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)
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'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
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
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.
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!
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.
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
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.
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.