Last Call: Windows 98, Windows 98 Second Edition, and Windows Me

Last Call: Windows 98, Windows 98 Second Edition, and Windows Me

Post by Dan » Thu, 11 May 2006 13:42:52



AFAIK, it will still work in August as it does now. The only difference
is that there will not be any new security updates after July 11, 2006.
By the way, check out these frequently asked questions and I notice a
contradiction here. This is about the extension of expiration of 9x
products. From:

http://www.yqcomputer.com/

Microsoft continually evaluates customer requirements and makes
adjustments to our support policies on an ongoing basis. This is not the
first time wee decided to extend the support end date for a product.
Customers can always rest assured that support for a product is never
reduced only occasionally lengthened based on customer requirements

13. Why aren you applying the new lifecycle timeline of seven years to
Windows Me?
To reduce confusion for customers and extend support for both products,
we decided to implement a single, consistent date for ending support for
operating systems still covered by the older support lifecycle policies.

It sounds like people who bought Windows Me in hopes of a seven year
support date are out of luck. "Customers can always rest assured that
support for a product is never reduced - only occasionally lengthened -
based on customer requirements" What about the reduction of support for
Windows Me. Also, Windows Me arrived after Windows 2000 so it should
come under the same longer lifecycle. I think it is clear that Windows
Me was a failure and Microsoft does not really want to admit that.
Anyway, these are just my thoughts and opinions. Finally, I do thank
and appreciate all of the support Microsoft has given me as a Windows 98
Second Edition user.
 
 
 

Last Call: Windows 98, Windows 98 Second Edition, and Windows Me

Post by Bindar Dun » Thu, 11 May 2006 14:01:51

Hi Dan
I think they just want to phase out support for 9x systems all at the same time.
Win 2000 is NT based.

--
George (Bindar Dundat
http://www.yqcomputer.com/
$Post_Count = $Post_Count +1
.




|>>
|>>> 3) Support for Win98 and ME should originally have expired years
|>>> ago, but MS extended their life until this year to allow more
|>>> time for less wealthy nations and people to upgrade
|>>
|>> That was the official, Milkro$haft white-washed reason. The real
|>> reason was strategic - to block any inroads by other OS's like Linux
|>> onto those Win-98 boxes. Better to keep those systems running 98 vs
|>> creating an opportunity (or need) for them to migrate to some other
|>> non-MS OS.
|>>
|>>> - this is nothing new.
|>>
|>> What do you mean "this is nothing new". Why make a comment like
|>> that? Of course it's new, and it's out of character for MS to extend
|>> support for an OS that has been off the shelf for so long. Where have
|>> they done something similar?
|>>
|>> PS:
|>>
|>> If I install Win-98se from scratch in, say, August, and then I connect
|>> to the WindowsUpdate website, will the site still function for me and
|>> push any and all updates and patches to me (like it does now) ???
|
| AFAIK, it will still work in August as it does now. The only difference
| is that there will not be any new security updates after July 11, 2006.
| By the way, check out these frequently asked questions and I notice a
| contradiction here. This is about the extension of expiration of 9x
| products. From:
|
| http://www.yqcomputer.com/
|
| Microsoft continually evaluates customer requirements and makes
| adjustments to our support policies on an ongoing basis. This is not the
| first time we've decided to extend the support end date for a product.
| Customers can always rest assured that support for a product is never
| reduced - only occasionally lengthened - based on customer requirements
|
| 13. Why aren't you applying the new lifecycle timeline of seven years to
| Windows Me?
| To reduce confusion for customers and extend support for both products,
| we decided to implement a single, consistent date for ending support for
| operating systems still covered by the older support lifecycle policies.
|
| It sounds like people who bought Windows Me in hopes of a seven year
| support date are out of luck. "Customers can always rest assured that
| support for a product is never reduced - only occasionally lengthened -
| based on customer requirements" What about the reduction of support for
| Windows Me. Also, Windows Me arrived after Windows 2000 so it should
| come under the same longer lifecycle. I think it is clear that Windows
| Me was a failure and Microsoft does not really want to admit that.
| Anyway, these are just my thoughts and opinions. Finally, I do thank
| and appreciate all of the support Microsoft has given me as a Windows 98
| Second Edition user.

 
 
 

Last Call: Windows 98, Windows 98 Second Edition, and Windows Me

Post by Dan » Thu, 11 May 2006 14:28:04


I think you are right. I know Windows XP is NT based too. It will be
easier for Microsoft to support one line of code which is NT rather than
having to support two lines of code -- 9x and NT. I wonder if current
users of Windows 98, 98SE and Me will decide it is time to switch to
Linux or Apple after July 11, 2006 or after another critical security
update hits 98, 98SE and Me after the expiration date.
 
 
 

Last Call: Windows 98, Windows 98 Second Edition, and Windows Me

Post by Richard G. » Thu, 11 May 2006 19:01:43

Unfortunately you're misinterpreting the lifecycle policy. There never has
been a seven-year support policy for any home operating system, only for
business operating systems. From the beginning Microsoft has positioned
WindowsMe as purely a home OS.

--
Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User] XXXX@XXXXX.COM
* PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
* for the benefit of all. Private mail is usually not replied to.
* My website, such as it is ... http://www.yqcomputer.com/
* HELP us help YOU ... http://www.yqcomputer.com/
 
 
 

Last Call: Windows 98, Windows 98 Second Edition, and Windows Me

Post by Dan » Fri, 12 May 2006 06:48:10


Thanks Chris! I did not realize that 9x systems were designed to be
stand-alone systems as compared to NT systems that were designed to be
network clients.
 
 
 

Last Call: Windows 98, Windows 98 Second Edition, and Windows Me

Post by Dan » Fri, 12 May 2006 06:49:07


Thanks for the correction, Richard.
 
 
 

Last Call: Windows 98, Windows 98 Second Edition, and Windows Me

Post by MVP Window » Sat, 13 May 2006 00:21:27

n Wed, 10 May 2006 15:48:10 -0600, Dan wrote:



It might be a contentuous claim, but consider this: Whenever an "OS
snob" sniffs that only XP Pro will do, and that XP Home is "useless"
(and Win9x more so, because it has "no security"), what they are
referring to is the ability to remotely administer the PC and users
via the network. For the rest of us (stand-alone users) it's fine.

Win9x makes a half-hearted attempt to bolt on some network (e.g. RPC
add-on) and user (e.g. user profiles) management, but in NT-based OSs,
this is far more rigorous and built in. For example, the management
of user access devolves via NTFS right down to individual files and
registry entries; Win9x has *nothing* like that.

But here's the paradox: NT may be more secure, but Win9x may be safer!

Safety and security are different things. Security is meaningless is
it isn't built on a safe foundation, and is no substitute for safety
when it comes to things that no-one wants to happen.

Say you own a PC that only you use, and it's connected to the
Internet. There are NO scenarios whatsoever, where you want any
entity on any network to have any control over your PC.

That makes Win9x safer, because it lacks many of the network admin
features that facilitate such access. With NT, they are there, and it
is up to you to play "sysadmin" so you can "secure" them (i.e. define
permitted users of such facilities so as to exclude all scenarios)

OTOH, say you have 200 users with different responsabilites and levels
of trustworthiness who drift among 20 PCs. Then you may welcome the
ability to control these human and computer assets remotety; it may
even be worth your while to hire a certificated network pro to do
this. In this context, Win9x is slippery and uncontrollable, and you
would not be surprised to hear your sysadmin say "I can't begin to do
my job until you replace these Win9x PCs with XP Pro".

Which market has the loudest wallet?
Which market is more exposed to competition?

IMO, MS takes our market of self-owned, stand-alone computers for
granted, as one that is safe from competition other than possibly by
Apples and MacOS. The only development we see is geared to ease of
use and whizz-bang media, while the core functionalities we need are
eroded away by conflicting needs of the network market.

So we have an NTFS file system that has no interactive file system
repair tools and few if any "deep" data recovery tools, and we no
longer have any sort of maintenance OS that can boot independently
from the HD to manage malware or recover data.

At least part of the reason is because a user who can control their PC
to this extent, also poses a risk to the network market's security.
The result, however, is that the guts of what *we* need an OS to do
are getting flabbier and weaker with every new release.



Tech Support: The guys who follow the
'Parade of New Products' with a shovel.