BearItAll wrote:
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> | ...when Microsoft released a patch to fix a security bug found in
>> | several versions of Windows, it did not include a fix for 98 or Me,
>> | saying it was "not feasible to make the extensive changes necessary."
>> | The bug could allow an intruder to take control of a computer
>> | running Windows.
>> |
>> | [...]
>> |
>> | That doesn't mean computers running these versions of Windows are
>> | obsolete, like the Commodore 64 I still have in my basement.
>> |
>> | [...]
>> |
>> | Some people have speculated that Microsoft's withdrawal of support
>> | for Windows 98 could spur some users who want to hold on to their
>> | old computers to install Linux, a free operating system based on
>> | Unix used mainly in computer servers.
>> `----
>>
>> http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/tech/windows98.html
>
> There are always some wanting to hold on to the old versions, what ever
> the OS. MS can't really be expected to keep them current, we just have to
> call on the Pirates code 'Them as falls behind stays behind'.
>
> These people have had plenty of time to opt for Linux if they wanted to,
> chances are they are staying with 98 simply because of their games
> collections, so I can't see them wiping off a system that they will not be
> able to replace.
>
> Some people in a forum I use still say that XP doesn't play all of the
> games that they have properly and when you concider some of those games
> cost them Â30-50, you can understand their reluctance to abandon it.
Where is the responsibility to maintain your product? If a 10 year old TV
model started blowing up, manufacturer would not simple say "buy a new TV."
Not only that, the government wouldn't allow it!!
Car manufacturers are required to, if I recall correctly, carry spare parts
for 15 years, and fix safety problems well after 10 years.
|
|
