All Things Microsoft > Microsoft as a Company
MS chooses to leave critical security hole unfixed.
xyle_one:
I see nothing wrong with them not supporting an 8 year old operating system. Sure, 98 isn't good, they admit that, but it's 8 years old. Time to move on people.
worker201:
Maybe it is time to move on. But that should be the customer's decision, not the vendor's decision. This is like Microsoft almost forcing people to upgrade, whether they have the hardware/opportunity or not. Windows XP won't run on everything, you know. And, believe it or not, some people have locked themselves into mission critical applications that need Win98 to function. Let's not punish the less fortunate (and anyone with a 486 who is dependent on Win98 is definitely less fortunate) simply for being less fortunate.
xylon?
xyle_one:
--- Quote from: worker201 ---xylon?
--- End quote ---
Yeah, the one and only :)
How's it going worker201? How was your trip?
--- Quote from: worker201 ---Maybe it is time to move on. But that should be the customer's decision, not the vendor's decision. This is like Microsoft almost forcing people to upgrade, whether they have the hardware/opportunity or not. Windows XP won't run on everything, you know. And, believe it or not, some people have locked themselves into mission critical applications that need Win98 to function. Let's not punish the less fortunate (and anyone with a 486 who is dependent on Win98 is definitely less fortunate) simply for being less fortunate.
--- End quote ---
I can't fault the company for discontinuing support for an ancient os even if people are still using it for critical applications (yikes!). I remember reading about this on, I think, slashdot, and windows 98 was just too poorly written to fix, so they didn't. If a company wants to continue to run critical apps on that, then so be it, but to expect MS to continue support is ridiculous. If not now, then when would it be an ok time to stop supporting it? 5 years? 25 years? Apple stopped supporting all older versions of it's classic os in 2002. And I believe Redhat no longer supports older versions of it's OS.
I don't see anything wrong :/
piratePenguin:
--- Quote from: xylon ---Yeah, the one and only :)
How's it going worker201? How was your trip?
I can't fault the company for discontinuing support for an ancient os even if people are still using it for critical applications (yikes!). I remember reading about this on, I think, slashdot, and windows 98 was just too poorly written to fix, so they didn't. If a company wants to continue to run critical apps on that, then so be it, but to expect MS to continue support is ridiculous. If not now, then when would it be an ok time to stop supporting it? 5 years? 25 years? Apple stopped supporting all older versions of it's classic os in 2002. And I believe Redhat no longer supports older versions of it's OS.
I don't see anything wrong :/
--- End quote ---
MS said they would support it for longer than this - that's what's wrong.
The Ubuntu people say they'll support 6.06 for 5 years, and I'd be pissed at them if they ended it any shorter than that (and I do NOT plan to use 6.06 for much longer).
xyle_one:
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---MS said they would support it for longer than this - that's what's wrong.
The Ubuntu people say they'll support 6.06 for 5 years, and I'd be pissed at them if they ended it any shorter than that (and I do NOT plan to use 6.06 for much longer).
--- End quote ---
I doubt they planned for a security fix to be impossible to add without breaking the system even more. Given that, I would have dropped support for this particular patch as well.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version