Print this article  |  E-mail this article  |  Comment on this article

Windows 98, Me Support to End in July

By Nate Mook, BetaNews

April 11, 2006, 3:02 PM

Microsoft has officially begun requesting that users running Windows 98, 98 SE and Millennium Edition (Me) upgrade their operating system as soon as possible. The Redmond company will cease all public and technical support for the products on July 11, 2006, including all security updates.

Customers are being notified of the impending deadline, which was moved from January 16, 2004 to provide extra time for those still running legacy systems. No-charge incident support and extended hotfix support for Windows 98 and Me previously ended on June 30, 2003 and December 31, 2003, respectively.

Microsoft will continue to provide Windows 98 and Me help topics through its Web site until at least July 11, 2007. However, without additional security updates, customers will be left unprotected from potential vulnerabilities.

"It's surprising how many consumers or businesses still use these older versions, particularly Windows 98. Their continued use partly accounts for an extension of support for about an additional 18 months--from January 2004 to July 2006," Jupiter Research senior analyst Joe Wilcox told BetaNews.

In a statement, Microsoft said it was ending support for Windows 98 and Me "because they are outdated and these older operating systems can expose customers to security risks." The company is urging all users to upgrade to Windows XP Service Pack 2.

However, Jupiter's Wilcox noted, "Our surveys show that, among consumer households, most older Windows versions run on second or third PCs, and I expect many to remain in use even after security support ends."

"Timing is unfortunate given Windows Vista's delay," he added. "Consumers with Windows 98 or Me will be looking at new Windows XP PCs -- or even a Mac -- instead of Windows Vista."

Add a Comment (100 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By sc7

edited Aug 26, 2006 - 11:49 AM

Trumpet, you think Microsoft should take focus off building better products to still support people on DOS 6.1? They have to cut it somewhere, and they cannot support old products. It would cost Microsoft, money, and time to support these old products that you haven't paid for in over 7 years. They'd be stuck supporting old stuff, then people would complain how the new stuff is not that good. There has to be a time to cut it, and that time is now. It's an old kernel, you see, with an outdated API, which causes all security updates to be complete seperate workings from the ones made for Xp/2000, they have to do everything differently. It's just not worth it now that W98 is out of the limelight, as many mentioned, so that it really doesn't matter about new security flaws anyhow, most of what's exploited is patched, and very little new will arise, as NT kernel systems are the main target. I do think MS should still offer Windows Update and Download support of old updates for those that need to reformat. You mentioned that W98 is more secure, well, in a theory, you're right. It's more secure to operate in some circumstances, but now that new AVs don't support the old OS, some new viruses and old ones do work on 98, if that protection is missed, there is infection. However, that said, it is less of a target for hackers, and most modern day virus writers. However, as roj said.

"Huge gaping holes in the VXD driver model, a password infrastructure that was a joke, no type checking in the code, no internal rights authentication for ANY functions, FAT file system of any description..."

My overall feeling is, if you want to, then fine, keep using 98, but it's no longer Microsoft's position to support your old product anymore. Don't like it, use the free alternative, linux.

Score: 0

By trumpet

edited Aug 24, 2006 - 7:09 PM

Im ashamed at MS Just got a good deal on a laptop with Win 98 os and only got to update it 1 time. I like win98 alot better then any xp and alot of people where I live use win98. This is all money making crap. I think people should have a right to decide what OS system they want and as much as they cost SHOULD HAVE SUPPORT ALL THE TIME. If I wanted to upgrade that should be my decision not MS ...........They can keep their updates as win98 is safer then any xp OS as hakers stalk these systems more ...

Score: 0

By m$sux

edited Jul 23, 2006 - 9:32 PM

I was bored reading about old people and bad grammar(english is not the first language for everybody)so I didn't read everthing but I see that nobody pointed out that in over 8 years (June 25, 1998 - July 11, 2006) M$, a company with over 65000 employees, wasn't able to make an operating system that is good (except win 3.11, it was my favorite) to be secure and up to date, and now they force theyr cusomers to buy a less secure M$ product (xp) but with more crap than ever as bonus. I think vista will be worst

Score: 0

By samdeskin

posted Jun 6, 2006 - 12:13 PM

This is silly. MS should wait until Vista is out before forcing users to switch out of their legacy products. They are just giving a reason for people to try the competition and buy a Mac. But people would have to wholesale switch to Mac or buy XP to run on their Mac instead of buying Vista. They could be buying Vista instead to install. Bad move Microsoft. Bad timing.

samfind
http://samfind.com

Score: 0

By redbird

edited May 13, 2006 - 8:19 AM

5-13-06
Microsoft products are too good for them to
go obsolete so soon. Even with all the patches.
They should consider extending support until
their new OS comes out. Windows XP is now
an old OS. (like Win98 or ME) Much of the
"newer" stuff has been geared toward "gaming."
To which I say: "these people need to get
a life." (gamers)

Score: 0

By win98

edited Apr 24, 2006 - 4:44 PM

Funny why I find so much support pages like:
http://www.w98upg.net.tf (wupg98-Upgrade Pack)
or newsgroups where many people want to have help for Windows 98.
I think I speak for all Windows 98 users if I say that Microsoft should support Win98 for
"4 more Years!".

Score: 0

By prndll

posted Apr 27, 2006 - 10:21 PM

I'll say again.....
MS support is NOT needed. The only required element is for people to get a clue. Any support MS would give for 98 would end up distroying 98. The end user is better off doing it for themselves.

Score: 0

By prndll

posted Apr 14, 2006 - 11:01 PM

It all comes down to the end user taking personal responsibility. This has nothing to do with the OS. I use 98se simply because I believe it to be safer at this point. Even though I do understand it's pitfalls and it's weaknesses. I've seen too much from xp's multiple avenues giving remote control to others and IE6's ability to let a webpage take full control of a computer. You can have all the MS updates and support you want.

Score: 0

By prndll

posted Apr 14, 2006 - 10:55 PM

MS updates generally mean nothing but more problems and more vulnerabilities. I can actually do alot more with my 98se than most people can even dream of on their xp. lol....but then, most people buy a computer and never really understand what all that computer can really do in the first place. This doesn't even account for the fact that most new computers are infected right out of the box.

No one, not even my wife touches my computer. That's the way it should be. We built her one for her to use. If security is what you want, YOU as the end user/owner should take the most appropriate steps to insure that the right thing gets done and the wrong thing never does.

Score: 0

By prndll

posted Apr 14, 2006 - 10:49 PM

I am in the tech bussiness and I see the computers that people have in their homes on a daily bases. I have a small network at home, own a website, build computers, and I also run 98se on my most important pc along with redhat on another pc. This discussion of Microsoft ending support for these older OS's is pointless. In the end, it really doesn't matter at all if they continue to support it or not. Win98se has only two real problems....one is continued driver support and two is IPV6. Aside from that, 98se will last forever. Inspite of what Microsoft claims, 98se is NOT all that dangerous. In fact, XP is ALOT more dangerous than 98se ever could have been. Now you people can ramble on about all the wonderfull security "features" built into xp, but most of that ends up meaning very little and what does mean something ends up meaning nothing more than a more complicated way of doing things. I for one, would NEVER want support from microsoft on anything.

Score: 0

By Skyfrog

posted Apr 13, 2006 - 12:08 PM

I read something on another site that I'd like to repeat here: "How long do you expect Microsoft to give you free support when you haven't paid for the product in over 7 years?". Makes sense to me.

Score: 0

By roj

posted Apr 12, 2006 - 4:31 PM

"Now could someone please tell me WHY Win98 is insecure?"

Huge gaping holes in the VXD driver model, a password infrastructure that was a joke, no type checking in the code, no internal rights authentication for ANY functions, FAT file system of any description...

...and on and on and on.

DUH!!!!!!!!!

Score: 0

By ga_sk8er

edited Apr 13, 2006 - 7:09 PM

in 98, windows sees the name with the password. change the name ( even by adding or subtracting a character) & you can get in the system. passwords on 98 are a joke.

Score: 0

By prndll

posted Apr 15, 2006 - 12:22 AM

The point to the username and password on bootup was meant for "network logon". If you click "cancel", you can still bootup the pc, you just can't get into any network.

Score: 0

By Banquo

edited Apr 15, 2006 - 12:54 PM

Those passwords are not for security, they never were. Of course you can just click cancel, no one ever said they would keep people out. The purpose was simply to allow different people to have their own personal settings such as wallpaper and so on.

Score: 0

By Warp0

edited Apr 12, 2006 - 3:52 PM

Now could someone please tell me WHY Win98 is insecure?

All problems, from Blaster to that pic-dll vulnerability were 2k, XP or sometimes ME-problems.

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

posted Apr 12, 2006 - 9:04 PM

In some ways it is more secure today than it ever has been--but only because it is old and viruses are written for the biggest OS in use--Windows XP.

However, if we all used Win98--it is greatly inferior to XP in security. There's probably hundreds of security holes in 98 that nobody has found yet. No need to anymore though. Very soon, Windows 2000 will appear to be much much more secure than xp. That's because even the US military is moving to XP now. Market share determines "hackdrive"...

Score: 0

By roj

posted Apr 12, 2006 - 2:46 PM

Good riddance.

Score: 0

By mdn7779

posted Apr 12, 2006 - 5:56 AM

After reading all the posts, am disappointed in many of them. As a tech that runs my own business, I see all operating systems, though I have to admit, I have not seen Win95 in about two years. Being the only tech in my area that services computers in the home, many of my customers are over the 60's mark. Many of them picked up a computer from a school sale or given to them from their children. Is $400-$500 at lot to these people. Yes, when they are paying $800 plus a month for medication to keep them alive, can't afford a car, and living on Social Security that only raises between $5-8.00 per month, $400 plus is a lot of money.

I have a lot of respect for these people. They are tackling at completely foreign technology that they are scare to death that they are going to mess up just to try to keep up with the times. These people live on an income that far too many of who wrote sarcastic posts would not be able to last 30 days on, let alone year after year.

Microsoft's decision is just another nail in the coffin for many of these people. Think about it, and shame on your parents for not raising you right!

Score: 0

By telit

edited Jun 30, 2006 - 10:28 PM

mdn7779 I am one of those people you mention in your well-thought-out comment.

My first alarmed response was...what am I going to do? Zone Alarm is canceling us out, I expect Symantec to follow. Some Mozilla systems like Foxfire, and Thunderbird will not support Win 98SE, and on and on.

I decided to find a tech who will be willing to work with me, and to eventually find an alternative firewall, maybe Grissoft (sp?) (AVG), AND to get rid of that bloated horror, Norton AntiVirus, which hangs me up time and time again, turning to AVG instead. Under the guidance of a sensible tech, I should be just fine.

I've used XP, and absolutely loathed it. I too feel that we Win98 SE addicts are not the target for viruses as much as the newer OS's are, and now with a new Microsoft product coming out, the nasty writers of malice are rubbing their hands in glee, and getting ready for the new war.

I'll predict here that the new OS by Microsoft will be as big a hole riddled problem as any other ever released.

It's all about money. New system, new greenbacks in Bill's pocket...all the other monster corps will joyfully follow.

I love my Win98 SE, no matter how quirky it can be. It's an old friend and recognizes that I run it, not the other way around like that puling cuteness ridden XP.

As an aside regarding some of the spoiled brat comments about older people having no place on super highways, and/or the Internet...I will hereby inform you that one day you'll be an old f*rt, and some little putz will say the same about you.

It just so happens that I am severly disabled, AND poor. The computer has given me a doorway to the world...why it even brought your little minds to my attention. Fancy that!

As to making choices re what we spend our money on...heh! I'd rather opt for a vital intellectual life, than many other things some consider important. When the time came to decide whether to replace the dying old computer some friend gave me, I plunked the money I had set aside for my cremation down, and told the local tech to build me the best he could for the money.

I realized then that it's not really my problem what is done with my stinking corpse. They don't tend to get left laying about.

And, no one will ever say that I didn't rise to the challenge of teaching myself how to use a computer, and no one will ever call one of my numerous excellent blogs, boring, and no one will ever say I didn't have a blast doing all that I've done.

We aren't all dead between the ears, and if we like Win98 SE, we have the right to keep on using it. I wonder just how much it would cost a huge company like M.S. to continue with critical updates?

Signed 66 years old, and still curious, intelligent, and kicking back when kicked.

Score: 0

By Tenoq

posted Apr 12, 2006 - 9:08 PM

USA?

Not sure what you're welfare deal is like there, but for $800 you'd be collecting nearly 200 prescriptions a month in Australia. Welfare recipients get massive discounts on medicine, so it has little impact on their paltry income. (everything costs a little over $4, regardless).

I don't think this is the point, however. Discontinued support isn't really going to have any affect on these people anyway - they probably wouldn't know there WAS a support line, and prefer to just ring the local computer shop for help. Microsoft's decision is a good one, in that it gives the industry another shove to evolve and develop.

Score: 0

By drumcat

posted Apr 12, 2006 - 2:25 PM

OK, so dropping support for it... how much will that affect the folks you're talking about? How much do they use MS support?

While I think it's a shame as well, at some point you have to move on. They don't make parts for lots of cars now, too. The OS won't suddenly stop functioning, but time marches on. I have sympathy, but at some point you get what you pay for. People used to say that about $3000 machines, and people got a bargin box at $1000. It's all relative.

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Apr 12, 2006 - 8:40 AM

You make a very good argument, I admit. In all seriousness though... ignore the cost and look at the technical side of this. How many of those people actually take the time to update and maintain their computers in the first place? Think before you answer that... if people were more self-sufficient about maintaining their computers, they wouldn't need us tech guys as often as they do aside from training and hardware repair (not that that would be bad).

I don't recall the last Security Bulletin that actually referenced a Windows 98 or ME patch was available as well. I have 98 systems here at work that haven't had an Update installed since August... and I have yet to experience a problem aside from user error. At this point, for those users, I am not sympathetic to the lack of bulletins... there are other inexpensive alternatives available.

First off, keeping a decent firewall program running should protect most of those users from their own mistakes, as well as a good antivirus program... and keeping those up to date. Second, teaching those users some safe surfing habits rather than just fixing it and sending them on their way will improve their odds too.

Third, for the people who just inherited a PC from someplace... chances are good they're going to be able to do that again. XP systems that were purchased in 2002/2003 are being replaced in a lot of businesses and schools, so they can just as easily pick one of those up.

Fourth, these users aren't going to be running Vista on those old machines anyway.

Think about your own business... if you keep developing for a product that is no longer sold... how much revenue are you really going to be making? Not much, if anything. You're going to be spending time and money on your product and getting nothing in return. That is not a good business model.

Before you go judging and shaming all of humanity for not doing what makes sense in your personal little world, I suggest you remember that this isn't some malicious act of saying, "screw those old people, they're gonna die soon anyway!" I admire your sense of responsibility and compassion, but it's not what this is about.

Score: 0

By Banquo

posted Apr 12, 2006 - 6:00 AM

What are you saying, that Microsoft should have to support all of their old products forever? I think that's a bit silly. Besides all these old people with their old computers probably aren't even aware Windows Update even exists so it's not like they're going to care. Most of the computers I work on have no updates at all installed; I get XP computers in all the time that don't even have SP1 installed.

Score: 0

By mshulman

posted Apr 12, 2006 - 10:30 AM

They keep their product support available for quite some time. I don't recall exactly when ME came out, but 98 is now 8 years old. That's a long time to stick with an OS. I'm sure part of Microsoft's basis for ending support is based upon their call volume on these products as well as typical product life cycles.

Score: 0

By GimieGimieGimie

edited Apr 12, 2006 - 11:09 AM

Yes that is exactly what Microsoft should do and it isn't at all silly, infact that type of desision is what would set a fantastic company in favour of its consumers compared to a standard company in favour of profit apart. I believe from the billions of dollars Microsoft have made over the years from their customers, they should support their products until the consumers feel 'ready' to move onto an updated product. This is an open and closed case, Microsoft isn't interested in the advancement of software, but rather their profits (as usual), i thought this was common knowledge?

Score: 0

By Silentmaster101

posted Apr 12, 2006 - 11:37 AM

think about what you just said. these "old"people are never going to feel ready to move on, and microsoft is losing money keeping these products running. does motorola still offer support on a car/cell phone they made 8 years ago? i dont think so..

and of course microsoft is concerned with their profits they are a corpetarion idiot, not some morally driven non-profit organization out to save humanity. nor do they pretend to be anything but what they are,
and really the idea is to get people to upgrade so they spend more money, thats what corperations do, and there is nothing wrong with that. they never said in the agreement that they would even support it for a set amount of time. they even say in the eula that support may be terminated at any time. so there

Score: 0

By GimieGimieGimie

edited Apr 12, 2006 - 2:43 PM

You're calling me the idiot?

You just wasted your time, my point still stands.

Score: 0

By Banquo

edited Apr 12, 2006 - 6:19 PM

Sorry but your point is dumb. A company can't spend money supporting an old product that hardly anyone uses anymore and that they'd lose tons of money on. Microsoft is a business, not a charity organization. Besides Windows 98 will still work the same as it always has and all these old PC illiterate users that still run it aren't going to notice one thing different.

Score: 0

By GimieGimieGimie

edited Apr 12, 2006 - 7:57 PM

Get your facts straight matey, there are 'lots' of people that still use these older operating systems and why is everyone around here defending the big corporate companies and their money grabbing schemes, are you guys stupid or do you all just work for Microsoft? ;)

That's a retorical question, please don't answer it with any more stupidity, i think i've had my share of that for the day.

Score: 0

By Banquo

posted Apr 13, 2006 - 12:39 AM

The only stupidity has been your arguments, which are well, just stupid. You think just because some people still use an old outdated version of Windows that Microsoft should spend time and money maintaining it for them. Any person who ran a company that way is a moron and would soon go out of business. As for money grabbing schemes, isn't the entire point of a company to make money? You sound like some kind of hippy communist ranting about the evil corporations. You don't have to upgrade you know, stick with 98 or switch to Linux or something and quit whining like a little girl about it. You have clearly lost this lame argument, if you can even call it an argument.

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Apr 12, 2006 - 8:43 AM

I wouldn't exactly say that's a good thing... just proof that most users are uneducated about good computing responsibility. Tech people are the ones responsible for teaching people how to be safe, and too often we fall short of accomplishing that.

Score: 0

By fvelayos

posted Apr 12, 2006 - 5:21 AM

¿En menos de 10 años desaparece windows 98? Todo para que todo el mundo se "actualice" y Micro$oft se lo lleve a la "saca"
papelitos.net

Score: 0

By rijp

edited Apr 12, 2006 - 12:47 PM

Es ocho no dies. ¿crees preguntas, amigo?

Es no mala. Es bueno! Nuevo anos, nuevo cosas.

Score: 0

By erictn

posted Apr 12, 2006 - 3:20 AM

A PC with preloaded Windows XP can be purchased these days for $300 - $400. If you can't afford to pay $300 every couple of years to stay current with your hardware and OS, you'd best spend this precious time collecting your welfare check, rather than moaning about evil MS on this forum.

Score: 0

By Dmdfreak

posted Apr 12, 2006 - 10:25 AM

So your saying old people who are poor shouldn't be on the internet? Bet you are or were some spoon feed little rich kid who doesn't know the definition of the word poor. Get some compassion. Don't just post your comments to be a prick.

Score: 0

By rijp

edited Apr 12, 2006 - 12:53 PM

Yes, I am saying old people should stay the hell off the super AND interstate highway. They go WAY too slow.

I know the definition of the word poor, its meaningless. Rich people can be poor, its a relative term.

This is Betanews, not a betazoid site, we dont' have to show compassion. Are the poor old sick decrepit senial bed ridden bas****s in here? NO! So I don't care.

If they are old, chances are, they won't care what they are using.

No one is stopping them from keeping what they have. There are plenty of web based stuff, they won't need much in the way of applications anyway! So why don't you get some sense. And quit acting like you are some champion for old people. This isn't about them, its about people that WANT to move to Vista. This isn't going to be forced. It's *IF* you want to move, they aren't dropping Win98/ME from the planet, and demanding you turn in your software, and this isn't logon's run. No one is going to die. Calm your silly a** down.

Score: 0

By Silentmaster101

posted Apr 12, 2006 - 11:42 AM

no he is saying that if people are poor they should be spending their money on the things they need to live before they waste it on entertainment or things they dont really need, like a computer, and if they do choose to spend it on things they dont need then they shouldn't b**** about it. and yes i know what it is like to be poor, and my family didnt waste their money on buying or upgrading a computer when we couldnt afford the rent. so maybe you should refrain from commenting on people's posts when you dont understand what they mean, prick.

Score: 0

By Tenoq

posted Apr 12, 2006 - 1:06 AM

About time. Although it will change little. Home or small business users upgrade when their PCs die, rarely before - and generally those with machines capable of running XP already are.

Security concerns? Most people still don't realise how serious the risks are, so I doubt that argument will sway them either. :P

Score: 0

By The Undude

edited Apr 11, 2006 - 10:55 PM

I'm runing Windows ME. I have been waiting for VISTA. I was hoping to dump this machine and skip right to dual-core 64 hardare and Vista. So, either I run a number of months without security patches or I have to jump to XP and then jump again to Vista. That sucks. I'm betting quite a few others were planning to make the same jump.

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

edited Apr 12, 2006 - 7:32 AM

When was the last security patch released for Win98/ME anyway? I haven't seen them even discussed in the monthly security bulletins for a few months now.

If you're a safe web browser... i.e. you're not an idiot that clicks on every link you receive without knowing where they come from or why you're getting them... and you stick to trusted web sites... I'd take my chances if I were you. Just make sure you have a decent antivirus program and a good firewall.

The alternative is that most likely Microsoft will announce free upgrades to Vista for XP purchases within a certain period of time before the release. They've done it for every prior release. So you might also consider looking for a sweet deal on the hardware, and buy the XP with the free upgrade to Vista upon release.

Score: 0

By scorp508

posted Apr 21, 2006 - 8:55 AM

This month actually. 3 critical and 1 important updates were released for 98/98SE/Me.

Score: 0

By flanque

posted Apr 11, 2006 - 8:40 PM

It's hard to believe that people could still be using an OS which is 8 years old!

Score: 0

By foxtyke

posted Apr 11, 2006 - 9:31 PM

I run Windows 98SE on one laptop and Windows 95(probably C) on another, don't use them much but I can't really upgrade them either.

Score: 0

By Luposian

edited Apr 12, 2006 - 4:36 PM

Windows 95C? Oh, you poor thing... I wouldn't run anything but 98SE on ANYTHING from a 486 on up. Windows 95 was good for it's time, but it truly is the Windows 3.1 of it's day.

Score: 0

By Kramy

posted Apr 12, 2006 - 3:08 AM

http://fileforum.betanew...mall_Linux/1132675282/1

Score: 0

By rijp

posted Apr 11, 2006 - 9:07 PM

Software is the only arena that things become ancient after such a short time.

People drive cars, 20, 30 years old.. the fact that an OS is ancient after merely a half decade, is absurd. ITs the sign of the times.

Frankly, there are probably lots of people, and companies, that STILL have Win9x platforms running.. They just won't admit to it..

It wouldn't surprise me in the least.. There are still companies that DON'T have 32 bit apps! ITs astonishing.. At least to me.

Score: 0

By SteveJohnSteele

posted Apr 12, 2006 - 6:15 AM

BUT...

if cars had advanced at the speed computers have, we would all be driving around in car that can do...

10,000 miles per hour
1,000 miles per gallon

...and cost #0.50 :-)
...and would be disposable, upgradable, and run on several different fuels (OSs !)

(many) of the 'original' home computers cost +#2000, several months wages (based on an average annual salary of #8k (1980s))
Now a PC can be bought at #200-300 and average annual salary is #30k

Score: 0

By horsecharles

posted Apr 12, 2006 - 7:53 PM

Yeah, but read Ford's admonition of Gates & MS from a coupla years back, to give the 'complete' picture,,,

Score: 0

By Banquo

posted Apr 11, 2006 - 9:22 PM

There's a video rental store where I live that runs their rental software on a 386 with MS-DOS. Why not? They just need the one program, it works fine so why buy an expensive new PC and install a complicated operating system for just one program? Lot's of business still run old operating systems. OS/2 is very common for banks.

Score: 0

By klingon379

posted Apr 12, 2006 - 4:18 AM

Most banks use Windows NT 4.0 on their desktop computers, although the ATM machines might use OS/2.

Score: 0

By rijp

posted Apr 12, 2006 - 1:01 PM

Actually there is an initiative that banks have to be secure, so windows NT 4.0 is NOT what MOST banks are using, the federal reserve even mandated they ALL must upgrade, so you should check that statement.. NT 4.0 isn't as secure as XP.

ATM machines run on many O/S, not just OS/2.

OS/2 isn't being developed anymore, that's different from Windows, because developers won't program for an entire platform that's gone. The Windows platform isn't gone, its just reduced to a couple of flavors.

I very much doubt, even contest, that OS/2 is in large part in use across the country. Otherwise IBM would not have put in the back room, they would still be trying to get license fees from people.

I think you will find many banks use machines, that utilize all kinds of OS. They outsource their support, and go with whatever recommendation the contract calls for. Whatever works, they dont' care how you do it, just do it.

Windows, I would wager, is up to date at a bank. They won't risk security running on older software, this includes 98/Me/NT 4.0 AND OS/2.

Its not worth the risk and ire of the Department of Treasury.

Score: 0

By klingon379

posted Apr 12, 2006 - 2:16 PM

I do know that from 2000-2003 there were a significant number of banks using Windows NT 4.0. Maybe things have finally changed for the better since then though.

Score: 0

By Joe Dirt

posted Apr 11, 2006 - 10:03 PM

I totally agree.

Just because Bill Gates says support ends doesn't mean people stop using it.

People are not rich like him and if the software works why upgrade to something else?

Windows NT still kicks butt. We have some servers that NEED to only run Windows NT 4.0 at work and they are rock solid.

Too many people get into this whole "I need the latest and greatest" BS.

Use what works.

Score: 0

By Kramy

posted Apr 11, 2006 - 9:48 PM

Until 2005 the at least one chunk of the Canadian Government was still on DOS. They finally upgraded to windows-based when they (subcontracted? O_o ) everything out to an American company from Texas.

Now all our personal information is on your hands. Hehe...snoops. :P

Score: 0

By rijp

posted Apr 12, 2006 - 1:03 PM

DOS is also a relative term. They may have been on a system that was TEXT based or CHARACTER based, but its not the same as DOS.

I hightly doubt they were running systems on DOS, maybe a green screen, connected to an AS/400 which APPEARED to be DOS, but it wasn't DOS.

Score: 0

By TheBreeze

edited Apr 12, 2006 - 5:08 PM

I still use DOS 6.22 to cruise the internet play games and run WfW 3.11. DOS RULES
senbt from Arachne DOS web browser.

Also Novell Linux Desktop or SuSE linux iis a very viable and useable replacement for Windows

Score: 0

By Kramy

posted Apr 11, 2006 - 6:58 PM

Yo, Joe, can ya count?

Jan 2004 -> Jan 2005 = +12
Jan 2005 -> Jan 2006 = +12
Jan 2006 -> July 2006 = +6

12+12+6 = 30

Score: 0

By magiphyre

edited Apr 11, 2006 - 8:57 PM

Actually, it's 31.

Jan 2004->Dec 2004=12
Jan 2005->Dec 2005=12
Jan 2006->Jul 2006=7

Score: 0

By Kramy

posted Apr 11, 2006 - 9:44 PM

Except that the support phase was extended from January 16, 2004 -> July 11, 2006. Your added month isn't actually a full month - infact, 15 days from January and 11 from July doesn't even come to a month either, which means it's closer to 29.92 months.

Score: 0

By Dmdfreak

posted Apr 11, 2006 - 6:04 PM

Yes. Running 98SE means your running on a old, half crappy machine. But 98SE is pretty damn stable for an OS. If your not doing a whole lot of multimedia stuff when your surfing, then 98 systems are fine. Especially for 2nd & 3rd computers. Also, there are alot of people out there that can't afford a new computer, or a new OS even. They have enough trouble trying to keep their system free of viruses. Normally paying for it from a tech like myself. Does it really cost that much for them to keep suport running?

I also have a question. Does this mean the updates that are out there now will no longer be available? If say on the 12th of July I need to reinstall a customer computer, will there not be any updates to do at all?

Score: 0

By Skyfrog

edited Apr 11, 2006 - 7:30 PM

Not at all, you can still download updates for Windows 3.1 from Microsoft to this day. It is just that there won't be any new updates released and no more tech support.

Score: 0

By terminalx

posted Apr 11, 2006 - 5:14 PM

I'll be ever so grateful when they stop supporting 9x. I am sick of having to tell my techs how to install usb on a cust pc and then after getting screamed at by the cust because the last tech says " we do not support usb on 98" because windows 9x has this huge issue with usb that if the comp driver gets installed you have to uninstall the comp driver to load anything otherwise it consistently loads the default drivers...

Score: 0

By jsc315

posted Apr 11, 2006 - 4:32 PM

IF your using ME, that was your first problem. I know a few people who run '98. Most of them are over the age of 60 and have no need to upgrade to XP. At least there still suporting 2000.

Score: 0

By rijp

posted Apr 11, 2006 - 8:56 PM

Nope. Windows 2000 was dropped last June.

June 2005 was the final support from MS for Windows 2000.

Score: 0

By Second Shadow

posted Apr 12, 2006 - 1:42 AM

Wow!!! didn't know that ...
So support for Windows 2000 was dropped a full year before windows 98????? That's so NOT fair ...
Anyway, I'd rather use an unsupported win2000 than an unsupported win98 aaaanytime ...

Score: 0

By Limulus

edited Apr 12, 2006 - 5:13 AM

No no, that's not right; Microsoft has two periods of support: the first is "mainstream support" (during which they may add features) which lasts ~5 years and then it switches to "extended support" (basicaly just bug and security fixes) which goes another ~5.

Win2K ended mainstream support last year, but is now into extended support until *2010* (see http://support.microsoft...13&y=12&p1=3071), so you still will get bug and security fixes for another four years.

Win98 is about to end its *extended support* (and thus not be supported at all).

Score: 0

By horsecharles

posted Apr 11, 2006 - 4:29 PM

MS does not need any potentia negative backlash with such a move and/or announcement: sorta like announcing the same re Dos with win9x on the way-- folks will anyway wish to gravitate to 64bit WHEN Vista is stable, hardware w/ say-4/8/16/32 gb ram is out there AND software is compiled to take advantage of it(nt platform can't practically take advantage of more than 2gb ram anyway).
As it is right NOW, today-- win9x is still pretty useful-- it runs on on 64bit systems & can run all modern hardware w/ proper drivers & patches- both the unofficial & hacked kind; in fact, there're a coupla projects that allow some xp/2k only apps to run within it.
Just let time run its natural course anyway-- avoid any potential backlash if say- vista has problems longstanding into 2008, while trying to get rid of 9x/nt/2k/mce...I can just picture the headlines...

Score: 0

By prndll

posted Apr 15, 2006 - 12:46 AM

The interesting thing about it is that 9x has everything in it that most people need except for the ability to play high end games, dealing with more than 32 gigs of harddrive space, and speech synthesis/recognition. All three of which are things that the average person doesn't get into. Alot of people do, but most don't.....and since downloading music and movies is supposed to be illegal, 32gigs of space should be plenty. As for ram, 256megs ro 512megs will satisfy most users.

Score: 0

By Joe Dirt

posted Apr 11, 2006 - 11:54 PM

I agree! :)

Score: 0

By rijp

edited Apr 11, 2006 - 9:04 PM

Dude. Do some reasearch. support.microsoft.com. Look up NT/2000 Whitepaper.

You will CLEARLY see it supports WAY more than 2 gig. NT 4.0 can support like 16 gig..

*nt platform can't practically take advantage of more than 2gb ram anyway). *

..is a TOTALLY incorrect statement.

Win9x ALSO does *NOT* support 64-bit. 2000/XP can make that claim, but not Win9x.

Those products that claim XP/2000 only, are for support purposes, not a claim that it *WON'T* run on Win9x, just that if you have problems, they won't support it.

Score: 0

By Banquo

edited Apr 12, 2006 - 6:07 AM

Actually you're wrong. Windows NT 4.0 only supports 4GB of RAM, as does Windows 2000 and even Windows XP Professional. This is because the 32-bit architecture itself is limited to 4GB of addressable memory, although some versions of Windows get around this through the use of virtual address extensions, allowing a 36-bit address space and up to 64GB of RAM. These are usually the higher end server versions.

Second I believe he was simply saying Windows 98 will run on 64-bit systems, which is true. You can install and run Windows 98 on an Athlon 64 for example just like any other 32-bit OS.

Score: 0

By rijp

edited Apr 12, 2006 - 1:30 PM

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555223/en-us

Processes and Address Spaces

All processes (e.g. application executables) running under 32 bit Windows gets virtual memory addresses (a Virtual Address Space) going from 0 to 4,294,967,295 (2*32-1 = 4 GB), no matter how much RAM is actually installed on the computer.

In the default Windows OS configuration, 2 GB of this virtual address space are designated for each process’ private use and the other 2 GB are shared between all processes and the operating system. Normally, applications (e.g. Notepad, Word, Excel, Acrobat Reader) use only a small fraction of the 2GB of private address space. The operating system only assigns RAM page frames to virtual memory pages that are in use.

Physical Address Extension (PAE) is the feature of the Intel 32 bit architecture that expands the physical memory (RAM) address to 36 bits (see KB articles 268363 and 261988). PAE does not change the size of the virtual address space, which remains at 4 GB, just the amount of actual RAM that can be addressed by the processor.

The translation between the 32 bit virtual memory address used by the code running in a process and the 36 bit RAM address is handled automatically and transparently by the computer hardware according to translation tables maintained by the operating system. Any virtual memory page (32 bit address) can be associated with any physical RAM page (36 bit address).

Here's a list of how much RAM the various Windows versions and editions support (as of Nov 2004):

Windows NT 4.0: 4 GB
Windows 2000 Professional: 4 GB
Windows 2000 Standard Server: 4 GB
Windows 2000 Advanced Server: 8GB
Windows 2000 Datacenter Server: 32GB
Windows XP Professional: 4 GB
Windows Server 2003 Web Edition: 2 GB
Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition: 4 GB
Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition: 32 GB
Windows Server 2003 Datacenter Edition: 64 GB

Score: 0

By Banquo

posted Apr 12, 2006 - 3:03 PM

Isn't that what I said? :P

Score: 0

By horsecharles

posted Apr 12, 2006 - 8:06 PM

I said "PRACTICALLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Support for x amount is NOT the same as FULLY taking advantage of said amount!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Unless if one's multitasking w/ large files-- photoshop, access, videdit, etc., the sweet spot is 1gb, w/ a small improvement when doubling that. Anything more yields only negligible or at best minute improvements.
One of the reasons why lots of boards only come with two slots, why Dell & others got away for so long with providing only 128/256 until very recently. Otherwise, esp. with current low prices(specials for 1gb@$50 aobund-- less if willing to withstand the rebate game)everyone'd have loaded up by now.
Now, you wanna talk Linux, that's a different story.

Score: 0

By SteveJohnSteele

posted Apr 11, 2006 - 3:58 PM

It really is about time people with Windows '98 swapped to something more upto date, not that I'm suggesting that they upgrade to Windows XP.

The mess they get into - no idea of updates, no security - virus infested.

Sat on a floor for 8 years - when you open them up all sort of things are growing inside.

I do technical support - and often suggest scrapping an old ill PC, since the cost of repair is often higher than the cost of a new PC.

Can pick up a cheap (base only) for around £250.

Score: 0

By prndll

posted Apr 15, 2006 - 12:35 AM

You call for people to be more "up to date", I'm saying that newer does NOT mean better. It just means newer. The thing that needs to happen most is for people to "learn" a bit more about the equiptment they own. What ever it may be. The problem is that so many people either will not do this or just simply don't care to. It is those people (whatever age they may be) that ends up calling tech support and is also the ones that maybe shouldn't have a computer.

Score: 0

By AlanRivaldo

posted Apr 11, 2006 - 3:41 PM

"Timing is unfortunate given Windows Vista's delay," he added. "Consumers with Windows 98 or Me will be looking at new Windows XP PCs -- or even a Mac -- instead of Windows Vista."

Unfortunate for whom? Someone with a computer THAT old isn't suddenly going to stop using their PC and run out to buy whatever is on the market at that particular second because support has ended on Windows 98 and ME. They probably have no idea that support stopped, or that there was even any support from anyone other than their grandson anyway. And if and when these people upgrade (probably in 2008 or '09), they'll get whatever OS is out there at the time, and by THEN it will be Vista.

Unfortunate for Microsoft? Hardly. If someone gets a new PC with XP SP2 on it, they get to book the sale. If that person's (grandson, presumably) convinvces them to upgrade their OS to Vista some time (probably years) later, then MS gets to book yet *another* sale.

Score: 0

By rijp

posted Apr 11, 2006 - 9:00 PM

Funny, I read that, and thought the same thing. My first thought was "not really".

Its not unfortunate at all.. Windows XP is great!

Score: 0

By Skyfrog

posted Apr 11, 2006 - 3:32 PM

They'll still work after July, I promise. For older PCs that aren't even on the internet there is no need for security "hotfixes" anyway.

Score: 0

By rijp

posted Apr 11, 2006 - 3:20 PM

Well, that's it for the Win9x platform OS. 32-bit and 64-bit is now the only TRUE ones left.

Score: 0

By Practice

posted Apr 11, 2006 - 4:55 PM

Windows 9x is 32-bit.

Score: 0

By rijp

posted Apr 11, 2006 - 8:57 PM

No. Look up Windows 98 Mutex.

That will explain it. Windows 98 is a 16-bit OS, that has a wrapper for 32-bit apps. ITs not a TRUE 32-bit OS.

Score: 0

By Banquo

edited Apr 11, 2006 - 9:27 PM

You got it backwards. Windows 98 controls all of the PCs hardware with 32-bit drivers, the kernel is 32-bit and Windows 98 programs are natively 32-bit. What it actually has is a 16-bit subsystem for backwards compatibility with old programs and hardware and it is initially loaded from a 16-bit environment. It is probably most correct to call it a hybrid, but it's more 32-bit than anything. It's certainly NOT a 16-bit OS though.

Score: 0

By MoonDogg

posted Apr 11, 2006 - 5:24 PM

Windows 9X is 32-bit extensions and a graphical shell for a 16-bit patch to an 8-bit operating system originally coded for a 4-bit microprocessor, written by a 2-bit company that can't stand for 1 bit of competition. :-)

Score: 0

By AprilSilky

edited Apr 11, 2006 - 8:56 PM

TO: MoonDogg: that's a fantastic sentence you wrote. Extremely clever and catchy, not to mention (perhaps) correct. I'd like to quote you in our High School Newspaper. Is that OK ? I will state the comment came from an internet person named MoonDogg. Is this OK with you ? thanks, April S.

Score: 0

By mshulman

posted Apr 12, 2006 - 10:39 AM

He's not the first to ever come up with that statement. I've heard it plenty of times before.

Score: 0

By rijp

posted Apr 11, 2006 - 8:56 PM

LOL. Yes, its 16-bit, not true 32-bit.

That was funny!

Score: 0

By Das mod

posted Apr 11, 2006 - 6:30 PM

without counting my own posts, this has been the stupidest thing i have read all month

Score: 0

By rijp

posted Apr 11, 2006 - 8:58 PM

I love how people point out someone else's shortcoming's with bad grammar to point out how stupid they look..

stupidest is really poor english. Its *dumbest*.

this has been the *dumbest* thing you have read all month

Score: 0

By AlanRivaldo

posted Apr 12, 2006 - 1:46 PM

"Stupidest" is a perfectly cromulent word.

Score: 0

By sweet jesus

edited Apr 12, 2006 - 1:34 AM

rijp posted:
"I love how people point out someone else's shortcoming's with bad grammar to point out how stupid they look.."

Shortcomings has no apostrophe. It is the plural of one shortcoming.

Score: 0

By rijp

edited Apr 12, 2006 - 1:37 PM

Fine. One shortcoming. Two shortcomings. Better?

*Shortcomings has no apostrophe. It is the plural of one shortcoming.*

Is a dangling participle. The second sentence is incomplete by itself, there is no attachment to the first sentence. I may make a few typing errors, but I know grammar! I just can't type.

Shortcomings has no apostrophe; it is the plural of one shortcoming.

Score: 0

By Skyfrog

posted Apr 11, 2006 - 7:28 PM

It's an old joke back from the Windows 95 days. I think I remember it being a favorite of OS/2 fanboys of the time.

Score: 0

By xoineg

posted Apr 11, 2006 - 3:16 PM

Get a mac and run windows too... :P

Score: 0

By Frostek

posted Apr 12, 2006 - 7:59 AM

Heh, I ran Win98SE fine for years until last September. Then I archived everything and moved across to Ubuntu, which although tricky to get used to at first is getting more understandable everyday.

As of yesterday, I managed to get Win XP Pro working via VMWare Player, so if I really needed anything completely stuck in the Windows area I can now access it as well.

Ubuntu is still my main OS though. I do miss Win98SE still on occasion. I never upgraded after the debacle that was Win ME... urgh!

Score: 0

By horsecharles

posted Apr 13, 2006 - 11:06 AM

Yeah, Ubuntu rocks.

Score: 0

By tiefel

posted Apr 12, 2006 - 8:29 AM

Speaking of old OS's, I'm a technology director at a high school. I had a parent bring in their computer and had just purchased a copy of Windows XP Pro. They wanted to know if I would install it on their computer. One problem, their computer was running Windows 3.11.

Score: 0

By holio2jr

edited Jun 27, 2006 - 1:14 PM

our school has some xp s computer lots with win 98se 3 windows 3.11 for workgroups in one room and some old macs with os 7

Score: 0

By horsecharles

posted Apr 13, 2006 - 11:09 AM

LOL: you shoulda just switched logo/screensaver on them!

Score: 0

Dec 4 - 2:21 PM ET Windows Live rollout sketchy, team apologizes

Dec 4 - 2:20 PM ET Stinging from a revenue shortfall, Adobe to shed workers

Dec 4 - 11:47 AM ET The storm hits AT&T, with a five-digit headcount reduction

Dec 4 - 11:42 AM ET