when you consider that W98 is several years old and W2K and XP have been out for so long, you can't fault Microsoft for failing to keep updating them etc... many a publisher will tell you the first 'fix' for a problem is to update to the latest version.
What's a little less than transparent is the suggestion that the Sun problem is some sort of factor here - Microsoft applies dates to all versions of windows these days, after Day X it stops doing SP releases and updates, at day Y it starts to pretend it never sold that version, and so on... the "end of support for 98 date" isn't down to Sun, although that might have speeded the planned demise up a bit - I remember that when I started converting to XP Pro (which seems a decade ago now) I had a list of dates for when M'soft were going to stop supporting products up to, and including, Win 2K.
Still, why not take the opportunity to blame Sun as it's there?
Microsoft have a legal obligation to "unbundle some feature from their OS. Where the cynicism comes in is that they know fine well that by the time they are forced round to it nobody is buying that OS anymoreand so the original issue is academic. Similar probs are already starting to appear with the next Win OS due 2005/06 - start saving for Longhorn http://www.zolknetwork.com/windows_longhorn.php
Racer, I reckon its only because XP is the current operating system and the fast growth of broadband is making any operating system vulnerable to attack. Now a lot of pcs are permanently online and open to attack every minute.
i'm surprised anyone cares about windows 95/98, you are talking of 6 to 9 years ago, that is centuries in the fast moving IT world. And considering how cheap a really powerful computer is these days I'm surprised people still bother with using clunky slow machines. For a few hundred quid you can get a pretty nifty machine if you all you want is to run windows applications (its different for games enthusiasts like me though who need top of the range). Also windows xp is definitely a very good operating system and it is geared towards the current needs of users. So for 90 quid, which isn't much, you can't get home edition XP upgrade. Theres no reason not to and lots of benefit to be gained.
pkfryer, you say about clunky old machines..
My other computers using Win2000 or lower are more than adequate for what they do. Wny should I pay more money for a computer (or several in my case) to get the same result.. okay it might be a bit faster but I am not interested in speed on those ones.
I should imagine a lot of people who have older OS are using them have it on their secondary computers, and as for XP upgrade, you can't use it on more than one computer, so that would mean paying out that for each one.
Okay my main computer is far superior but that is used for games/and other things that need the extras
Heh! was going to say this was old news, but just looked at the start date of thread
Anyway, Microsoft have had a policy of support for the current version plus 1 previous version (or is it 2, cant remember) for years. I did some work for Microsoft about 9 years ago and I have to admit that they arent all bad.
". And considering how cheap a really powerful computer is these days I'm surprised people still bother with using clunky slow machines. "
When these people purchased these machines, they where probably in the mid to high end range costing £1500 - £3000ish (yes you can now buy a better system for less than £500), people don't like to waste money and especially amit it at a later date. For many thats what it would amount to. Knowing little about computers they followed the salesman's advice
Fit for purpose. If the system works well, keep using it
Don't fall for the sales pitch, (if you have spare cash, spend and enjoy)
Life has improved since dumping the mobile phone. Are you really in control of your phone?