No More Security Patches For Win 9X?

KingFishKingFish
edited December 2004 in Science & Tech
A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, Windows 9x was an innovative operating system and a productive choice for users. For many years now, it's been clear that it's not only third-rate architecturally, but also irreparable as it appears that Microsoft may no longer be releasing security patches for that OS kernel.
The solution to the Win9x problem has always been to get users onto the NT kernel, as implemented in Windows 2000 and Windows XP.

You can't just tell 100 zillion users to upgrade, though; you have to give them time to feel like they got their money's worth out of the old crummy operating system and the computer it came on, and you have to provide some support for them in the interim, including security patches.

All things must pass though, including operating system support. According to Microsoft's Windows Desktop Product Life Cycle Support and Availability Policies for Businesses page, we are already past the time period during which Microsoft would provide security patches for Windows 98 and Windows 98SE. The expiration date for Windows ME is December 31 of this year. And it seems it's not just a plan; according to this user on SecurityFocus's BugTraq mailing list who noticed that there were no Windows 9x versions for Microsoft's most recent Windows security patch, they are saying specifically that they won't be supplying such patches for 9x anymore.
Source: eWeek

Comments

  • TheSmJTheSmJ
    edited December 2004
    I thought W9X support ended months ago?
  • LincLinc Owner Detroit Icrontian
    edited December 2004
    From what I gather the official time period ended, but they kept doing it anyway.

    I just got my parents to buy a new Dell with XP Pro last week so I can get them off of their 850mhz Win98 machine. I just can't deal with fixing it anymore, and I figured this was imminent if it hadn't happened. That OS just isn't secure.
  • FAH_WWFAH_WW Training in Indianapolis, IN
    edited December 2004
    It is a real shame it couldn't be secured more, but knowing some of the inside operations it isn't a big surprise.

    Although my machines are all XP Pro, or recently W2K for work laptop and XP Home for private laptop, W98SE has served me + family well. I'm pretty sure my parents require it for some of their educational software, but it scares me to death they are using it AND have it connected to the internet using dialup :|

    No firewall so that's pretty bad ;)

    IMHO 'ME' is the bad boy in the pack - networking was messed up at best in that one, and driver support was less useful.

    An 850MHz machine should run XP Pro fine if it has 128MB of memory or more though? I've run XP Pro on a P75 with 64MB EDO - not pretty on startup times, but it worked ok for the limited purpose I had for it ;)
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited December 2004
    My mother's Athlon 800 with 128MB of RAM ran XP with Luna enabled. It was a bit sluggish, and apps had to page often (Including IE, which made browsing slow) however it ran.
  • tophericetopherice Oak Ridge, TN
    edited December 2004
    I've run XP Pro on a P75 with 64MB EDO - not pretty on startup times, but it worked ok for the limited purpose I had for it

    :shakehead

    I doubt it... XP Pro would puke if you even tried to install on a P75...233 MHz minimum required (single or dual processor system)


    Windows XP Professional System Requirements
Sign In or Register to comment.