Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Withholds Y2K Fix for Win95?
dbrown has sent
us an interesting little ditty over at CNN about
MS Withholding Patches
to Win95 that resolve Y2k issues. The article is kinda sketchy-
it looks like they weren't telling people about said patch,
and it seems to imply that it was a lure to get people to spend
the big bucks upgrading to Win98. Just read it and see what you think.
You would have to be high to think a business man would put customer satisfaction over company profit. That is not the microsoft way. They utilize lack of information, and utilize a disposible CIO to spread false information.
:P
What I loved most of all is this little quote "People will spend millions of dollars, and the last thing I want to do is spread fear, uncertainty and doubt in their minds."
Microsoft? FUD? Naw, I can't believe it. The sacred god Bill Gates would never lie to me to make a profit! I had best go to the temple and pray to him.
Linux, in Unixish tradition, won't have a Y2K problem for 3 decades, at which time we should all be on 64 bit systems anyway. Maybe given the uncertainty surrounding Microsoft's development roadmap, now would be a good time to switch to Linux.
You agreed to the EULA, yes?
anyone _not_ see that coming??
My personal favorite was MS not allowing K6-2 350 patches for Win95 versions below OSR2. Talk about a boon -- a hardware company has a problem, and you get to force people to upgrade your software, too.
Darn, I was gonna post this, but somebody else beat me to it! Yes, this was the best laugh I've had all day; it also proves that Micros~1 IS intimately familiar with the concept of FUD...
This is a case of Micros~1 nefarious marketing plans gone awry.
Their original plan was to release a Win00 update for Win98, thus forcing everybody to pay the $90 "upgrade" fee for the Y2K bug fixes. Unfortunately, their developers failed to deliver a saleable Win00 in time, so they have been forced to resort to plan B: actually releasing the patches, so they don't get sued. Beleive me, Micros~1 would have far prefered every pay for the upgrade...
Win95 came preinstalled on my computer. I also have no obligation to buy any other Microsoft products.
I was going to post that one too! Best joke I've seen today! **LOL**
There used to be a win95 patch on support.microsoft.com at least 3 months ago that patched command.com, fileman, and some other stuff. but it's gone now.
Personally, I'm happy about this. It gives me that last boost I needed to flush Virus95 off my system completely and regain disk space for more useful software. The value of M$ software goes from near $0 to a large negative quantity.
"Until I'm 100% sure that we're going to provide an update or fix, I don't want to tell anybody," Jones added.-----M$ is accustomed to release vapourware...how come they did not release y2k patches for win95...at least in vapourware form..!!! That CIO of EDS is most dumb CIO I have ever heard about. My grandma couls take his place as he has resigned(?) now.
It is unlikely the Windows upgrade had much to do with his resignation. EDS has been cleaning and reorganizing the upper levels since they got a new CEO. I haven't heard of anybody getting the ax, but I heard some had been asked to leave.
But then again....
huh, how does one get the newest version of Win95 ?
Win98 and Win2000 are new and different products for which you pay a new product price.
How can I be bound to an agreement I never seen no agreed to nor had an opportunity to disagree to?
Can they really not understand the phrase "gross negligence," or did your mangler just not want to use those words? Were your designs screwed up during his tenure?
They do have a point. Considering how voracious NT 4 is, running Win2K on obsolete (by which I mean "exists now") hardware should be pretty difficult.
Yup, uh huh...
Comparing Windows to Linux is like comparing
masturbation to sex. You might be able to
draw up a list of superficial similarities,
but that doesn't mean they ought to be compared
with a straight face. The former will always
be a stand-in for people who can't get the
latter.
Personally, I think it is inexcusable for any software written post-late 80's to be having ANY Y2K concerns at all.
Buddy, can you spare a bit? Don't even need a byte. Just one lousy stikin' BIT more to solve the problem. And then we get this, from the OS that takes 32mb RAM just to boot up and crash! And they just couldn't spare a little memory for the dates? I'm sorry, but if any one that incompetent ever works for me, they're getting fired. And if I do it, well, I'll probably hire someone else.
Then again, it does go along with their bugfix-for a bugfix scheme of marketing.
goodfact, anyone?
-Jaac (Just Another Anonymous Coward)
but that doesn't mean you're wrong.
Heheh......well, if Microsoft is refusing to actively support one of the most pervasive MS products in history, why should I go ahead and upgrade? Will they keep refusing to support their older products, in the hopes that I'll keep buying their marginally improved (if that) product?
Whatever. Windows 98 might be the trashiest piece of software ever written. My new Win98 crashed OUT OF THE BOX the day I got it.....and you want me to upgrade my marginally-stable Windows 95 box?!
Nay nay, says I!! How about this: if my box goes belly-up on January 1, 2000, I'm going to sue. It's not mission-critical or anything like that, but if they were unable to patch their software with at least 1-2 years of advance warning, and they try and stick me with a dead OS, FORGET IT. Either that, or demand a rebate for the amount of the software, plus every MS application installed on it.
Doesn't this strike anyone as the perfect way for M$ to cover their collective asses by simultaneously releasing and not releasing a Y2K fix for Win95?
I mean, they're caught in a difficult position now-- if they release a fix, people won't upgrade to 98. If not, they may be vulnerable to suits after 2000.
This way, they can say "hey, we had a fix" while at the same time discouraging and making it hard for anyone to use it.
AC
When people said it about IBM they were serious.
When they say it about M$ its just a joke.
I`ve had the Win95 y2k patches since they were released. Microsoft didn`t make a fuss about them, but they have been at
f ault.asp
http://www.microsoft.com/windows95/downloads/de
for absolutely ages.
ou sure that they are not trying to make us all use the next variation on NT?
I beleive this was their original intent; to NOT release Y2K fixes for Win95/Win98, so that in the panic everybody would be forced to pay $250 to upgrade to Win2000. What better marketing strategy than to take advantage of Y2K histeria? What better explanation for the name change from WinNT 5.0 to Win2000?
Unfortunately, they came up short in execution on this one; Win2000 is over a year late, and cannot possible be released in time now for companies to feel comfortable with phasing it in completely before the end of the year. Thus they are stuck with the backup plan: release the bug fixes they've had all along to the Y2K bugs they knew about all along, but intentionally neglected to fix. That is, if they didn't insert the bugs intentionally in the first place, which I somewhat doubt.
Let's face it, the Y2K "bug" is the greatest marketing boon ever to hit the software industry, and Micros~1 is by no means the only company to attempt to capitalize on it to leverage sales of upgrades: finally, a way to FORCE all those users who were perfectly happy with their old DOS applications that did everything they needed to upgrade!
This is a marketing strategy, not a design flaw or a bug. You'll notice that no matter what version of media player you download, you can't play new .avi files on '95. You will never play them, unless you buy '98!
The general y2k case is a collection of a design flaw and a set of bugs.
The bugs are problems which relate to date mis-calculations which may very well be 4 digits years. Like all those products such as Excel which claim that 2000 is not a leap year.
What about the Perl code which does this:
$year = "19" . $year_from_system
isn't that a bug ?
Microsoft never release bug fixes for Windows 95 in the open. Lots of them were hidden throughout the website. Only time they did anything was when the press screamed out about a security bug. And the new update wizard isn't any better since you cannot download the patches to the drives for saving for later.
I think Bill Gates has been counting on y2k issues to fuel MS profits since the 1980's.
Why? Win NT, Microsoft's flagship product, their über OS, their MODERN OS, still isn't 100% Y2k ready (SP 4 was supposed to be the final fix, but now it's SP 5).
And what was MS's stance on Y2k a few months ago? Get all your boxes on SP4, then consider deploying NT 5. yeah.
Win NT should have been designed from the ground up to not have any y2k issues - Apple got this right in the early 1980's with the Mac.
Gates is a smart businessman. He knows how to make money, and he's been banking of this for years.
What, even if they did release a patch you think it would cover everything? I'm sure a couple weeks later someone will fine a new Y2K problem and we're back at square one.
:)
But the bit about EDS was interesting. After Microsoft's "advice" they suddenly decide to upgrade to Win98, and the CIO quits. I like to fantasize that he was pushing for Linux instead.
I'd be interested in knowing the reason they DO recommend going to the latest versions..
That would have to be, like they are always screaming, "But users what it!!" If you scream loudly and often enough, people start to believe.
But notice what it says right by the Y2K link? "...make your computer year 2000 compliant." Take the heat off Windows and blame the computer. But go ahead and click on that link.
Then you see that the fix takes up 10mb. But wait, you also need IE 4.01 SP 2, which needs 72mb. So, 82 megs for, as they put it, "several minor Year 2000 issues within Windows® 95."
Oh, but never forget:
EACH MICROSOFT YEAR 2000 STATEMENT IS PROVIDED "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND. CONSEQUENTLY, MICROSOFT DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. MOREOVER, MICROSOFT DOES NOT WARRANT OR MAKE ANY REPRESENTATIONS REGARDING THE USE OR THE RESULTS OF THE USE OF ANY MICROSOFT YEAR 2000 STATEMENT IN TERMS OF ITS CORRECTNESS, ACCURACY,
RELIABILITY, OR OTHERWISE. NO ORAL OR WRITTEN INFORMATION OR ADVICE GIVEN BY MICROSOFT OR ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES SHALL CREATE A WARRANTY OR IN ANY WAY DECREASE THE SCOPE OF THIS WARRANTY DISCLAIMER. IN NO EVENT SHALL MICROSOFT OR ITS SUPPLIERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER REGARDING ANY MICROSOFT YEAR 2000 STATEMENT INCLUDING DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, LOSS OF BUSINESS PROFITS, PUNITIVE
OR SPECIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF MICROSOFT OR ITS SUPPLIERS HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
Of course, they bury that in that huge paragraph of all caps text. But in other words, it's not their problem if it still isn't fixed, you lose business, etc from these "minor issues." Enjoy, and don't forget to fork over several more hundred dollars for the latest, greatest, unguaranteed piece of software from your friends at Microsoft.
Apparently our good friend Ed Muth hasn't gotten to this M$ employee yet. You can be sure that'll change.
In any event, I think any company basing Y2K-critical stuff on Windows 95 deserves anything that might happen to them as a result.
So you're saying that Windows NT was written to have this issue built into it? I think not, since MS is not paid for distributing SP 3/4/5. In fact, it probably costs MS a lot of money to build the CDs, distribute them, and so on.
Y2K issues with old mainframes, software written in 1950-1970, I can understand as design flaws. Anything after that is a bug, pure and simple.
force massive upgrades to W2k and Win98. It's a profit motive! They DON'T WANT people to fix their Win95... they WAN'T them to upgrade. The Microsoft Rep said it himself - people will spend MILLIONS OF DOLLARS.
Obviously, Microsoft was selling a broken operating system until June of 1998 - just 1.5 years shy of the millenium. And, you can't tell me they hadn't done any testing at that time to see if Win95 was compliant.
Microsoft's attitude appears to be: Who cares! We'll just sell 'em an upgrade!
Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
Posted by The Mongolian Barbecue:
M$ wants to maximize their profit- so get as many users to upgrade to 98 by spreading fud about 95's compliance, but then release a patch for 95 at the last minute so you won't be liable for y2k lawsuits later on. Pretty sleezy, but on the bright side, M$ is doing lots of worse things.
Posted by Izchak:
It's not the first time M$ withholds a fix for the whole range of Win95. Take the AMD K6 bug that prevents a Win95 system from running stable (well, I wouldn't really call Win95/98 stable...;-) on K6-2 with 350 MHz and up. On their Web-pages they admit that it's a software error, but they only provide fixes for the OEM service releases - not for the initial and quite expensive Win95 retail release. Instead they suggest to call their support line or to upgrade to Win98. In either case it means spending quite an amount of cash for a bugfix that should be a matter of course.
Posted by pennacook:
This "Cnn" article came right out of Computerworld last week - there stink was that M$ had not made any suggestion as to a patch to win95 until about 2 weeks ago, when infact it had been available for some time - but not on their web pages anywhere..
just a typical M$ tactic...
pennacook
This rates right up there with "This is going to hurt me more than it does you", or "You have forced me to do this(some terrible action that the person is dying to do to you) because of your actions", etc.
And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make
Hm that's odd, I thought Microsoft was supposed to have good documentation and support. At least that is what Mindcraft says.
Very strange...
?
Not until next year. :)
But it isn't too hard to fix the bug in Perl. It's a friggin' interpreted language, you always have the source. Try that with your average program from the 50's or 60's...
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
So you're saying that Windows NT was written to have this issue built into it?
Yep. It was written that way. Somewhere along the way, during the design of NT, someone decided not to use a 4-digit date, at least not consistantly. That makes it a design decision and therefore a design flaw.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Actually, I think it was IBM that invented it. Or so I've heard anyway. That was before they became a kinder, gentler giant :)
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Wow. Where to start with this one? Here goes...
Is it even worthwhile patching Win95 if 90% of their users will abandon it by y2k anyway?
This line, and the tripe that came before it, is ridiculous. If they released a product with bugs that make it unusable by Y2K, then they damn well better fix it! People bought that product and were not warned that it would cease to function properly in a few years.
Microsoft gets flamed plenty for "pre-announcing" software it doesn't ship for years, now they are getting flamed for not-announcing software they may or may not ship. Sheesh. As far as the charge of running up win98 sales goes, they may indeed be guilty of that, but planned obsolescence in the marketplace is not by any means restricted to Microsoft.
This is one of the lamest arguments I've seen yet. Microsoft gets flamed for pre-announcing products in order to kill off interest in other companies' products. Microsoft gets flamed deceiving people in order to further line its pockets with cash. Whether they deceive by pre-announcing a product, or by not announcing a fix for their existing product, it's still deception. Whether Microsoft is the only one that does this is immaterial to the conversation. The article was about Microsoft. Perhaps other companies do this too. If so, then point it out. Tell us what company, and what they did. If it is true, then I would condemn that company for it as well.
We have RUMINT (rumour intelligence) that MS may or may not be shipping a win95 patch. That's very thin evidence for drawing any conclusions about MS' MOTIVES.
We've had a really good look at how MS thinks. We've seen tons of email that has been generated by the decision-makers at that company. They are completely devoted to marketshare and profit. Those are therefore the most likely motives. When you look at their actions, they make alot of sense given these motives.
What would you prefer MS did? Offer no Win95 patch at all (they are forcing us to 98!) Develop a win95 patch, but don't announce it until nearly done (ditto) ? Develop a win95 patch, announce it months in advance (they are creating FUD by preannouncing, their old trick. Besides, what if development runs late?) ? Everything Microsoft does here could be construed as greed or guilt (not that MS is not greedy or guilty sometimes ... )
I'll tell you exactly what I would prefer they did. I would prefer that they announce their patch as soon as they are committed to creating it. Then I would definitely prefer that they follow through on their announcement and deliver the goods as promised. People bought Win95 without any warning from Microsoft that it would be broken by the turn of the century. They deserve to have their product fixed or receive a refund.
Call me naive, but I would take Mr Jones' statement at face value until someone gave me EVIDENCE to the contrary.
Ok, you're naive. Don't take anything Microsoft says at face value. They say what they need to say to keep themselves out of trouble. They've been caught in too many lies and deceptions in the past for us to trust anything they say without THEM providing the evidence to make us believe it.
Thank you, drive through.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
There was a patch for Win95 for Y2K compliance
that could be gotten at download.com. Odd
that no one in this article seemed to check
for the availability of this patch when written.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
The ridiculous thing is that most of these Y2K design flaws being discussed are so incredibly minor compared to the day to day major flaws in say Win95.
Along those lines, what kind of Y2K testing has been done on Open Source/Linux projects? Has RedHat or any of the others setup a Y2K lab to run through the standard testing plans?
Thanks. When I checked a couple months ago for the y2k patches for our win95 machines, I couldn't find it. I finally found the page after wading through all the different versions of win95. The version that I had was 'compliant, with issues'. This basically meant that I had to download a patch to fix 2-3 dozen executables and dlls. I could either do that by buying a cd or downloading the patches. The link for download the patches went right back to the MS y2k home page that didn't have much more than a link where I could buy the upgrade cd.
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
err...I should have previewed that..I meant a couple weeks, not months.
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
- Don Jones, Microsoft's Y2K Product Manager
Log
I followed the link to "Reasons to upgrade" to windows 98. Here's my favorite bit:
What's the bext way to upgrade? Buy a new computer with a new OS already installed!!
"How to move to Windows NT Workstation 4.0 from Windows 95: The best way to move to Windows NT Workstation is to get it preinstalled on a Windows 2000 READY PC, which also provides the easiest possible upgrade path to Windows 2000 Professional. Find out about these high-performance computers..."
"...and the last thing I want to do is spread fear, uncertainty and doubt in their minds."
:)
It is good to know that Micro$oft is so concerned about us.
That's "the last thing" as in "the last step of my big plan". Not as in "something I don't want to do at all". That's what he meant to say, right? :-)
Sujal
politics, food, music, life: FatMixx
Amazing how this is 180 degrees opposite the usual MS strategy of pre-announcing products years in advance, or even just making announcements about non-existent products to keep out the competition.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." --H.L. Mencken
"I don't want people taking action based on Microsoft thinking about doing something... People will spend millions of dollars, [implementing strategies based on such information]" But they sure don't mind people spending HUNDREDS of millions of dollars on a worthless upgrade to win98. And didn't microsoft invent the concept of "vaporware"?
Come 01/01/00 when all those 3 to 4 1/2 year old computers that cost people $1500 to $3000 or more don't work properly and it turns out not to be the hardware but the MS software at fault and the owners of those machines decide that they'll be d****d if they're going to financially reward MS for selling them software that was scheduled to self-destruct in 5 or fewer years, wouldn't it be deliciously ironic if Wall Streets computers were sufficiently Y2K compliant (and able to handle the load) to be able to accomodate the dumping of MS stock as the owners realize that MS is going to be too busy waving those EULA's around in court trying to get suit after suit after suit dismissed to be able to develop new software that nobody is going to buy after having already been burned.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
This is Microsofts' standard operating procedure. Of course he doesn't want to announce a patch. He'd much prefer forcing customers to buy more unwanted Microsoft products. Think about it... Millions of bug-fix downloads, or millions of extorted software sales... If *I* were a Microsoft Vice President, it would be a pretty easy business decision...
They do the same thing with Windows NT - Rather than fixing it so that it is reliable enough to run customers' applications, Microsoft encourages you to buy two or three. One for each application. And people do. Microsoft has no presure or incentive whatsoever to produce quality products.
Are you saying dselect is slow on 486?
I used it just fine, recently, on a 386/DX40/8Meg
board. It was a joy. Nearly a thrill.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows98/downloads/corpo rate.asp
Now is clear to me that the so called "lack of development roadmap" in linux is it's real strenght.
Microsoft don't have a real development plan for it's products instead, they have a big, hughe commercial plan for their captive users.
I can happly say I've never buyed or advised somebody to use their products, and I certainly never will.
It ends, someone seems to have been fired for choosing Microsoft! Yeah!
Are the dominos falling?
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
You can't install Win98 on a system which runs below 66 MHz, so companies with tonnes of 386's and 486's (which beleive it or not still exist) under the 66 MHz mark will not only need to install Win98 to put their Y2K fears to rest, but will also have to outlay for new systems. I'm sure the minspec for Win2k will be at least a P166 with 32meg of RAM and there's a LOT of systems out there below that mark.
Even Linux suffers from the issue of spec though. Have you run dselect on a 486/33 recently, ugh.
I think his point was that it was a largely -preventable- 'bug'. If they intentionally designed and coded stuff in that they knew would break on Y2k, then they were being lazy and irresponsible. So the breakage would be intended behavior, since they didn't care. But if they actually tried to do stuff correctly and problems still came up, then I'd say that is more of a bug category.
My personal opinion, is that most of this y2k stuff was totally preventable if designers of h/w, s/w had been more responsible. If it is something they can 'fix' today, why could they not have 'fixed' it before they released it????
(With Windows, that is. I'm using my SGI Indigo2 to type this. I like it a lot).
D
----
Not only does a Microsoft employee acknowledge the existance of FUD, he makes it sound like they are actively opposed to it!
So what EDS needs to do is sue MS to recoup the cost of upgrading, since one of the recurring arguments against Linux is that there's nobody to sue. That might make MS think twice about pulling this kind of sh** in the future.
Moo!
The key word here is "critical" A critical application would be something along the lines of a database backend used to track purchase orders. Anyone trying to do something such as this on a MS OS should be black-listed because they don't know what they are doing.
The only reason non-computer-literate folks can use MS is because it comes pre-installed (like the Mac, which also happens to be used by non-techs). Linux can already be purchased pre-installed and KDE/GNOME/??? can easily be used by anyone. The installation and config aspects of Linux should soon be advanced enough for almost anyone to do. This idea that Linux is too hard and that it will be too expensive to retrain people is just MS FUD.
\forall code \in C, \frac{\Delta readability(code)}{\Delta t} < 0
As far as I can tell, many of the backwards-compatiblity issues have to do with tighter default security in Win2K - Normal users will no longer be able to write to certain registry keys and so on. This makes it hard for sloppy 9x applications.
The real reason Windows 2000 is late is the ActiveDirectory and IntelliMirror, and all the gee-whiz network management stuff they've been promising for years.
Still, Win2000 is probably a shoe-in on the desktop.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
I downloaded and installed the windows95 Y2K patch 10 days ago. It was right on microsoft's site with all the other service packs and upgrades. Sure enough, it's missing from the lineup now. Luckily I still have a copy.
I wish that the update and service pack listing was clearer about the order in which the patches have to be installed, and if there are any overlaps. There are a goodly number of networking-related patches, for example, and little way to know under what circumstances you need to install them. There are a few pointers in the documentation, but not much. I pretty much have to go by the date.
Why don't they release another service pack that wraps them all up? I have no wish to bloat up to win98.
Ah, if only the windows components were as modularly developed as Linux, you just go to the respective author's web site and get what you need, or just download your distribution's latest
release.
I just found the link to the Y2K package I downloaded a few days back:
http://www.microsoft. com/windows/downloads/bin/w95/y2kw95.txt
Is this what all the fuss is about?
He must have burst into flames just after saying that. =]
--j, who wants a framed, autographed copy of that quote.
Is the software that I paid my hard earned money for going to be unusable at the turn of the century? Is that fair for me? Come on Microsoft, get that Windows for 286s y2k patch crackin.
Bravery, Kindness, Clarity, Honesty, Compassion, Generosity
...Nothing interesting here. Just move along...
Reminds me of a bit of Orwell's work. Hmm..
compworld 29.3.99 misquote bb rectify
I don't know what the rest of y'all think, but that's what came to mind.
I like to play children's songs in minor keys.
"We're all sons of bitches now." --J. Robert Oppenheimer
Don Jones says "...the last thing I want to do is spread fear, uncertainty and doubt in their minds."
Perhaps he meant to say "the first thing I want to do...." Electronic Data Systems, it seems, was full of uncertainty and doubt on the matter.
I'm sure it is way too late to do anything about this, but I'd sure like to see /.ters being smart about this.
Y2K problems are NOT BUGS! A bug is an unintended behavior, when a program or system behaves in a manner inconsistent with design and intent. The Y2K problem is a design flaw. The people who wrote these systems knew full well about the problems of a two digit year and they chose to implement the systems that way anyways. If you intended it, it is not a bug.
I know this is techno-nitpicking. But this bugs me more than "can you borrow me five bucks?" And, hey, now that you mention it...
EvilPenguin (aka Michael Schwarz), grammatically uptight in Minneapolis...
Publish a product in 1995 without Y2K compliance? I guess the road ahead is a short one for some visionaries.
So do I track down the patch, or just delete my Y19C partition to make more swap space for The GIMP? Decisions, decisions...
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
http://www.microsoft.com/windows95/
First thing they want you to do, is to upgrade to Win98. . . .
But now, for some strange reason, there's a link to the Win95 Y2K fix. . .
Funny, that. . . .
Well, that would explain a few things at my company. I'm employed by a multibillion dollar corporation which now insists that all new computer procurements have NT installed - no W95 or W98 (or Linux :-() options. I finally realized exactly how stupid this was when we ordered IBM laptops and they arrived with NT installed even though the req specified W98. So guess what? The Kodak USB cameras we bought specifically to hook up to these laptops? They don't have NT drivers! I had heard that NT driver support was weak, but this just proved it as far as I'm concerned. And yet, the company has already jumped off the cliff... smart!!
Lets think about this.. A company has 100,000 seats, maybe just 1000. MS doesn't care what they want? I would be irrate if I had bought all those licenses.
If you had the source code you could make sure that its Y2k compliant, instead of relying on MS or any other vendor for that matter. Or if you couldn't afford the man power on your own you might be able to buy a patch from someone who could code it.
Linux obviously wouldn't have these stupid problems because they'd be fixed.
I'm really suprised corporations aren't really scared of relying on software from just one vendor that does things as poorly as MS.
Not that I am a MS fan, but I downloaded the Y2K patch from the MS site about a week or two ago. I'm not sure that it works, but it is still offered in their Windows 95 updates section with tons of other patches and upgrades. I installed it on a bunch of clients on my network here.
It's buried, but I got it at:
Y2K Update
Of course, one of their suggested updates is to upgrade to 98... go figure.
--SONET
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do. --Benjamin Franklin
Whoops! My bad, the update can be had by clicking the 'Windows 95' tab here, then clicking on 'Year 2000 Fix' or something like that. I should have used preview hehe.
--SONET
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do. --Benjamin Franklin
Is it just me, or did anybody else notice this?
"the last thing I want to do is spread fear, uncertainty and doubt in their minds."
I guess it's true though, I could never ever ever picture Microshaft spreading FUD. That's not their style. They go for legitimately sponsored independent tests that prove conclusively that their OSes are superior.
"People will spend millions of dollars, [implementing strategies based on such information], and the last thing I want
to do is spread fear, uncertainty and doubt in their minds."
C'mon, this is typical of M$, of course they want people to spend millions of dollars, right into their windows98 and W2K. This is so low, and I wonder why after all we have known about this company, news like this still surprises me?
http://www.microsoft.com/windows95/downloads/ is where the Y2K updates are if you want them. Bill would have shot himself in the foot if he didn't release them. I believe '95 is still the most popular OS of the bunch.
:). They should have stayed with a product that works. They still could if they were smart, however. . .
I run NT4/SP4, and contrary to what you may have heard, it only goes down when I say "shut down". My main machine's twin is on the other side of the monitor waiting for a few more parts, a switchbox, and the Redhat 6.0 CD.
I like Win '95 OSR2; especially how much I paid for it
The party's over
Huh? He was not my 'mangler', he was a colleague who happened to be in charge of the project in the office. What neglegence? This is a 15 year old system that none of us were around when it was designed, but it used the same date conventions everyone else did in the 80's. This is a in-house developed 1-off system. The difficulty was in making the ppl who run the company to understand the nature of the problem (apparently they are not alone)
Sorry, I don't get the point of your question.
This is a logically sound argument...
However, logic does not always factor as the prime motivation in business communication.
I had this same (sortof) argument with the manager over our company's y2k project. He kept referring to the problem as 'infection' and I confronted him that this was not a virus, or a bug, or a glitch, or a coding error but a design and/or convention problem.
He did not disagree with me on factual arguments, he understood the origin of this problem well enough (heck, he was a coder in the trenches with me back in the old days). He said the problem was trying to get the 'suits' to carry the proper mindset about the y2k project.
Calling it an infection or bug was something the PHB's could understand. Trying to use more accurate language just overran their buffers. I suspect Microsoft and others probably use the same terminology for the same reasons.
"This one particular 'feature' in all the current windows OSes will put another bucketload of cash in my pocket. Ooh Im so clever!"
W.Gates
I wonder if a global class action is out of the question.
y2k critical is EVERYTHING!
you can't expect everyone using a PC to be computer literate enough to use a non MS OS. come on. face it. MS has a monopoly and these people are victims. Have a LITTLE heart will ya?!
MS has a responsibility!
As an old calculus prof used to say, "precision is nontrivial".
The nitpicking matters isince in a lot of industries the owner of the design is completely different from the people writing code to spec.
Your other good point is about intent. (And I thought it was just crime and art where intent was key.)
Esteem isn't a zero sum game
M$ has had a "Windows 95 Y2K" patch available for some time, but it has several issues. You can see these issues for yourself at http://www.microsoft.com/technet/year2k/. A patch with this many issues is simply not acceptable. I am willing to bet that if I deployed the existing patch, come Jan 1 I'd be flooded with calls about the "minor" issues this patch leaves behind.
The company I work for takes quality and thoroughness very seriously. Issues are not generally accepted. This is why we deploy commercial UNIX variants and Linux whenever possible.
"That's Tron. He fights for the Users."
I'd sure like it if they'd just make up their friggin' minds and say yay or nay on the patch issue. I've got a lot of client machines to upgrade if the answer is nay, and a patch to test (what? trust a M$ patch without testing? not in this lifetime) if the answer is yay.
Kinda funny when you think about it...one of the major FUDballs thrown at open source projects lately is the supposed lack of development roadmaps. Where's the M$ roadmap for this patch, if it exists? Only so many more months left...
"That's Tron. He fights for the Users."
That comment is in my clipboard buffer RIGHT NOW! I was going to post it, but you beat me.
:)
Oh well, guess I'll just have to make it my sig.
Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.
"... We do recommend that people go to the latest versions of our operating system, but not for year 2000 reasons."
I like this bit of honesty from a PR exec... I'd be interested in knowing the reason they DO recommend going to the latest versions..
" We recommend suckers^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hpeople go to the latest version of our operating system because then we make more money."
Microsoft will release a patch, I don't doubt that. But as anybody who works with MS crap knows, the patch is going to have at least one subsequent patch to fix the errors the first patch introduced. The interesting part is the EDS stuff. So Rudin was saying, "No, we won't need to upgrade, we'll just get the patch from MS," but then when MS said they wouldn't have a patch, he says, "Okay, we're going to have to upgrade," and then resigns? I'm interested in *that* story. In my dreams, it was a conscience-driven decision and Rudin resigned rather than be in charge of giving MS more money...
Oh, go on, check out my job.
Re: "How could this [Y2K Bug] be a problem in a country where we have Intel and Microsoft?" -- Al Gore
Haven't seen that before. Please tell me this is fake. Please tell me this is not a real quote.
LOL - Breace.
It's a design flaw if the designers had anything to do with choosing to use 2-digit dates.
If they just used a library that has a y2k design flaw, and consequently their program starts adding negative numbers or dividing by zero, then it is a bug in their program.
Remember, hindsight is always 20/20. There used to be a time when 2-digits and the assosciated processor time used to deal with them were a significant overhead, especially at the OS level where time is dealt with alot. This does NOT apply to Wintendo.
I believe the main reason Win2000 was pushed back is because it was not backwards-compatible enough.
Now, M$ is SHIPPING Win2000 beta! Why? Because that way, they shift the responsibility for compatibility to the software developers, not themselves. All the suckers who start using Win2000 beta will pester the software makers for versions that work on Win2000 beta. (I support developers. I've dealt with this personally). After all, their MS software works with Win2000 beta, why doesn't yours!? Many software makers will comply and the whole compatibility issue will be a moot point (at least moot enough that MS won't have to worry about it).
Yes, it was IBM. But I've heard the updated version much more frequently these days.
There's an old saying that goes, "Nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft."
May the guy at EDS be the first of many...
You sure that they are not trying to make us all use the next variation on NT?
From a financial standpoint they really want to phase out windows as an os altogether because they make more on the NT licencing fees then they do on any Win ** version out there. Therefore, I expect them to try and push for us to all convert over to an NT system. (that and they can get the info and invade privacy even easier on the NT systems)
The ability to sell the information from ppls systems is a temptation, but is unlikely from m$ as I do not believe they want to face that class action law suit. What is much more likely in the end game is: Win95 is so broke it is not economical to fix it. The cost of trying to find all of the bugs in man hours is such that they would have to eat their profits. Show me a company that wants to do that and I will show you one that is going out of business.
"Alt-F4 that's for quitting" quoth Dan_Wood
Actually, you are likely correct. My reading on the company in the Wall Street Jornal and other business realated news type stuffle seems to indicate that you are very much in the right. (irc)
Surprisingly, the WSJ actually treats M$ and Linux fairly in their articles on par. On of the little things in there seems to indicate that the programmers from m$ may actually be looking to bail from the company if they can find another one that is stable and likely to stay solvent. The key there is that m$ is remarkable for it's toeing of the line in the legalities of it's method of competing with other companies. The way m$ competes it by trying to make the tool as simple to use as a hammer, so that the end user thinks that everything is just a nail. An end user that has become accostumed to this then cannot easily transition over to another system. It takes time to learn a system and given the choice, most people want to just know one (and not very well at that) and save their precious time.
Thus, through the use of much simplified user enviroments like win95 and winNT, m$ has a captive audience. It is not too great a stretch then to believe that the company has decided to try to force upgrades onto this audience. This audience really cannot afford a work stoppage. If you were to look in the want adds of any large city newspaper, you would notice that among the secretarial pool and the general office staff the most common need is for some one that is competent in the windows 95/NT user environment and is capable of really manouvering in Office 97.
As a result, I think you are quite right.
--da telkitty
"Alt-F4 that's for quitting" quoth Dan_Wood
Only a monopoly can treat its customers is such a careless manner and get away with it! Other computer companies are either fixing their flawed applications free of charge, or are in court because of customer demands. Even IBM has been to court because of Y2K-related litigation, and they are huge!
Q: How can Micro$oft sell faulty OS software, tell major business partners to upgrade to the latest version (with all new Y2K flaws), then issue patches for the old version once people have jumped onto the "upgrade path" bandwagon?
A: They are THE MONOPOLY VENDOR in the desktop PC OS marketplace.
Let's be honest. Although Linux is making great strides on the desktop, it still has a LONG way to go before I will recommend it to most of my clients everyday for desktop use. I have even seen tips for troubleshooting Linux that instruct the user to (1)download an app or script onto your Windows machine; (2)copy the data to disk; and (3)transfer it to Linux to get your modem, ISP connection, etc. working properly! Can you imagine Micro$oft saying: "Power up your Mac, Linux or Be box in order to get your Wintel PC working" ??? NOT HAPPENING!
Micro$oft's Y2K fiasco would not happen if it didn't exercise monopolistic rights on the computing community. But the strength of a Windows desktop is that it makes the user feel and think he knows what he is doing even when he doesn't. Linux is not there . . . yet!
However, should the government step in and change things? Can Linux (or any new OS) compete on its own merits? Remember, Micro$oft has not yet begun to fight Linux with all its resources.
I honetstly don't think a lawsuit will be possible for EDS. Some suspect that EDS approved of a Win98 upgrade for other reasons . . .
A client ("MS Developer") like EDS has the "inside scoop" on quite a bit of Micro$oft planning. An earlier posting to this article stated that the fellow at EDS "must be the most dumb CIO in the world" if he believed the Micro$oft hype. (See "Vapourware vs Win95 Y2K patch" posted above.) To become CIO of EDS, he probably wasn't that ignorant! Just GREEDY!
There are many under-the-table deals that take place in the world of purchasing --- especially when it comes to computers. Lots of money can be made by a manager who chooses to buy 10,000 licenses from Vendor X instead of Vendor Y, or by "upgrading" from Version 99 to Version 2000. In too many cases, no one dares to extensively questions a senior official why this product is better or why that upgrade is needed. No one bothers to ask who paid the bill for this dinner or that trip. (Oops! I mean "seminar"!) And when Micro$oft recommends it . . . Well you know the saying: "You can't go wrong if you buy Micro$oft." (They used to say that about IBM!)
In early January 1999, Micro$oft issued their first patch for Win95 Y2K errors. Although it had a "Compliant with Minor Issues" rating, many businesses chose to keep the OS since Y2K testing had started or was completed. And the "Minor Issues" involved were insignificant to most desktop users! Even power users! It is possible that the decision of EDS to upgrade to Win98, a release of a second (and supposedly complete) Win95 Y2K patch, and the quick resignation of the CIO of EDS had to do with some extra incentives (monetary or in some other form). The CEO, CFO and/or other board members discovered his backdoor dealings and forced his "resignation". But because EDS has encouraged their clients to upgrade all sorts of software over the past few years, its best to keep the incident as quiet as possible.
Who knows why he really resigned? Perhaps a Linux guru showed the CEO how he could have used kernel 2.2 and saved hundreds of thousands on Wintel server downtime! One day there might be a saying: "You can't go wrong by installing Linux!"
Notice it? It jumped out of the page!
;-)
Seems that they don't like it when it happens to them, but it's always good company policy whenever there's any competition around
insignificant sig
How can Microsoft tell win95 users to upgrade to win98 to solve their "issues" when 98 STILL isn't compliant???
0 24
http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB19990423S0
This is ridiculous. The Y2K problem just highlights the massive code bloat in all their software - if it was coded better, it would take them half the time to sort this out.
Jim
This is the second or third time I've heard of MS doing something questionable since the DOJ trial has been on holiday. The thing that I wonder is whether the "powers that be" are watching MS, and whether all these little events are swaying them one way or another. It just makes you think, doesn't it? I mean, once this thing is over, I doubt that any of the states involved will have the money or inclination to fight it out again, so the judge is probably taking things EXTRA seriously, and ever little questionable act that MS commits must leave SOME sort of negative feeling... just my thoughts, but what do I know?
i want to live life, not just go through the motions
Hell, people have been saying for years that M$ would _become_ IBM in all but name, so nbo surprises there.
Quote: "The line always was that nobody was ever fired for buying from IBM. Well, I know that's not true anymore, because I fired the guy!"
-- Bill O'Neill, CTO @ Drexel Burnham Lambert, 1989
-- quoted in "Big Blues - the unmaking of IBM (1993)
(ceci n'est pas un
Ehh, I though it was 'No one ever got fired for buying IBM'
I guess the phrase has changed for the younger generation.