
My Journal
Rich.
(PS. That discussion link just stopped working, but I expect it'll be back up shortly).
libguestfs - tools for accessing and modifying virtual machine disk images
First, a rewrite. Changes are highlighted in bold:
An anonymous reader writesSeriously, my PIII laptop has 'Designed for Windows 98' on it, and can run Windows 2000 and Windows XP just fine, but the mainstream Linux distros are too bloaty to even install: the Ubuntu and Fedora installers literally hang, and SUSE and Mandriva are too slow even on my other machine in the +2GHz range.
Linux can't pick up the slack when MS turns off support for old OSes, because the top Linux distros stopped catering for that level of hardware years ago. And with KDE/GNOME being so indispensable for everyday desktop usage, their near-elitist disregard for anything below mid-high range hardware is infuriating.
In fact, here is the quote ZDNet is using to support their claim:
Words cannot express just how much of a non-story this is.
I switched from Windows ME a few months ago after having saved enough money to get Windows XP. Really, Windows ME isn't as terrible as people make it seems. I only go to Slashdot, Wikipedia, and CNN with cookies disabled, so really there isn't much to worry about from getting spyware, adware, and computer virii. I never ran any advanced computer programs, so I never had to upgrade computers. I didn't want to switch to Linux because I had the notion that it was too technical and oriented for computer programmers, and the Linux community was too arrogant to help out any new people with basic problems. Really, Windows ME is okay, as long as you don't go exploring anywhere it's obvious you aren't supposed to. I upgraded computers and operating systems in order to run Celestia, an open-source computer program that lets you view the positions of stars and planets. With it, I can navigate the universe in the same way I navigate the planet with Google Earth. Even with 1.1 GHz and about 386MB RAM, it somehow still has great difficulty loading galaxies and planets.
I've been mulling this issue for a few weeks. I have an old Toshiba laptop that runs Win98. I've considered switching it over to Linux, but I'm unsure of which distro is appropriate. Of course, I've looked at the big name distros, like SuSE and Ubuntu. But, I'm not convinced they'd run well on old hardware. The laptop is a P2 with 64M RAM. So, I ask you Linux gurus, which distro would be the most suitable?
Shame then that Linux on the desktop is still effectively a hardware support crapshoot.
Actually it supports ancient hardware like that quite well, because people have had plenty of time to reverse engineer the hardware and debug device drivers. Even old winmodems are doing quite well.
Rich.
libguestfs - tools for accessing and modifying virtual machine disk images
However, all of the things that you would have to do to get it to install (text mode, --nousb, that type of stuff) would not be something the "average" computer user would be willing to deal with.
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
I work in a 2-way radio business radio shop. All of our programming computers use Windows 98 SE because everything after that had trouble with using the serial ports of out DOS (Now, on Win98, almost everything works. On anything past that, 90% of the software works, but you will run into something here or there that refuses to read or write to a radio).
I would love nothing more to swap each Win98 computer over to Linux, but you know how much of the radio programming software - Kenwood, Motorola, Icom, etc. -- will run on Linux? None.
I would bet that a fair amount of Win98 users still use it because they are in a situation similar to us, too. And you know how many of their critical apps run on Linux? Probably none, too.
Transporter_ii
Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
Although I'm a huge Linux fan, and I've been using it on my primary home desktop since 1997, I doubt that end-of-life on Win95 will push Linux adoption at all.
The issue here isn't keeping old machines running (which Linux does spectacularly) but keeping old APPLICATIONS running - those specialized applications that are in some sense mission-critical, but which won't run on newer hardware or under XP.
I've got a pair of P150 Win95 Toughbooks that I use to talk to the ECU on the race car. I'd love to use my fancy-schmancy HP ZD7280 instead, but it has no serial port, and the ECU doesn't like USB->Serial converters. Yes, I could buy a PCMCIA serial card, but the laptops were cheaper - and they work.
There are a lot of businesses out there with hardware controllers, bespoke business process software etc running on Win95 because their specific application won't run on XP. Linux doesn't help these folks.
Unless WINE is 100% functional for their application and is pre-installed (setting up WINE used to be a real bitch) such that the application can be loaded onto a Linux box and "just works", there's no reason to move to Linux.
DG
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
Just as soon as most loons still using win98 stop asking - "so how much is Microsoft Word for Linux cost"?
If they get an answer for that - then Linux is SO in with those folks.
Those '50 to 70 million' users of Windows 98 or Windows ME are probably running on older hardware and are unlikely to upgrade to Windows XP due to its increased hardware requirements and slower system response. A normal competitive business with that many users of one of its product would find some way to sell them something such as security fixes, patches, or whatever. Microsoft just kisses them off.
I'm one of those who tried to switch to Linux. Even though Win98 is blazing fast on my machine, Xubuntu (light-weight Ubuntu with XFCE) has been as sluggish as Win95 on my other computer, a 486-66MHz. I really appreciated how helpfull the Ubuntu forum members were, but after a while they all determined that XFCE would not run any faster on my computer than it did, and so I switched back to Win98SE.
1. I use Win98 as a test bed for software I download from the internet. If I don't know what will happen, I'll fire it up under the Win98 virtual machine, and see what happens.
2. Going back to the virtual machines, I use Win98 for all of my Azureus downloading. For some reason, I get the dreaded BSOD when using it on my desktop running XP, but running Azureus under a virtual machine can run for days without a problem.
3. I have my three year old use the computer under a virtual machine. She can have at it on the computer, and if she destroys or deletes anything critical, I simply go back and load a copy from the clone I made and she's back on it.
4. I still have some old games from the 90's that simply refuse to run under XP's compatibility. They don't require the latest video graphics, the video that VMWare work for it. By running them under a virtual machine, I can still play them.
He who laughs last is at 300 baud.
No, if you're running a system with one of those operating systems, you're probably blissfully ignorant of the security problems and just accept the kinks as they are. Odds are you've never patched your system because you didn't know that you needed to. Your 'decision' to stay with that OS is also probably more along the lines of either a) not wanting to upgrade because you think it's too much work/too expensive or b) because 'it works just fine for me'.
Honestly, how many people on Slashdot routinely run '98 or older except as a test bed for software/web applications that they have to make sure run on anything that Grandma & Grandpa Sixpack might still be using? I know two people who run '98, and one of them does so for the purpose of testing and development. The other runs it because her system won't handle XP and she doesn't have the cash on hand to upgrade.
TFA mentions Linux only very briefly, yet the summary and the heading would have us believe No Win98 Means More Linux. More and more, it appears these Flamebait and Troll articles are a mechanism for MS to get free and vital feedback from the user / pirating communities.
Some examples:
1. WGA to turn off your PC - source: A Blog! - 800 replies - Subsequent Slashback - Subsequent Denial through a PR firm!
2. Why Vista keeps getting delayed..... atleast a dozen articles!
3. ODF support in Office 2007.
4. WinFS to be dropped.. again, not an authentic source, and no real content whatsoever.
5. UK schools to examine MS school licensing.
6. Vista to boost Linux adoption.
7. Virtualization to boost Linux, kill Windows.
8. And now, No Support for Win98 to boost Linux!
Looks like the MS "Get The FUD" policy has backfired. Every day, the Linux Fear seems to be growing on the giant firm. Rather than getting revenue from new licenses through superior products and tech., MS now appears to have given up.. instead they seem to be hell bent on extracting revenue from the faithful pirates.
Why not create a separate section microsoft.ask.slashdot.org and quit pretending that such articles are "News Items" that "Matter to Nerds"? Alternatively, MS could send a few $$ for every meaningful feedback post to such non-articles.
Personally, I upgraded my home PC from Windows XP Pro (my office's license) to Windows 98SE last week. WinXP needed a lot of support.. the WGA started grumbling moment I took the office PC home.., so I fixed it with Win98 and Opera, de-installed IE, reconfigured my 'hosts' file, and routed all phone-home packets to localhost.
I don't think I neeed any support for Win98, so thanks MS for dropping it.
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
If you haven't already bothered to switch from a OS launched eons ago yet, chances are this decision by MS is not going to sway your non-decision.
What a coincidence! I would like to see Barack Obama as President, but I don't think it will happen with George Bush in office.
I was always fascinated with rock 'n' roll, or girls, or something like that when I was a kid. - Gary Sinise
This is a tough call. Who still uses Windows 98 or ME? Most likely PC users with very old boxes. While that screams Linux to people like me, the kind of people with such boxes probably don't know what Linux is.
More than likely this will be a boost for cheap Dell and HP sales, if anything. That's assuming the people using them know or care that Microsoft no longer supports their OS. They'll probably just keep their boxes going until something breaks, this will just help speed things up.
Haiku for you!
This is great for the linux community. i believe in starting them young. here is a guide i wrote on how to turn old 98 boxes into great edubuntu boxes for children. i have been taking older computers, putting more ram in them, and giving them away. it takes no time for a child to adapt to linux, and this way we can teach them a bit more than click on the start button. http://infonomicon.org/text/edubuntu-for-kids.txt (no adds)
An example of Windows 98 is at my gym where the barcode check in/check out system churns along happily day after day on a Windows 98 box (not connected to the Internet, or I'm sure it would be unusable by now). Here's an example of an old box, probably better made than half the crap churned out today (decent power supplies, hard drives that were throroughly Q/A'd, memory modules with matching chips, etc.), that will continue being used until it implodes upon ifself. The application does not need the eye candy of XP/Gnome/KDE, nor does it need access to infinite amounts of virtual RAM, etc. It needs to start quickly (which Windows 98 does) and go.
This may be a perfect opportunity to set up a simple Linux application that runs under X (not using KDE/Gnome), but who is going to spend the money to fund the development? It's not a "sexy" project that it going to be picked up on by some hacker for fun, and the kind of guys who write boring database apps like this are mostly busy in the US these days working 10 hour days trying to keep their jobs.
It's not Microsoft Office that keeps these Windows 98 boxes alive; but the small, VB apps that do not die but continue doing useful work day in and day out. Could these be built on Linux? Absolutely. Would they be better? Sure they could. Could they be built as quickly and easily as their VB 6 counterparts? Not that I have seen so far, and that includes Gnome, KDE/Qt, Tk and wxPython (I know there are many more). That's where Windows picked up so much momentum; it was the ability to toss together small, useful, ugly RAD apps that were not things of Computer Science beauty, but they could be built by people who didn't know C++ but knew what they needed.
IMO, this is a big reason why Linux hasn't caught on the way it ought to have on the Desktop. There is no easy way for the non-computer scientist to put together quick, useful applications. This is something IBM never got with OS/2, and why it died a stagnant death, because while it could run Windows 3.1 apps better than Windows itself, to do anything in native you pretty much had to do it in C++.
Most Linux users like the idea of their apps being constructed by committees of uber-hackers in Europe who really know their stuff. However, until your average hobbiest or business professional can put together useful applications as easily as they could in VB (and to a lesser extent VB.NET), and distribute it, legacy operating systems like Windows 98 and XP will still be floating around for many years to come.
I don't think the average user would have much trouble USING Linux. The problem is, the average user can't INSTALL Linux. They probably couldn't install Windows either, but they don't have to.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Take a look at your scenario: If YOU were that small business owner, with 10-15 employees and 10 older '98 machines, which do you think is more likely?
Scenario 1
- Sees slashdot headline in RSS reader about '98 support being discontinued and a mention of Linux, which is free software that you've heard discussed every now and then
- Ignores all matters critical to running his business--normally a 60hr/wk job--and learns about Linux and the different distros and which companies offer support
- Calls Red Hat, or a Red Hat provider, and discusses the software, gets a demo, installs, tests, and orders the software and support contract
- Tries to find software to replace all of the titles used in Windows
- Trains employees or hires someone to train employees
Scenario 2
- Calls Dell and orders 10 of their cheapest XP PC's shipped to their door at $500 machine.
Scenario 3
- Does nothing, crosses fingers, replaces PC's one at a time as they break
I can't possibly imagine ANY SMALL BIZ owner following Scenario 1. I don't understand why linux zealots try to push linux down everyones throat, even where it doesn't belong.
The people that WANT to use linux are already using it. It's not as if a critical mass of people are JUST ABOUT to use Linux if only X would happen or Y would happen to nudge it along. Like it or not, linux is positioned as a Server OS.
Currently, OSX isn't enough to convert users. So when Linux is better then OSX, come back and tell me and I'll help you evangalize.
I think that's the big thing I see as a failure here, everyone knows that Vista is coming out, sometime... so what do they do? Wait 3-6 months for Vista, or buy now & be pissed when the new OS comes out? I think this was part of the original scheduling, get Vista shipped, then cancell support for 98/ME. The problem is with the constant push back of Vista, they had to draw the line somewhere. Look at the timing, there are 3 major times PC's get purchased in large numbers:
- Start of school year (late Aug/early Sept)
- Christmass season (Nov/Dec)
- Tax time
Vista should be shipping this month to the OEMs & in stores the first week of Aug to catch the School rush - it's not going to.Vista needs to ship in Late Sept and be in stores by mid October to get all the Xmass rush - it's iffy and probably going to be buggy.
Vista needs to ship in Feb & be in stores by Mid March to catch the biggest rush of tax refunds - it's supposed to be there by then.
Cancelling support for 98/ME now (July), drives a 'need' for Vista in August - just in time for school - only Vista's not ready. So your next cutoff is Sept to drive the Xmass rush, but you can't really be sure you're going to be ready for it then either. January? Why wait 6 more months to trash something you've already extended by 2 years?
Other people have made some very good comments that the majority of the 50-70M installs of 9X/Me are not going to change overnight. There's no reason for it. Most of them are tied to specific custom/niche software in businesses, or in the homes of people who use them as 'internet appliances' - email/light browsing. In both cases, people are happy with them & won't change unless the hardware breaks and they need to - in some cases with specialty software/hardware they will scavenge through the junk piles to build another box that will run it.
Other people have commented that people won't go to linux because it's slow & crappy on older hardware. I have to say that if you use the default install of everything - yeah linux is a dog. Get rid of MySQL & Postgress running simultaniously when neither are used, and the other dozen services running in the background, and they run fine. I put Ubuntu on a Compaq P2 333 w/ 64K and the only hardware not detected was the integrated soundcard. A crappy Soundblaster from the box-o-junk and it was fine. Stripped down with no extra services, and running in single user mode, it's just fine.
For the guy running the 75 mhz P1, not a problem - a bit of work perhaps, but DSL or Slackware will still run on a 386.
How hesitant users are to switch depends on the demographics. Mostly it is the older users who are stuck in the Windows cycle, alot of younger people who are comfortable around computers are much more mobile in this respect and willing to try new things. I have seen enough people switch to OS.X from Windows to know that. Of course the OS.X switchers are not exacty a mass exodus but alot of them are not exactly powerusers either and Mac sales have been picking up recently. There is no real reason why Linux as a desktop OS for regular users shouldn't also be able to achieve similar growth and thus help to gnaw away at Microsoft's market share. What keeps regular users (not nerds) away from Linux as a desktop OS is among other things:
- The still user unfriendly and sometimes buggy nature of many Linux distributions, especially when it comes to laptop support.
- The fact that major PC manufacturers don't offer Linux as an OS option complete with a support package and sell it aggressively.
- The sheer flora of desktop environments that are available for Linux since alot of normal users associate the desktop strongly with the operating system however illogical that may appear to a nerd.
I'd like to see some major PC maker offer a Linux line of Destop and Laptop PC's, a hardware/software package similar in concept to Apple's offerings and with the same effort being put into support, development, making the OS easy and consistent to use and that users can easily get ahold of applications to replace the ones they miss from Windows. The components for this already exists, somebody just needs to get off his/her ass and use them to shake up the computer world like Ryanair and the likes managed to shake up the airline business. One thing is for sure, as long as people keep using Windows as they do nothing and wait for Microsoft to shoot it self in the foot and screw up it's monopoly nothing will change.Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
The article does state "Silver still believes that some users may decide to switch to Linux instead of upgrading to XP but he said existing applications that require Windows are likely to stop a mass migration.". I don't think anyone believes that a huge shift in the OS landscape is here... yet. Windows still has a monopoly, and when Vista is released I expect the masses will rush out and buy it like good consumers despite all the good reasons not to. Similarly hardware vendors will continue to be persuaded to give other operating systems second class support. Some will make the switch, but only in situations where there is someone who advocates an alternative.
I believe the breakthrough will happen 2 to 4 years after the release of Vista. I have the luxury of not having used Windows since 98SE (I saw the light with ME), so I'm probably not qualified to comment on how good or bad Windows actually is, but from the bits and pieces I read I expect Vista to be the last Windows that will have a monopoly on the desktop. There was a recent /. story (too lazy to search, sorry) which indicated that Microsoft see Vista as the last Windows too, they can be blind sometimes but they're not stupid. Vista may or may not be a huge disaster but with DRM, the rewrite, the expected security problems, malware, the continuing growth of alternatives, Bill Gates jumping ship, with national governments becoming concerned about their information infrastructure being in the hands of a monopolistic corporation based in an increasingly imperialistic and dangerous superpower? If the world doesn't switch it deserves all these things.
Of course I don't have a crystal ball, but /. is gonna get very interesting in a couple of years.
If someone is still using Windows 98 they aren't going to have much reason to do anything in upgrading their computer. Consider why they are still running Windows 98 in the first place:
- They don't want to upgrade because they don't need to.
- They can't afford newer software/hardware.
and you think these people are going to run out and upgrade to Linux? Get real.If someone doesn't want to upgrade to Windows Whatever then they certainly are not going to make any personal investment in using Linux. No matter what anyone says, changing the OS changes the user interface paradigm and that's a cost to the user. Even migrating to OSX is going to have a cost. I think even transitioning from W98 to WXP is going to have a cost.
If someone can't afford to upgrade to Windows Whatever they might be interested in Linux. But then you have to consider the rest of their lifestyle. Because they can't afford an upgrade it's likely they don't have an interst in it in the first place. How many geeks eat mac & cheese for a month to get that new dual core? It's a matter of priority and if they can't afford an upgrade then there are obviously other things more important in their life.
I for one have no real desire to encourage people to migrate to Linux. I don't want to be held responsible if they don't understand something about Linux -- like there is no trash can. I also don't want Linux to become overly influenced by all the whiney charity cases that exist in the Windows world. It was bad enough when I used SuSE for a year... A very different crowd from Debian. But now I'm getting biased...
Leave it alone. Quite trying to make a big deal out of everything. People will do what they will and things will sort themselves out. If Linux is really that good, it will stick around and attrack like minded people. We don't have to get everyone in the world using Linux. If they want to use Windows that's their business, but they all know I don't do house calls for Windows computers anymore and I'm OK with that.
Here's another consideration: If everyone uses Linux then that means 50% of the Linux users will have below average intelligence... I would venture to guess that is not the case today and I'm OK with that too.
How so? If they're unwilling or unable to move fromWin98, then the question of what they might move to is entirely academic.
It is sometimes easy to mistake the business concept of appropriate technology for ignorance or inability on the part of the business. Don't do that.
A Win98 standalone computer used to log inventory into a warehouse, with automated batch updating of the corporate network by FTP at 0300 every morning, is not going to be replaced by Vista when it is finally no longer up to the task. It might be replaced by a hand-me-down box running WinXP, but it is also very likely to be replaced by a Linux box that will be less expensive to clean up and maintain than a used XP box. It is not a matter of whether the business has the technical expertise to upgrade these old boxen. It is all about which replacement path will have the lowest long term cost in running specific programs in a fairly simple environment.
From TFA, there may be around 70 million Win98 boxes in the business world that are being used appropriately for mundane tasks ranging from basic data collection to word processing of sermons and beg letters. This is not a potential Vista market, but it is a very likely Linux growth area.
If you're spending hundreds of hours relearning, you never really mastered the Windows side
of the equation- you're operating by rote.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
This smells more like a shift of delusion to the other extreme. I haven't been aware of the subtle nuances of telnet clients for the several years I've been successfully using Linux as my primary home platform. Neither is my sister, who can handle Gnome very well for the same basic tasks she uses Windows for. Neither, I'm sure, are many office workers who use Linux at work.
There's a solid difference between what knowledge you need to use a system and what you need to fully understand it, and you seem to be confusing the two.
If you lack the knowledge to make Damn Small Linux work, I doubt you could get a Windows 98 installation from scratch to a useful state by yourself either. On the other hand, if you're the kind of person who installs his own operating system, you're already much more likely to be the person who can read instructions and actually use his head to learn some absolute basics.
IT guy mentions that Linux might fit the bill, and it's free, receives regular security updates and doesn't suffer from virus and spyware problems anyway.
You own me a keyboard.
That was really funny. So, you *really* believe that an IT (from the real world, not your imaginary Sylvania) guy will prefer to install and mantain Linux based operating system Desktops against Windows OS desktops?.
My bet would be that your IT guy will say the manager "get rid of those computers and replace them with new ones, the productivity of the people will increase". Of course these new machines will have WinXP.
It is very, VERY rare the IT (from a small company) that wants to bother with mantaining Linux distirbutions and, moreso that wants to be annoyed with calls from users about "why is this Office thing not working".
Man, you ARE funny.
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
.
that is the biggest pile of FUD I have ever heard.
I've had the same experience as the OP and I can tell you it's not FUD. On the glowing recommendations of the Slashdot crowd, I ordered the free Ubuntu CD which arrived last week. I planned to install it on my 'Designed for Win 98' laptop (a 1GHz P3 IBM Thinkpad). I stuck the CD in, rebooted, chose 'install' from the boot manager, and that's about as far as it got. I'm sure there's some command-line mojo that could have got it to install, but that's exactly the reason Linux is not 'ready for the desktop'. I'm not a Microsoft zealot by any means and was willing to give Ubuntu a try, but now that's another missed opertunity for Linux adoption. Anyone got a link for Win2K install CD?
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
my bosses are cheap, and it will take QUITE a bit of convincing that we need to spend more money to buy a new computer, and a license of XP.. if you tell them something is free, they are all ears.. thats the simple fact that this article is trying to get through to people..
*plays the Apogee theme song music*
As long as Windows 98 will run AOL, that is what I'll recommend to my Grandmother. I would hazard a guess that the majority of users that are still using Windows 98 aren't power users, and probably haven't gone to Windows Update in a number of years because the downloads take too long over dialup.
I would like to know who this is really going to impact. If an individual is still using 98, Microsoft isn't the primary support. The computer guy at work, your son-in-law, or neighborhood kid is the primary support for Windows 98.
"Does this wine taste funny to you?" -- Socrates
Until very recently I knew a grand total of three people who had used linux on their own PCs. Two were programmers and the third was talked into redhat by one of the programmers (he didn't stick with it for long). In the last 6 months, I know 3 additional people (and myself) that have started using linux. 2 are using it on rescued ex-win98 machines (like me) and one on an older winXP machine. Of course MS not supporting win98 had nothing to do with it in any of these cases. In my case the PC was simply unusable. After a few hours fiddling around with it I remembered how much I hate the whole win9x family and I said "@%^#$!$#^$ it's $&*!*&%!*# time #@$^@^$ to try @#$^@# linux!" I have observed that since exorcising win98 from my home and bringing in the benevolent spirit of unbuntu, my cursing has been much reduced.
Of course this isn't necessarily good news for linux. One way to look at it is that linux is finally good enough that it is better than a broken down, dog slow, crashy install of win98. And I have had nothing but trouble with the "new" linux box but I'll save all that for the next "is linux finally ready?" type thread.
-- QED
An anecdote does not make a case study, but I switched to Linux on the desktop because of the end of support for Windows 98.
I've been using Linux for over a decade, but never as my desktop OS. I admit that I was well behind on software, still using Office 95, but the cheapest Dell with OS and Office 2K3 is about C$800, whereas the "guy-in-a-storefront-on-Kingsway" computer plus Ubuntu & OO.o is C$400. (I re-used the old monitor, though).
I assume that most home users just pirate a copy of Windows and Office to keep costs down, but I wonder why. It's morally questionable, tortious, and unnecessary.
I worked at a major hardware company where all hardware diagnostics was written on the Win98 platform. Therefore, all OEM partners were using Win98 for their diagnostics platform as well in order to run diagnostics for this particular hardware. For a long time there was motivation to move the diagnostics platform from Win98 over to Linux but it was always put on the backburner do to higher prority tasks and not enough resources. The expiring of the Win98 license pushed the decision over the edge and Linux is now the primary development platform for diagnostics at this company, along with all of its OEM partners. I think its plausible that this isn't the only case of this.
True. I have a little old lady I've set up for an experiment and she operates linux fine for the web stuff she wants to do.
One thing that has troubled me though is that a lot of these home Win9x duffers are probably on dial-up. How do you _update_ and _upgrade_ that linux distro? For that matter, would anyone want the user trying it? Apt-get has to be like a loaded gun to a child -- particularly when it is run from a GUI like KPackage where it will tell you what it has decided to REMOVE after it has STARTED the process.
With potentially millions of Win98 computers becoming unsupported, there is nothing to suggest they will all or mostly switch to a Linux desktop. But I have every reason to believe that one percent - or even half a percent, or two - would switch over to save costs and improve quality. Grandma wont be the ones to do it on their own, but the people already on the edge, and schools and businesses and the like. We have an older 600MHz P3 / 128MB laptop that Ive put Xubuntu on, and it runs great. My girlfriends old circa '98 laptop that came with Win98, upgraded to XP (deathly slow) is to follow the same path soon. Im sure she isn't the only average computer user who knows a someone who will recommend and help install linux. I'm sure there are actually some grandmas with grandchildren willing to make the switch for them in order to reduce the tech support calls.
I can't answer for others, but as for me, I'd been using 98SE for quite a while (since '99). I have a family member who uses XP on her system, I've seen it, used it a few times, and found the experience to be less than ideal. I have recently switched to SUSE 10. That experience was, for me, a little unnerving at first, but still preferable over XP, and while there have been issues with some of the software I run on it, overall, I've been pleased with the results. My only real gripe has been in resolving the library dependencies for some of the software, (finding frontends for xmame that actually work on my system being one example) compiling software to resolve these issues can be a little daunting for someone used to Windows.
From my perspective, it seems that the primary stumbling block to Linux as a mainstream alternative to Windows is the need to resolve such software dependencies in an easy manner. A lot of the Windows users I know like MS products because of ease of installing the various software available to them. They just pop in a CD/DVD, and if it doesn't start right off, then navigating to a directory and clicking a startup proggie is a relatively simple matter. Linux is a bit more involved than that in my experience, and until that issue is properly addressed, I'm rather afraid that many Windows users are going to simply dismiss Linux as the domain of the digerati and leave it at that.
Is that a bad thing? Perhaps not, but then again, it leaves a lot of folks at the mercy of a pseudomonopoly which chisels away at the fundamental rights of free speech, assembly, and property ownership all for the sake of pursuing the almighty dollar/ euro/ yen or what have you. For the sake of convenience, many Windows users willingly accept this erosion of their basic rights, effectively setting the stage for their own undoing (and everyone else's) at the legislative level. Is it any wonder that MS receives preferential treatment by many governments/ officials? Populations that willingly suspend their rights for a convenience are far easier to control, after all. To be sure, MS isn't the only culprit here, but they are a highly visible one. It may sound cliche', but for any people to remain free, they must exercise vigilance, and more than a little common sense. It applies to everybody.
Surely you jest.
Don't even get me started on games...
Content Management System: A pretentious way of saying "text editor."
I know plenty of people still running Windows 95 and 98, not because they are too lazy, but rather because they don't feel like paying, or don't have the financial resources, to purchase the new version of Windows, especially when they know that they can update to a newer, but not newest version of Windows, for less money. This makes Linux a very strong competitor in this field. I have had numerous friends ask me to help them set up Linux distros on their computer simply because the free aspect is so appealing. Once people see that they can update to a new version of Linux, one capable of doing practically anything and more then a Windows box, people who are technologically literate, or have technologically literate friends, will begin to switch, and if people switch to Linux, they won't be purchasing a newer (say from 95 to 2000) version of Windows.
For those who say that the linux destktop has a long way to go, when is the last time they have used a linux system? There is always room for improvement, but I would say that the more recent versions of linux (ubuntu 6.06 dapper for example or fedora core 5) have come insanely far in terms in desktop support. I have ubuntu x32 installed on my desktop, and I honestly say that I rarely ever use Windows Xp on my desktop anymore, because for almost any task, (yes, even gaming) I can use ubuntu and do anything far more efficiently if not just as well as it can be done on a Windows machine.
While I don't believe that this will be a massive blow to Microsoft, or even a paper cut for that matter, It still will convert some people over, and a few people converting can be a indicator of the times. Microsoft will need to be careful in the future to try not to alienate too many people. Otherwise the paper cut might turn into a gash.
Klingon Software is not released, it escapes, inflicting terrible damage onto the enemy as it does
As much as i like my Ubuntu install, I find it highly unlikely that the poor guys still running Win98 will come knocking on Linus' door. I would classify current W98 users in two categories. 1) People who doesn't tinker with computers too much and has been using their old box for years just for web surfing and doing some office work. These guys are hardly concerned about computer security and most probably don't know their OS was supported anyway. 2) Guys that for some reason (games, especial software or hardware that won't run on NT) require to stick with the old OS even though they may have another, newer box running XP. No way any of these two animals is downloading and installing the next fedora DVD anytime soon. I love the slashdot spin on regular news.
Greetings, programs!
No dude, bad example.
If there's a dangerous flaw with the designed features of your car (i.e., it's defective), it is recalled.
People don't complain about their 1970s-1980s car not having ABS, because it wasn't designed with it built in.
If, however, there's a critical flaw involving putting the user in a dangerous situation through normal use (such as perhaps, brake lines being broken by normal movement of the suspension) then the car is recalled. Regardless of whether it's under warranty or not...
Granted, anyone using Windows in a situation where software failure could be life-threatening deserves to be shot, but it's closer to the situation than users of old software complaining about features that were never designed into their product.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
I use Win98 because after using it for going on 8 years, I now know it backwards and forwards, I have it running smooth as silk and it never gets viruses, it doesn't sneakily contact Microsoft, and there are no creepy NSA tags hiding in its code.
If it ain't broke. . .
And yes, actually, I'm also waiting eagerly for the next Ubuntu release. Duel booting is glorious.
-FL