A theoretical difference
that isn't realized in practice isn't useful to the
customer.
If that were the case then fine. But the NT line stays up much better
& longer than 9x. It's a very big difference. It just isn't
debatable and laughable try to do so. The uptime of 9x as well as the
insecurity of NT & 9x provided a lot of fuel for the Linux movement in
the 90's, & I think to some extent scared MS straight. 98 was a step
towards cleaning up their act, but a first one which ultimately
stumbled on ME. Let's not forget that context as well as the context
of this thread which is fighting EOL and wishing an EOL product to be
what it can't - infinitely supported & worthwhile to do so.
The point isn't everyone _has_ to upgrade because _noone_ can make 98
work _at_all_ - only why bitch about loosing it bc it's EOL and you
want fully supported stuff - as it wasn't all that great to begin
with.
Indeed "good enough" is relative but anyone can benefit from "better"
esp when generally more is expected of things now than 5 or 7 years
ago when this was fresh - which is an eternity in computing.
I think we can both agree we both feel the other is exaggerating their
position
They don't NEED to understand, that's the whole point.
Theories about why something is better only pan out if there
is that need. I don't advise against upgrades, but it seems
incredibly wasteful to push them as you feel is important.
No. It's like a person continuing to drive a car even though it
stutters & stalls or makes an abnormal noise. The engine turning over
and being able to drive it doesn't ensure the best or safest ride -
even if the driver is clueless to the problem and potential danger.
"Fully current" applies to the needs of the system and user.
It's a waste of time (and perhaps dishonest) to prompt users
to upgrade on their dime when they don't need to.
Not when the context of this discussion is _current_security_exploits
& maintaining full support & compatibility with all new content (at
the least)
In a business environment it may not have been appropriate
but once employed there is no good justification to change
something that works properly, and most certainly does NOT
need extra work as you imply.
You're pretending you don't know what "not a good fit" means.
tsk tsk
You're basically suggesting change for the novelty of it,
there was no benefit and only higher cost. The world does
not stop and wait for grand ideas about superior OS, they
just need to get the work done and if their present OS
didn't allow that they'd already have upgraded, and/or will
when that time comes. There is no usefulness in trying to
rush that.
Rushed? XP is the third major MS OS release since the second release
of 98. XP-SP2 has been around long enough for MS to consider it
mandatory.
Put the bong down. Seriously.
How many years after the fact, exactly do you want to sit on security
holes because you can't handle the fix? Is an exploited static system
really cheaper than a modest amount of maintenance?
The limits are the problem
Nope, it's a fact that it doesn't leave a messy footprint.
you're not looking closely then.
You don't know what you're doing, simply don't have
competence in Win98 at all and therefore are particularly
unsuited to comment on it's viability. OF COURSE you find
the OS you know better to be THAT much better. I've not
argued that it doesn't have useful benefits in some
scenarios, but those aren't why you argue abandonment, it's
more because you don't know what you're doing with Win98,
or presumably any other OS older than XP.
Let me clue you in- the average business box isn't running
XP yet.
define "average business." In what sector, or what size, in what
country?
don't bother responding to what you want to pretend I've said or what
you want to believe this discussion came from. If you insist on
making things nonspecific enough I guess you think you can get away
with anything.
They are not itching to upgrade and know XP is out
there. The last thing they need is you second-guessing
them, because you'd just create chaos and expense to the end
of it being an upgrade for the sake of upgrading, not to
address any specific need. What you "think" someone
/should/ need, isn't manifest into an actual need.
So you're not even keeping up with MS' update policies even
when you cite them
You mean the "blocker" mechanism? What are you talking about?
Expiring the "blocker" mechanism means if you touch nothing & have
automatic updates enabled it is rolled out gradually over around a
week. If you want to control it better (as you should) you can in
lots of different ways.
What business needs exactly? You or some other schlub sitting down
and manually updating each computer for a fee? Some businesses/
consumers not getting a major service pack they're entitled to? Sorry
but MS pretty much got all the other scenarios covered.
tsk tsk. Still posturing & playing pretend.
"patches & patch management" as reason to
switch? Tsk, tsk.
I never said its a reason to switch - only that it's an example of
improvements on an aspect of customer service that was very shoddy
previously.
It is a reason to switch in the context of NoStop's very strong desire
to remain fully updated (even though he doesn't want the new license
or HW).
Still playing pretend. Were you even here during our subthread?
That's an arguement to keep the already deployed, working
infrastructure static.
not as new security threats emerge, you want to manage compliance
issues in a smarter & cheaper way, need to use more demanding & newer
software, etc.
You can't keep everything static forever. After a certain point you
start loosing money & productivity trying to save it by being
stubborn.
It's an arguement against upgrading
the OS just for the sake of it just so the entire patch
cycle can begin again, or were you going to try and
slipstream ALL patches ahead of time? That's an idea but
you still have the policies about subsequent patches and all
that retesting, towards the end that it was all a great
waste of time and expense unless they NEED the change.
That's the central issue, whether they need it. They won't
need you to tell them that any more than having a specific
need only addressed by the updated OS. In that case it
clearly is time to update, when those issues become a larger
problem than the disruption from the update... which is
always going to happen because there are human/users
involved in it too.
You can't always keep everything static if you want businesses to grow
& be safeguarded. Just because old systems can be resurrected or kept
static doesn't mean it is ultimately cheapest. Of course that's an
internal business decision not an disassociated hypothetical
generalization. You can claim anything if you muddy the waters
enough.
Never argued that NT wasn't a better choice for many
scenarios, but it's beside the point that no matter how much
you personally dislike it, they just continue on being
productive
productive relative to?
And when their 95 machines have been on for a few weeks and even Word
is painfully slow or there's a crash or reboots which are slow they're
being productive or "as productive"? What about the admin who didn't
want to base the clients on a really clean install so everything looks
slower than it needs to be? What about the other admin that want's to
spend a lot of time cleaning, refreshing & optimizing or repairing to
keep the old network on it's last legs?
So they should resist efficiently addressing new compliance issues or
better software or more productivity that they can quantify - that 95
can't really cut it with because deploying something new is too big
for you to handle or are afraid to invest a dime? Is that really
cheaper?
without any concern about what you or I feel
would be ideal for them. Their practices suit them and your
ideas about what is easier for _you_ to admin don't
necessarily apply.
Why would someone be asking for help or advice or repairs if there is
no problem? Didn't this all start over 98 being EOL & that raising
potential problems which caused frustration?
And yes easier to admin affects TCO. But most of the time that
doesn't put much of a preference on XP over say 2k for example.
Again I would not tell them to keep
using Win95 if asked, rather asking them what their needs
are and going from there rather than the "pushing" you would
do.
well that sounds nice. But why would they even be asking you if it
wasn't meeting their needs or they at least they had some concerns
about it. If it's not meeting their needs well - are you going to
tell them in the year 2005 they should upgrade to 98 because it's good
enough for a lot of ppl, and has been around for a long time so it's
more mature than 2000 or XP - & you can prove it because they finished
their patching job?
I guess if you talk & talk & talk you hope readers will loose sight of
the discussion as you have - and in their daze think what you're
saying & inferring sounds reasonable.
I'm still waiting for any account of what you feel these
resource hogs are. Name something in 98SE that's creating
this additional resource load that can't be unused or
disabled.
a neutered 98SE is not so different than updated 98. You're grasping
at straws, refusing to address what I actually said.
There was a far more significant increase in resource usage
in the switch to ME or 2K, XP. Therefore if one has that P1
or slower P2, XP would be a very slow way to go. In general
a p1 or lesser p2 is not so useful today though, but Win98SE
runs fine on them relative to 98 or 2k.
reread what I was saying and then realize that most 98SE machine works
very well with either 2k or XP save perhaps often a simple & cheap ram
upgrade.
The point isn't they HAVE to upgrade only why bitch about loosing it
bc it's EOL and you want only fully supported stuff as it wasn't all
that great to begin with. Basically working /= great.
Playing pretend doesn't make for a convincing argument.
I would tend to disbelive that. I feel you would jump at
the chance to push XP on someone without caring if they need
it. You'd do so because you never even bothered to learn
how to admin 98, which is fine/your choice, but it makes not
for a valid assessment of the situation.
If everything is meeting their needs they're not going to redeploy &
reconfigure old HW. I don't care how convincing or influential you
think I am.
If someone want's a new PC from me I wouldn't really have a choice in
the matter. They're gonna want it bundled with XP or 2k3. Esp now
they are SP2 and SP1 respectively. If their 98 machines are meeting
their needs, their not going to be shopping for anything new. Period.
Also they're going to hire someone who will manage their existing
infrastructure. Noone upgrades & redeploys just because there is a
new admin that is "more comfortable" with a newer OS. Your inferences
are pure fantasy & totally illogical.
I tend to feel the user knows when they have a need not met,
and at most someone should inform them if a
newer/different/other OS addresses that. Likewise with
upgrading boxes that aren't old enough to be a liability to
the particular use, role they play. I do advocate routinely
upgrading gear that requires constant uptime, AND the newer
OS that typically comes with the newer box... but only when
there is a realized need, not for the grand ideals you have
about the obvious- that newer computers have evolved over
older ones.
Enough discussion, we'll not see common ground here so I'm
done with the thread.
That's fine. I don't have any more patience for you reinventing the
discussion as you go & grasping at straws. Its a lot easier to not
dignify you when you loose your cool and your argument.
. Got into real estate but had too much time on my