Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 11th Jul 2006 12:07 UTC
Windows From today, Microsoft will no longer issue security updates or provide support for Windows 98 and Windows ME, which could lead users to trying alternative operating systems such as Linux. Eight years after launching Windows 98, Microsoft will finally wash its hands of updating and plugging security gaps in its ageing operating system. The software giant originally planned to pull the plug in January 2004 but decided to extend support because of the increasing threat from Linux.
Order by: Score:
Honestly
by liamdawe on Tue 11th Jul 2006 12:23 UTC
liamdawe
Member since:
2006-07-04

Honestly i think if it does boost linux, it will not be very much of a boost unfortunatly.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Honestly
by plainstyle on Tue 11th Jul 2006 13:10 UTC in reply to "Honestly"
plainstyle Member since:
2005-10-27

Anyway it wasn't the superiority of windows 98 and its support by MS that slowed down the spread of Desktop Linux. At least Micorsoft had to show abit less arrogance due to the threat from Linux and extended support.

Edited 2006-07-11 13:16

Reply Score: 1

RE: Honestly
by ma_d on Tue 11th Jul 2006 16:11 UTC in reply to "Honestly"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

Business might consider it. I doubt individuals will switch.

Reply Score: 1

Legacy Users
by saterdaies on Tue 11th Jul 2006 12:25 UTC
saterdaies
Member since:
2005-07-07

Not to criticize too harshly, but this isn't a very logical conclusion. So, they can no longer get tech support for an OS they've been using for at least 4-5 years now - they're probably used to anything it can throw at them or its something really bad. Combine that with the fact that most Linux distros don't come with formal support (unless you pay for it - at which point they could pay for Windows support) and the support cutoff probably isn't going to spur change.

The lack of security updates is really bad, but most Windows users (on XP even) don't install them regularly, if at all. To be honest, someone using 98 or ME probably isn't that concerned with security even if they should be.

Maybe these users SHOULD be looking at desktop Linux, but they probably won't. Some will even be users that would get confused upgrading to a new version of Windows nevermind Linux which is a larger change - I'm not saying worse, just more different and less familiar which is a big deal to non-savy users. Others just won't care for change.

Linux will gain more from XP and Vista people (who, as a whole will be more tech savy) than 98 and ME people even if they are the ones who need Linux the most.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Legacy Users
by Kroc on Tue 11th Jul 2006 13:24 UTC in reply to "Legacy Users"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

"'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."

This quote reminds me of how Linux is touted as easy, yet the zealots have no grasp of the real people that the 'desktop' implies. You're spot on that most using Windows 98 now, don't care about the security anyway, and if there were updates, likely would never be installed. I go around fixing PCs and Windows 98/ME is still prevelant and the users honestly don't care much about their OS, let alone aware it's out of date. They intend only to buy a new computer (read PCWorld / Dell) later on as a matter of course.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Legacy Users
by HappyGod on Wed 12th Jul 2006 07:31 UTC in reply to "Legacy Users"
HappyGod Member since:
2005-10-19

The ironic thing is that users on Windows9X with the latest AV are often more safe from Viruses than those users who are only slightly out of date with WindowsXP.

Most viruses that come out try to exploit holes in the latest Windows or IE version, and they normally don't work properly on 9X.

Reply Score: 1

really?
by gfx1 on Tue 11th Jul 2006 12:27 UTC
gfx1
Member since:
2006-01-20

I always get the impression that people still running
win 98 don't want to upgrade becaude of the trouble it causes them, possibly they'll risk their data and when they finally upgrade it will be with a new PC.

There are people who think: "if it works don't fix it"

Reply Score: 5

RE: really?
by Kroc on Tue 11th Jul 2006 14:10 UTC in reply to "really?"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

I've not met many home Win-98 machines that work, and don't need fixing. If it doesn't work, buy a new one; the distinction between software faliure, and hardware faliure is not so aparanet to home users.

Reply Score: 2

Re: really?
by Bobmeister on Tue 11th Jul 2006 12:28 UTC
Bobmeister
Member since:
2005-07-06

Good point...and I think a correct one...most people are STILL oblivious anyway. That said...EVERY ONE of my old Win98 machines are running Linux now...happily...so there is SOME truth to the claim. Not only are these old machines running well, but they have the latest and patched software running for free....how can anyone with a half of a head pass that up?

Reply Score: 3

or...
by Soulbender on Tue 11th Jul 2006 12:32 UTC
Soulbender
Member since:
2005-08-18

...it may not. Aren't baseless speculations awesome?

Reply Score: 5

v Ivory Tower owners, wake up now....
by rakamaka on Tue 11th Jul 2006 12:32 UTC
Flatline Member since:
2006-03-06

Dear lord. Average Joe doesn't have to mount an audio CD, nor does anyone else. Only data CDs need to be mounted, and any modern distro will automount a data CD, then ask you whether you want to look at the contents. To unmount, you right-click on the desktop icon the system has lovingly created and select Eject. Have you actually used linux in the last 5 years?

Reply Score: 5

ivory tower
by Zedicus on Tue 11th Jul 2006 12:43 UTC
Zedicus
Member since:
2005-12-05

actually thats not true, several distros come with automount support in some form as a standard. and all distros can be set up to use it or a variant. everything from automounting cd's and cameras/flash cards, to the visual features like fade effects and transparency is iether here now in linux or in testing and will be here by the time vista is out.

i do agree with the 'these peeple wont upgrade an OS, unless the new computer they buy happens to come with a different one.' statements though. this may be a MINOR boost to linux, at best.

Reply Score: 2

One problem
by rx182 on Tue 11th Jul 2006 12:45 UTC
rx182
Member since:
2005-07-08

Most people that are still using Windows 98 have Pentium 166/200 computer with like 32/64mb of ram.

I tried to move a box like this to current Slackware + XFCE and it's was really slow. And Slackware is a lightweight distribution...

I doubt you can find a Windows 98 box able to run Ubuntu. Unless the machine was upgraded at some point. Anyway, always try... you never know... Anyway, it will handle Slackware + Fluxbox ;-) But hmm, can you handle the noise made by these old boxes? ;)

Reply Score: 3

Won't happen
by sbenitezb on Tue 11th Jul 2006 13:01 UTC
sbenitezb
Member since:
2005-07-22

Most people don't know about Linux existence. Unless a tech guy offers Linux to them or preinstall, people will get XP. I don't know if that is a problem. I care most about standars, not OS choice. Standars affect us more than OS/application choice. It's not so important if one chooses Linux or XP or OS X. Choice, that's what we wanted and like the most about free software. Let people choose. If they prefer virus, worms, freezes, upgrades every 5 years...

Reply Score: 2

Upgrade to XP....
by rm6990 on Tue 11th Jul 2006 13:11 UTC
rm6990
Member since:
2005-07-04

Why would Microsoft get everyone to upgrade to XP now? Why not support for another 6 months, and then push everyone onto Vista?

Reply Score: 3

RE: Upgrade to XP....
by raver31 on Tue 11th Jul 2006 19:15 UTC in reply to "Upgrade to XP...."
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

Why push for one sale when you can get two sales ?

Reply Score: 3

Trash
by biffuz on Tue 11th Jul 2006 13:12 UTC
biffuz
Member since:
2006-03-27

A typical Pentium/PentiumII with Win98 today goes straight into the trash at the first problem. The time and effort required to repair it, install Linux and learn new apps are not worth the 300 euro required for a new office PC with WinXP.

Reply Score: 4

v ivory tower
by rakamaka on Tue 11th Jul 2006 13:12 UTC
RE: ivory tower
by liamdawe on Tue 11th Jul 2006 13:25 UTC in reply to "ivory tower"
liamdawe Member since:
2006-07-04

Well i am on ubuntu right now *presses cd drive* OH LOOK it comes out.
Try using a modern distro before you come here and make stupid replies like that.

Reply Score: 5

RE: ivory tower
by SEJeff on Tue 11th Jul 2006 13:25 UTC in reply to "ivory tower"
SEJeff Member since:
2005-11-05

BTW, ubuntu, knoppix, slack...latest versions..2006...you can't push switch on your cd drive and Eject your CD? Cant devels make average joe's life easier???
That is the first thing I do on a new linux install and here is how:
sudo echo "dev.cdrom.lock=0" >> /etc/sysctl.conf
sudo sysctl -p

When Microsoft ended support for windows NT, you saw a huge surge in Linux usage / buzz in IT. Why? Because samba makes for one heck of a good fileserver and it is free.

You mean I can replace my non-supported NT PDC (Primary Domain Controller) without having to move to active directory with free software? Where do I sign up? <-- My school was one of the businesses I helped do this several years ago when NT got EOL.

Currently, a good majority of businesses (large established ones) still use windows 2000. They use win2k because it is mostly secure and gets the job done from an enterprise perspective. Large businesses haven't moved to windows XP because of hardware requirements and user training. XP? Forget about it. That won't happen for sometime to come.

I see this as only good news for Linux, BSD, and open source in general.

Reply Score: 5

RE: ivory tower
by mksoft on Tue 11th Jul 2006 13:27 UTC in reply to "ivory tower"
mksoft Member since:
2006-02-25

Pleas stop embarrassing yourself. On this laptop I have ubuntu dapper:

Insert data cd, icon appears on desktop and a window with the cd content.

Pressed the eject button on the cd drive, window closes, icon gone, cd ejected.

Reply Score: 5

v RE[2]: ivory tower
by liamdawe on Tue 11th Jul 2006 13:34 UTC in reply to "RE: ivory tower"
RE[3]: ivory tower
by aent on Tue 11th Jul 2006 20:43 UTC in reply to "RE: ivory tower"
aent Member since:
2006-01-25

Some buggy hardware (around 5-10% of drives, mostly older ones) does emit a interrupt when the eject button is pressed... Windows deals with this by not locking the drive... Most Linux distros lock the drive while its in usage and if the button is broken, you have to right click, eject. I haven't seen a drive that doesn't emit the signal in a while though.

Reply Score: 1

RE: ivory tower
by archiesteel on Tue 11th Jul 2006 14:29 UTC in reply to "ivory tower"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

BTW, ubuntu, knoppix, slack...latest versions..2006...you can't push switch on your cd drive and Eject your CD?

Sure you can. Stop spreading FUD.

BTW, Linux rarely has any problems with older hardware, it is generally very well supported.

Reply Score: 4

I doubt this too
by prayforwind on Tue 11th Jul 2006 13:18 UTC
prayforwind
Member since:
2006-01-04

I've found that most W98 users who call me for help are still using the IE4 that came with it! Which leads me to believe that people who are using W98 today are not the sort of users who have security in mind.

Browser: ELinks/0.11.1 (textmode; Linux 2.4.26 i686; 112x46-2)

Reply Score: 4

v compare apples to apples
by rakamaka on Tue 11th Jul 2006 13:41 UTC
RE: compare apples to apples
by liamdawe on Tue 11th Jul 2006 13:52 UTC in reply to "compare apples to apples"
liamdawe Member since:
2006-07-04

I wont keep arguing with you rakamaka this is the last reply i am going to make.

My point is WHY would i WANT to put ubuntu on such crap hardware, point is i wouldn't.

And i have already made my point that most modern distros which are any good do have a way of ejecting the cd-rom as ubuntu does nicely.

You are an argumentative idiot, people like you really shouldn't be allowed the privilage of posting comments here.

Reply Score: 0

umm
by poundsmack on Tue 11th Jul 2006 13:43 UTC
poundsmack
Member since:
2005-07-13

the reality of it is that most ot the people still running a 9x system are afraid of change. in a lot of cases that is why they havent upgraded. so to go to an alternate os instead of the next logical evolution of the current one is a little absurd.

Reply Score: 1

RE: umm
by raver31 on Tue 11th Jul 2006 19:20 UTC in reply to "umm"
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

So current users of Microsoft Office will switch to OpenOffice as its interface is what they are used to, Office 12 being strange and alien to them ?

Reply Score: 2

Pure wishful thinking
by drdoug on Tue 11th Jul 2006 13:54 UTC
drdoug
Member since:
2006-04-30

If people used logic in selecting what OS their desktop is, then they would have been using Sun Ray's long ago, and put the whole question to bed. While there are several nice desktops around (Linux is not the only choice). I am sorry to say that if you have some sort of warped idea that the average punter would change from a Microsoft OS (which most of the time they are forced to buy with the hardware), to another OS, which has less features and useful software. Then you are sadly misguided.

My prediction is that they will use the current OS until either the hardware dies, or they cannot type due to virus, worms etc fighting for the key presses. This will force them to go and buy a new PC with, hang on, Windows XP (or what is the current) flavor, already installed. Note: It depends how much they are paying. It may come with a real license.

Reply Score: 5

resources
by marcushe on Tue 11th Jul 2006 14:16 UTC
marcushe
Member since:
2005-09-30

companies who are still running windows 98 obviously don't have the money or resources to switch to linux.

Reply Score: 3

dead on
by netpython on Tue 11th Jul 2006 14:31 UTC
netpython
Member since:
2005-07-06

I think the article is dead on in some aspects.There are still a lot of win98 corporate environments.Should they pay premium for 6+ > year old "features" or pay big bugs for Vista licences with the risk they have to invest in faster hardware at the same time?

It will vary from case to case.Some simply can't change because they are to tightly integrated into the MS tredmill.For others it might be very attractive to evaluate the use of Open Source.

Reply Score: 2

Call me skeptical
by Anacardo on Tue 11th Jul 2006 14:33 UTC
Anacardo
Member since:
2005-10-30

I really can't see any windows 98 / ME user switching to Linux. As already stated by other, maybe that should be a good move, but indeed it won't happen.
These guys are still using those OS for 3 reasons:
1) Don't change something is already working. They begun with 95 98 or ME and still using it. Call it inertia, habit or whatever. Maybe they just want to run their favorite all time classic game over and over again or use the OS they legally bought eons ago. They're happy as they are and simply don't wanna change.
2) They don't know alternatives. They bought a computer years ago and they probably don't even know what an OS is. (or that it can be bought separately or changed for that matter) I know quite a few people like that, they simply don't even know what a macintosh is and they can 't install or upgrade anything apart from the occasional videogame.
3) Vintage people. I know a friend who has an Athlon64 3800+ with top quality Nvidia Mobo and PCIExpress card and uses windows ME because he simply like that. Go figure.

Now, everybody loves Linux. True between us OSnews readers, false elsewhere. Not everybody loves Linux. Some do, some don't. We can endlessly discuss the merit of the OS, but we have to accept that sometimes human beings judge things more by feelings than by rationality.
In the end, while the dropped support for Win 98 and ME might boost Linux usage, I still believe everything would simply remain the same. Win 98 users will stick with win 98 just as long as they can. Once the hardware has given all that it can, and these users will face the unavoidable choice of upgrading, the most informed ones MIGHT (possibility) choose Linux, the rest would just go to the store, and bring the rig home, with whatever OS already preinstalled.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Call me skeptical
by Woogbear on Wed 12th Jul 2006 16:12 UTC in reply to "Call me skeptical"
Woogbear Member since:
2006-07-12

My father-in-law bought a new Gateway computer in 2003 because his old Compaq P2-233 was getting too slow, it was always in the shop because things where failing and it was a piece of (something). The Gateway came with windows XP Home Edition. He uses the classic look so that it looks like Windows 98. If the old Compaq were more reliable, he would still be running Windows 98 now. There is no way that he would change to Linux. He bearly nows how to use his computer for anything other than email. I am sure he would be fine running linux and only doing email, but anything beyond that is questionable.

I really doubt there are many knowledgeable Windows 98 users who would switch to Linux. I would bet that those who could already have made the switch.

Reply Score: 1

v another variation
by edmondcheung on Tue 11th Jul 2006 14:41 UTC
RE: another variation
by raver31 on Tue 11th Jul 2006 19:23 UTC in reply to "another variation "
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

If 1 single person switches to Linux in 2006, then it is the year of the linux desktop for them.......

btw, do you pay any attention to the world in general, whole countries are switching to linux

Reply Score: 4

Boost linux support?
by TaterSalad on Tue 11th Jul 2006 14:47 UTC
TaterSalad
Member since:
2005-07-06

Why is it everytime Microsoft ends support for a product its going to boost linux? The same thing was said when Microsoft delayed Vista too. Its not going to boost linux in the slightest bit. Organizations using some legacy win98 boxes are probably already in the process of making a transition to newer software running on a more modern version of Windows. I'm sure the developers of the software have a version for Windows 2000 or higher too.

Reply Score: 3

I doubt it... You're dreaming...
by Joe User on Tue 11th Jul 2006 15:07 UTC
Joe User
Member since:
2005-06-29

Microsoft drops support for Windows 98? What are these users gonna do?

They're either gonna keep using Windows 98 without support, or they're gonna use XP instead. Most of them don't know about Linux, or don't think Linux will do the job. Some people think Linux is only for server. And in some cases, Linux won't help when they use home-made software for Windows.

Reply Score: 4

Another tireless idiotic article
by ssa2204 on Tue 11th Jul 2006 15:15 UTC
ssa2204
Member since:
2006-04-22

Its one thing if this article was written in some idiots blog, but it is another that it was written on a supposed tech site. Enough with this "....is going to cause people to move to Linux" articles. Microsoft ending support for 9x will do NOTHING in the way of boosting Linux. The ONLY thing that can boost Linux is the OS itself.

What is really sad is how this article contradicts others written, many on ZDNets own site in the past. Not too long ago they had one up about people still using NT4 even though it was no longer supported.

Fact is most people still running 9x would simply not move to Linux. Most home users are going to be oblivious to this policy anyways. If anything they would move to XP. I know many businesses still using NT4 machines for specific purposes. They use the OS because of specific applications that will only run on said OS. If they cant move to Win2k or XP, what makes anyone think they are going to go to Linux?

The author of this article clearly needs to pull his head out of his ass and do some research where he would find past articles on this same subject.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Another tireless idiotic article
by ma_d on Tue 11th Jul 2006 17:52 UTC in reply to "Another tireless idiotic article"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

The ONLY thing that can boost Linux is the OS itself.
That's pretty naive. Are you implying that Microsoft is wasting money on those marketing majors, along with every other software company hiring them?


Anyway, my understanding is that zdnet is essentially a professional blogging site... All I've ever read their is editorials.

Reply Score: 1

The "official" end of Win98
by bolomkxxviii on Tue 11th Jul 2006 15:37 UTC
bolomkxxviii
Member since:
2006-05-19

Win98 will continue on for many years yet. Only the failure of the hardware it is running on will put the final nail in it's coffin. That or the death of the owners. I maintain computers for a number of older users and they get freaked out when a new version of Word gets installed. I have had people beg me to change their new computer from WinXP to Win98 when their old computer died. They look at their computers like TVs or washing machines. They do not want to learn a new "better" way of doing things. They want what they are comfortable with using.

Reply Score: 4

MS should Open Source Win 98
by suryad on Tue 11th Jul 2006 16:08 UTC
suryad
Member since:
2005-07-09

...I think Microsoft should do that. If they really wanted to give Linux a big competitor this would be one way to go I think. I am quite confident there will be a dedicated community based around Win 98 hacking in no time. Have you guys tried checking out www.msfn.org's forums? Amazing how many people are still refusing to upgrade to XP. Its like the world has moved on but they are stuck in a time bubble...whehter that is bad or not I do not know sicne apparently most people there are quite knowledgeable and they know what they are doing so they can keep their machines secure enough for the most part.

But consider an open sourced Microsoft OS like Windows 98. Won't that be a big hit with the people? One can dream of course but I guess I tossed in some food for thought.

Reply Score: 1

RE: MS should Open Source Win 98
by kmarius on Tue 11th Jul 2006 16:33 UTC in reply to "MS should Open Source Win 98"
kmarius Member since:
2005-06-30

MS would never do that. Just look how good Wine is today. If they had access to source code and licence to use it, we would be able to run most Windows programs from Linux.

If a consumer could have a free OS that ran most Windows programs, who would upgrade to XP/Vista?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: MS should Open Source Win 98
by suryad on Tue 11th Jul 2006 16:47 UTC in reply to "RE: MS should Open Source Win 98"
suryad Member since:
2005-07-09

Yeah I guess you are right. I havent used WINE in ages.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: MS should Open Source Win 98
by suryad on Tue 11th Jul 2006 17:21 UTC in reply to "RE: MS should Open Source Win 98"
suryad Member since:
2005-07-09

Well what if MS kept a tight reign on the code? Like sort of what Sun has been doing with Java and so on? I think it could work then.

Reply Score: 1

v Linux = 1% / Win98 = 3%
by NotParker on Tue 11th Jul 2006 16:16 UTC
RE: Linux = 1% / Win98 = 3%
by SEJeff on Tue 11th Jul 2006 17:29 UTC in reply to "Linux = 1% / Win98 = 3%"
SEJeff Member since:
2005-11-05

I think Linux has been at 1% for the whole decade. And will be at 1% in 2010.

1% of what? 1% of the desktop market? Linux "on the desktop" is still a relatively new idea. Look at how long microsoft has had to work with the desktop versus how long Linux has.

Until about 3-4 years ago, Linux wasn't really supposed to be a desktop for anyone other than systems administrators. With the advent of places like freedesktop.org, betterdesktop.org, openusability.org, the OSDL Desktop Initiative, etc, Linux is becoming a very attractive desktop and very quickly.

Keep in mind that this has happened in roughly 1/2 the time microsoft has had to make a desktop and I would say Linux is on par or better than Microsoft in most every way minus hardware support. Now that Linux pretty much owns the high end server space, it is focusing on the desktop.
http://www.top500.org/stats/27/osfam/

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Linux = 1% / Win98 = 3%
by Robert Escue on Tue 11th Jul 2006 17:54 UTC in reply to "RE: Linux = 1% / Win98 = 3%"
Robert Escue Member since:
2005-07-08

Just because Linux is used heavily in the supercomputing realm, doesn't mean that Linux "owns" the high end server space. High end is also defined as large SMP computing, and I think Linux has a ways to go before your statement is factual.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Linux = 1% / Win98 = 3%
by Robert Escue on Tue 11th Jul 2006 18:16 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Linux = 1% / Win98 = 3%"
Robert Escue Member since:
2005-07-08

Well I see the Linux zealots are hard at work modding down posts they don't like. Let's not confuse the issue with facts!

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Linux = 1% / Win98 = 3%
by archiesteel on Tue 11th Jul 2006 21:21 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Linux = 1% / Win98 = 3%"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Discussions of Linux market shares from web counter sites (which can be quite inaccurate depending on the metrics they use) are off-topic.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Linux = 1% / Win98 = 3%
by CrLf on Tue 11th Jul 2006 18:42 UTC in reply to "RE: Linux = 1% / Win98 = 3%"
CrLf Member since:
2006-01-03

"1% of what? 1% of the desktop market?"

I think it is pretty clear the guy was talking about the desktop... But I would go a step further... If you take the dual-boots out of the picture, it probably won't even come close to 1%...

"Keep in mind that this has happened in roughly 1/2 the time microsoft has had to make a desktop and I would say Linux is on par or better than Microsoft in most every way minus hardware support."

Maybe companies like RedHat and Novell only recently started thinking about pushing (desktop) Linux beyond sysadmins and developers, but the community has been thinking about this for a very long time...

I started using Linux around 1997. By that time Windows 98 had recently been released, and Windows NT 4.0 was Microsoft's server/workstation offer. Linux was at 2.0.30 (the development version was at 2.1.40 something), and was certainly a match for NT, if not better in some ways. But on the desktop front we had FVMW2, which was perfect for geek business (hours doing customization) but sucked in every desktop metric you can imagine.

By 1999 Microsoft had Windows 2000 and under the hood Linux still had, at least, parity (with kernel 2.2.x). But Windows 2000 is also a good desktop system (a few problems with games, but nevertheless) and Linux had what? KDE 1.1.x?

In 2001 Microsoft released Windows XP. *2001*, and today Linux isn't even close, no matter what people force themselves to believe...

Linux has the technology side covered (scalability, reliability, performance), and its success in the server space is proof. But the desktop side is an entirely different matter. Users quickly realize that all the eye-candy isn't backed up by real usability.

Most configuration tools don't integrate well with the system (destroying changes made manually to config files is a big no no - yes, YaST, Im looking at you), and are useless to all but the most basic tasks. And those basic tasks are too "basic" for the average user, which will quickly get the feel that the Linux desktop is nothing more than smoke-and-mirrors trick.

PS: Remember kids, I was talking about the *desktop*, not servers, embedded systems, kiosks, ATM machines or stuff like that... No "you Microsoft zealot" replies, please.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Linux = 1% / Win98 = 3%
by MollyC on Tue 11th Jul 2006 19:20 UTC in reply to "RE: Linux = 1% / Win98 = 3%"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

"Keep in mind that this has happened in roughly 1/2 the time microsoft has had to make a desktop and I would say Linux is on par or better than Microsoft in most every way minus hardware support."

You make it sound like Linux has seen more advancement than Windows. I'd say that the progress Windows made from Win3.0 to WinXP dwarfs the progress Linux made during the same time period. Meaning, the difference between XP and Win30 is much greater than the difference between today's Linux and that of the early 90's.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Linux = 1% / Win98 = 3%
by archiesteel on Tue 11th Jul 2006 21:25 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Linux = 1% / Win98 = 3%"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

I'd say that the progress Windows made from Win3.0 to WinXP dwarfs the progress Linux made during the same time period. Meaning, the difference between XP and Win30 is much greater than the difference between today's Linux and that of the early 90's.

I'd argue the opposite. In the early 90s Linux was unusable as a desktop, and did not fare much better as a server. Now its desktop experience is on par with Windows XP, and it will likely have Vista's features before the latter is released (I won't even talk about the server side).

If anything, I'd say that Linux has progressed much faster than Windows has.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Linux = 1% / Win98 = 3%
by Gollum on Wed 12th Jul 2006 17:03 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Linux = 1% / Win98 = 3%"
Gollum Member since:
2006-05-05

MollyC wrote:
"I'd say that the progress Windows made from Win3.0 to WinXP dwarfs the progress Linux made during the same time period."

Most of the progress Windows made was from 3.x to Windows 95. The user interface of Windows 3.0/3.1 was a hopeless piece of crap. When Windows 95 arrived, its GUI actually reminded me somewhat of Solaris, which I used at work at that time.

Reliability, security and things like networking, USB support and file systems have improved since then, but the actual user interface has seen very little improvement since Windows 95. Windows 95 and 2000 look quite similar in this respect. XP and Vista introduced lots of useless eyecandy. Luckily one can still switch back to the classic theme and turn off annoyances like dynamically adapted menus.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Linux = 1% / Win98 = 3%
by ma_d on Tue 11th Jul 2006 17:54 UTC in reply to "Linux = 1% / Win98 = 3%"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

I don't think w3 is the best place to check how many use Win98...

Reply Score: 2

too little to late,rant a vista..
by netpython on Tue 11th Jul 2006 16:58 UTC
netpython
Member since:
2005-07-06

<begin_rant>XP should have been whatīs Vista today.Unfortunately the monopoly dictates not quality.I have just installed Vista x86_64 "ultimate".Whatīs ultimate by the way?Ultimate delay?I really donīt know whatīs so ultimate,canīt be the ubundance of applications.Must be the ultimate lack of it.In this case the poor customers have to pay a lot for less.

On my box with a AMD64 XP3000 (2.2 GHz) 1Gb pc3200 ddr,Vista is slow as hell.Only with system-restore,indexing diabled and classic w2k theme the overall system performance is reasonable.

So you could ask yourself whatīs all the fuzz about.*Directx10*.Well ...</end_rand>

Reply Score: 0

linux boost?
by tiiim on Tue 11th Jul 2006 17:26 UTC
tiiim
Member since:
2005-09-02

Why would this boost linux support? MS has stopped 98 support quick the linux market has grown 0.3%!! come on be realistic here. Most people who are still on 98 are prob not the tech savvy you think they are. They most likely mature users who just use that "ol' box" to look at the internet once a week and thats it. Also a lot of security issues today effect xp, why bother written a virus for 98? I cant see why anyone would run over to Linux because MS have stopped report. When these users are ready they will simply upgrade to xp or vista... and i mean when they're ready they're the sort of users who will be not open to computers and not moderate users. They will be your gran who ask her newphew over once a week to fix this thing. They don't care what's it called they just go with the flow. I personally dont see a load of 98 users running out to download Linux over their 56k connection. come on be realistic here people.

Reply Score: 1

"Linux? What's that?"
by tomcat on Tue 11th Jul 2006 17:55 UTC
tomcat
Member since:
2006-01-06

This is the typical reaction of most non-technical users. They simply don't know what Linux is -- nor do they care. For most of them, a computer is just an appliance. When it stops working, you buy a new one.

Reply Score: 1

MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

"How about .38% for Linux and 2.95% for Win98

" rel="nofollow">http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=2"


Microsoft is ending support for both Win98 and WinME, so to make your stats more pertinent, we need to include the WinME stats as well. ;)
WinME: 1.32%
Win98: 2.95%
Linux: 0.38%


Here's another sampling:
http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2006/July/os.php
Win98: ~4%
Linux: ~0% (rounded to the nearest whole percentage point)

Here's what I don't get. You go to a typical tech site, and Linux will be the topic of ~60% of the operating sytem articles (just a guess) and will be at least mentioned in ~85% of the operating sytem articles. And this has been the case for nearly 10 years. All that coverage for an OS that has < 0.5% share. The tech media is really out of touch.

Reply Score: 1

CrLf Member since:
2006-01-03

Because those values represent the "desktop" market, not the overall Linux market share. Remember, Linux does have a substantial share of the server space, and is also an important player in the embedded market.

The world doesn't end on the desktop, you know? (In fact, some people, like me, don't even care all that much about the desktop.)

Reply Score: 1

NotParker Member since:
2006-06-01

"Linux Server vs Desktop"

Linux server revenue is about 6.4 billion out of 51 billion.

Linux desktop is probably 1% of the 240 billion desktop market.

8.8 billion of the combined 290 billion.

3% - Still pretty trivial

Reply Score: 1

v .4% for Linux / 6.9% for Win98
by NotParker on Tue 11th Jul 2006 18:48 UTC
RE: .4% for Linux / 6.9% for Win98
by raver31 on Tue 11th Jul 2006 19:38 UTC in reply to ".4% for Linux / 6.9% for Win98"
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

anyone can google for any stats they think suits their side of the argument, take a look here for example

http://srom.zgp.org/

Reply Score: 3

os on rom...
by hobgoblin on Tue 11th Jul 2006 19:09 UTC
hobgoblin
Member since:
2005-07-06

the more i read comments on this article and others makes me think that we would be better of going back to the days of having the os on a rom chip somwhere...

the software and all that could still be stored onto a hardrive or whatever but should be selfcontained so that it didnt care where you put it, and uninstall would basicly be the deletion of the folder its stored in.

in many ways a walk back to the dos days ;)

todays computers are overcomlicated with their multiple users and access levels. this kind of stuff is perfect for office and datacenter use, but for home use its overkill at best.

the home computer should expose no services to the network pr default. that way the only threat would be from the user software, browsers, email, that kinda stuff.

to access network shares and share something yourself you should be required to put a entry into the file controling the automatic startup. or later start the program that managed that kind of stuff manualy.

Reply Score: 1

Support? What support?
by Coxy on Tue 11th Jul 2006 19:49 UTC
Coxy
Member since:
2006-07-01

People using 98 are probably just going to keep on using it. The fact that MS have ended support isn't going to mean much to the people who use it, most of whom probably never even realised there was any support anyway - there not even going to know that support has ended.

The support is so expensive to use anyway (unless you live in the US and get free phone number) that I doubt many people have ever actually used the support, even if they did know about it.

Reply Score: 1

Switching to Linux for the support?
by Sphinx on Tue 11th Jul 2006 19:53 UTC
Sphinx
Member since:
2005-07-09

Rather I think they will all switch because it's a better operating system, no other impetus required. If not today then someday soon. How long they will insist on suffering is the only variable.

Reply Score: 1

What a bizarre statement
by ingraham on Tue 11th Jul 2006 21:33 UTC
ingraham
Member since:
2006-05-20

Someone using Windows 98 in 2006 is absolutely, positively NEVER going to use Linux. I'd be shocked if any remaining Windows 98 users had HEARD of Linux. They clearly don't even have a nephew to program their VCR clocks for them, or they would have LONG since been given something else.

As for Corporate America, the standard replacement cycle for PCs is 3 to 5 years. Assuming anything purchased since 2000 had Win2K, the last of the 98 machines should have been gone by 2003. A company still stringing along Win98 machines at this point is equally incapable of installing (or pronoucing) Linux.

Reply Score: 3

RE: What a bizarre statement
by cyclops on Tue 11th Jul 2006 23:26 UTC in reply to "What a bizarre statement"
cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

I use linux and windows98. I use linux on my new machine, and keep my 98 box, just in case.

Its worked well as a good combo.

Reply Score: 3

RE: What a bizarre statement
by Gollum on Wed 12th Jul 2006 16:21 UTC in reply to "What a bizarre statement"
Gollum Member since:
2006-05-05

ingraham wrote this bizarre statement:
"Someone using Windows 98 in 2006 is absolutely, positively NEVER going to use Linux. I'd be shocked if any remaining Windows 98 users had HEARD of Linux."

Here's another shock for you:

I use both Linux and Windoze 98 (SE). Linux has been my main home OS for the last 4 years. W98SE is mainly used for software that's unavailable for Linux, or devices that lack drivers. My computers are rather old, and I see no benefit "upgrading" them with an OS that's slow as molasses and costs more than the computer is worth.

I don't even use any antivirus on the W98 box, and I've never experienced a virus attack. But my ADSL modem has a built-in firewall, I don't use Internet Explorer (except a on few sites where Opera won't work, like Microsoft Update), and I read my e-mail on the Linux box.

Reply Score: 1

RE: What a bizarre statement
by heh heh on Thu 13th Jul 2006 01:13 UTC in reply to "What a bizarre statement"
heh heh Member since:
2005-07-06

Yeah sure, I have two (prescott) intel cpu's running
XP and others running 98 and i run linux livecd's and if
you look at the right computer forums, there are a lot more of us than you think. linux does not make anyone special, and does not impart great wisdom to it's users.

Reply Score: 1

User demographics
by A30Guy on Wed 12th Jul 2006 01:02 UTC
A30Guy
Member since:
2005-07-06

I can't see that Microsoft's withdrawal of support for WIn 98 will have any impact on Linux. Most people don't phone Microsoft when things go wrong - they'll call their corporate help desk, ask a friend or ring a talkback radio show! Given the probable demographic of current Win98 users, I can't imagine anyone thinking "Oh no. Microsoft have withdrawn support! I'll have to install Linux!"

Reply Score: 1

RE: User demographics
by Woogbear on Wed 12th Jul 2006 16:15 UTC in reply to "User demographics"
Woogbear Member since:
2006-07-12

I think there is more of a chance that the Dodgers will move back to Brooklyn than those Windows 98 users moving to Linux

Reply Score: 1

RE: Boost linux support?
by Soulbender on Wed 12th Jul 2006 05:09 UTC
Soulbender
Member since:
2005-08-18

"Why is it everytime Microsoft ends support for a product its going to boost linux?"

Because "analysts" need to stay visible and any change is a good enough excuse to make whatever statement will get you press coverage.
It doesn't really have anything to do with Linux or Microsoft or even Operating Systems, it's all about making sure your company remains in the spotlight.

Reply Score: 3

A lot of wishfull thinking
by proforma on Wed 12th Jul 2006 07:04 UTC
proforma
Member since:
2005-08-27

One look at this article and it is no wonder why a lot of fans of linux are called zealots.

It is more wishfull thinking than anything real.

Reply Score: 1

RE: A lot of wishfull thinking
by tomcat on Wed 12th Jul 2006 08:01 UTC in reply to "A lot of wishfull thinking"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Well, yeah, probably. But you've gotta have dreams. Big dreams.

Reply Score: 0