Ok so you everyone heard that as of january this year Microsoft were cutting their support for Win98 and 98SE.

Well get this, Microsoft have now extended this date till april 2006, good for us, but the real reason is probably to stop Linux getting into big business, what do u think?

(I dont have a source, it was out of a mag and I cant remember the name)

So, you think it's a bad thing that Microsoft is actually providing support for their buggy software? :D

I think it's a perfectly reasonable thing to do, even if it is motivated by a desire to prevent Linux from gaining a foothold in the market(which I daresay it's already done). I doubt whether microsoft providing support for 98 or not, will affect how many people switch to Linux. Most people who own 98, are probably well beyond the point of needing help at this point, or at least, have managed to find a way to peacefully coexist without needing tech support.

Yeah, watch out that Linux stuff, it may threaten to topple micro$oft. :rolleyes:

People still use windows 98? *boggle*

[img]tongue.gif[/img]

It didn't say "use" win98... it says "own". I have not used a non NT based Microsoft OS in years (they're junk), but I own them all... every version of DOS, every version of OS/2 (which early on was an IBM/M$ collaboration), all the Dos based and NT based Windows versions. I even own some weird non-microsoft Intel OS's like CP/M, Beos, and a couple versions of Linux that came with books I've bought (most of the time with linux I just download em... not sure if "own" applies there... maybe "possess" [img]smile.gif[/img] ). It's possible I've got every OS that ever ran on an Intel 8086/8088 derivative platform. It's been a long road, I may make fun of Win98 now but back when it was released it was a pretty cool upgrade to 95 and I used it. I guess it only "stinks" in relation to the technology available in 2000 and XP systems today. There's no reason to run it IMO unless you have an old PC or a bunch of ancient games/hardware that you can't get to run on 2000 or XP. I've long since given away all my Pentium II and older systems but I do know a few people running 98 on old Pentium's and P2's with a whopping 64 or 128 meg of ram... lol.

*raises furry hand*

What...you gonna tell a Wookie not to use the OS of his or her choice? :D

Besides it works just fine. If it didn't work just fine then I could justify the expense for XP. Otherwise M$ doesn't get my dough for essentially the same damn thing. Take that Gates!!!!

If my laptop hadn't fizzled out, I too would still use 98. I'm not computer-literate enough to figure out linux.

Rokenn, many places you wouldn't believe still use them are using versions of 98! Heck, til last year, MY pc had win 95 on it in the OFFICE! [img]tongue.gif[/img] I've got XPpro now, but that's because Dell ships with it installed!

Money's tight in many institutions, so they do as Chewy mentions, stick with what's working til it stops working or they can't get support/parts.

1. its more stable
2. its more secure
3. its FREE

aside from needing to know the basics of computers (and with KDE you barely need to know a command line, its all graphical), its really easy to use.

I cant figure out anyone who has an excuse not to have tried it. sure no gamer in there right mind would give up a stack of games for a stable system, but aside from games most functions can be done on linux the same or better than windows. plus you get things like OpenOffice, which is a free virsion of office (and open source) http://www.openoffice.org/

linux can run on anything. supprisingly enough, the best Xbox front end is linux. there is even a PS2 virsion of linux. :D

<font color = lightgreen>Why shouldn't Microsoft attempt to maintain as large a share of the market as they possibly can? Being a corporation, Microsoft exists to make money, not flawlessly-programmed software (although that would be a bonus).

I still use Windows 98 on a computer I bought in February 2000. I have added some upgrades in that time, but the only time this computer has crashed was when the original hard drive fizzled out. I never have the "blue screen of death", I never catch viruses/worms, and all my programs do everything I need them to do when I need them to do it. I see no reason to upgrade my operating system until I am forced to buy a new computer. It's all really very simple. [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img] </font>

1. its more stable
2. its more secure
3. its FREE

aside from needing to know the basics of computers (and with KDE you barely need to know a command line, its all graphical), its really easy to use.

I cant figure out anyone who has an excuse not to have tried it. sure no gamer in there right mind would give up a stack of games for a stable system, but aside from games most functions can be done on linux the same or better than windows. plus you get things like OpenOffice, which is a free virsion of office (and open source) http://www.openoffice.org/

linux can run on anything. supprisingly enough, the best Xbox front end is linux. there is even a PS2 virsion of linux. :D </font>[/QUOTE]I've used em both and I'd have to disagree... somewhat.

1) In my experience Linux is far from more stable than 2000 OR XP. I've got two Windows 2003 servers running at home and I just rebooted them (after a power failure)... they'd been running since I initially upgraded them sometime last year... september or october IIRC. The only serious crashing problems I've had with 2000/XP/2003 have all been harware or driver based. Linux has the exact same problem, bad drivers will bring it down in a hurry.

Microsoft has a lot of technology that is light years ahead of the rest of the market. Visual Studio.NET is by far the most powerful and well constructed development environment I've ever seen, there's nothing within 2 generations of it in the Linux world to my knowledge.

2) As far as security, I'd bet a dollar that if Linux were subject to the organized attack that M$ products are it would fare at least as badly (I'd wager it'd do a lot worse due to the open source nature of the product). Of course when hackers target M$ the downside is they're helping Bill and company to improve their product, to the point that now it seems like Microsoft is finding and fixing problems before the hacking community can exploit them. If I were anti-M$ I doubt I'd be spending all my time helping them improve their product. [img]smile.gif[/img]

3) Free is good, that's why I experimented with Linux in the first place. Another advantage is that you can get variants that take advantage of hardware long before Microsoft can. I'll probably go back to Linux when I get my Opteron box later on in the year... the SUSE version has some capability that I think it'll take Microsoft a while to catch up with (specifically support for NUMA... Non Uniform Memory Architecture, which is how MP Opteron systems are configured).

Overall I think Linux is a great alternative for the budget minded, giving you a lot of the same capability in a less polished but functional package. I don't however think it's necessary (or even logical) to put down Microsoft in order to discuss the advantages of Linux.

[ 03-04-2004, 09:21 AM: Message edited by: Thoran ]

Just a note on the 'free' nature of Linux. If SCO catches you using it they will sue you for $700 per server it is installed on [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Isn't that for business use? Like in open-source shouldn't be used to get economical profit from? Also for home users it's free for sure.

I'm getting more and more fed up with windows right now. For the games it's sadly the only good choice :( If not for games and the money I spent on office I'd be using linux for sure now.

Does anyone have experience with running a dual install of windows and linux?

Well, as far as the extended support goes, it seems it's a good business decision. Though I hope windows will get sued for abusing their monopoly position. Just as I hope games will be more available for linux (if possible with open source licenses)

Isn't that for business use? Like in open-source shouldn't be used to get economical profit from? Also for home users it's free for sure.
</font>[/QUOTE]Uhmm nevermind this... Wasn't really thinking

BTW SCO are just stupid that they think they own rights on parts of linux. I read about that sometime ago, is there a verdict in the case already?

Yup. i did a triple boot of 98 XP and Suse linux last summer. good to use, but 3 OS's took up more space that i was willing to let go of. its not that hard to do though, and if you do it right you can use the Windows NTldr to make the selection at boot (i like it more than lilo(?) etc)

Isn't that for business use? Like in open-source shouldn't be used to get economical profit from? Also for home users it's free for sure.
</font>[/QUOTE]Uhmm nevermind this... Wasn't really thinking

BTW SCO are just stupid that they think they own rights on parts of linux. I read about that sometime ago, is there a verdict in the case already? </font>[/QUOTE]Yeah, i didnt hear that SCO won either. as far as i can gather, SCO couldve just copied and modified linux, then claimed they made it first. i suppose that is the problem with an open source project, you will allways get people claiming they wrote it :rolleyes: :(

Yup. i did a triple boot of 98 XP and Suse linux last summer. good to use, but 3 OS's took up more space that i was willing to let go of. its not that hard to do though, and if you do it right you can use the Windows NTldr to make the selection at boot (i like it more than lilo(?) etc)
</font>[/QUOTE]Thanks for the info! I'm foinf to get it when I have time. Getting some linux skills for when I step over [img]smile.gif[/img]