ITDebate: Microsoft pushing NTW4 aside?

The current client I work for uses Windows95 as its standard platform and is unlikely to change in the near future. This client has a large number of sites all across the US and many of the sites do not have on site support personnel. The client simply cannot afford a massive upgrade consisting of hardware, software, and travel time for IT personnel.

For sites like these where usage consists of word processing, e-mail, and some proprietary applications, there is little reason to perform upgrades for reasons other than machine failure. Given the "helpfulness" of Microsoft support, I am not certain we would even notice it going away.

Anyone still running Windows95 is obviously not having any technical problems with the platform. There is simply no reason, other than computer envy, for many businesses to upgrade. Microsoft needs to consider the financial interests of its customers as well as its own before deciding to obsolete products.

The biggest flaw here is that Microsoft is trying to dictate to the consumers what they have to do vice listening to what consumers want. I work within the Canadian Military using Win 95 workstations and NT4 servers. The costs and deployment time frames leave even a two year heads up un-doable. Luckily, we are proficient enough at this time to handle any problems that arise with the current OSs. If Microsoft truely wants to work for its clientel, it can start by waiting for a bug-free product before it releases it. If I sold a product that didn't function, I would be before the Better Business Bureau with demands to repair it. Why is not this standard held to Microsoft. Beyond this point, how much more "power/toys" have to be added to an OS to allow us E-mail and word processing. We have already spent the money on products that will do the job. Quit demanding that we buy newer un-needed products or we may just start looking elsewhere. Linux/Novell anyone?

Answer by asking another Question,
What are the Hardware Requirments for
Windows 95 compared with Windows 98
and Win2000?

I think the industry and more specifically Microsoft, have lost focus and forgotten the purpose of an Operating System, in that it is nothing more than the layer between the hardware and the application. In my organization Windows 95 will continue to be the Desktop OS of choice well beyond the end of their QFE support. Windows 2000 may offer more stability, with it comes hardware upgrades and software incompatibilities - and hence suffers justifiability.

Micrsoft's own success with Windows95 will be the cause of seriously troubling times ahead.

And God knows and we don't..

Humzah Khaial - CNE

Major corporations ( Microsoft's key customer base ), cannot get an acceptable ROI on any OS that must be upgraded yearly. And, since desktop hardware has an anticipated depreciation life of at least 3 years, companies don't need the upgrades that often.
If Microsoft continues to push, alternatives such as Linux, Apple's OS-10, or even a resurgence of interest in OS/2 could be the result. The same "flexibility" and "adaptability" that Microsoft is forcing on its customers with frequent OS upgrades makes it just that much easier for those customers to "switch" rathern than upgrade.

I was very hesitant to upgrade to WIN95 when it came out, due to the possible problems. However, after doing so about two years later, and taking all the service packs, suggested upgrades, and tweaking, the computers which are now running WIN95 have been quite reliable, provide excellent service, and do just what they need to do. Operate. Will I upgrade to WIN2K? Probably sometime in the future, but when rumors abound about all the 64,000 plus bugs in the operating system upon issue, why doit now. I'll wait until Microsoft has provided sufficient corrections. Why fix what isn't broke. Upgrade only when what you have doesn't provide your needs. Will I change over to NT? Probably NOT!

The issues that required to considered are :

1. Changing to win2000 automatically means that changing to newer hardware .

2. The average user requires to be re-trained , since the user interface has been modified .

3. Even though we are promised backward compatiblity , having programmed in Visual basic since version 3 , Backward compatiblity is non existant . So expect your client server applications to crash .

I plan on keeping Windows 95A on my home computer as long as the hardware lasts. I see no point in buying a new operating system just because Microsoft wants me to.

I recently bought and returned Norton Sytem Utilities, because it wants Windows 95B or later to install. So, Microsoft isn't the only one playing this game.

I bought a license to a functioning operating system and I expect it to work without a time limitation (my payment did not expire). If Microsoft doesn't want me to use it any more, then they should provide me a replacement.

I hated UNIX in graduate school, but Microsoft is making Linux more attractive.

Microsoft should take a lession from UNIX, which has a major release every five years or so and a yearly service pack. Where I work, I don't need a new OS every year and I would not want to see it, it is bad enough that our software vendors are sending out yearly releases. I just which the the whole industry would get it gether and stop pushing out products that are not ready for the market and need a ton of service packs to fix them. At the end of next year we are planning to convert to Windows 2000 and I would plan to make any further conversions for at least the nest five or six years, reguardless of what Microsoft says or thinks.

It comes as no surprise that Microsoft is once again pushing users into new OS's. However, there is a national secondary market that is forced to use older OS's out of necessity - namely, the public school systems. Hampered by miniscule budgets, non-supportive community members, inadequately trained personnel, and insufficient support staff, these districts are maintaining old OS's and networks. Microsoft's direction applies more pressure to an already over-burdened infrastructure that simply can't keep up. When will we learn?

I believe it is nuts for MS to end support of 95 and FORCE someone to go to 2000. We currently are on NT4 and have looked into going to 2000, but the issue of license would run us well over the million dollar mark.I suppose next Gates will force everyone to get off Office97, the problem is some programs do not work with 2000

My answer is: it depends. We are planning on migrating our "core" clients to 2000 over the next year and we have already installed 2000 server. But, we have many applications(Works and dBase) running in DOS or WFW or 95 that have been around since the early 90s which still do their job. I've been working with Microsoft OSs since DOS 3.1 so support for older versions isn't much of an issue.

It makes business sense for Microsoft to stop supporting older versions of their OS. All network professionals should have the knowledge/ability to keep a 95 network or workstation functioning without Micosoft's help by now.

It's hard enough getting everything to work right. Now, once you do get something working to your satisfaction, Micosoft pulls the plug on support. And it's not cheap for an organization to switch to another O/S.

Windows 95 was a great operating system. But, like all things it has reached its limit and its end. Why should Microsoft continue to support an OS whos uses have long gone the way of the Dodo? Why should Microsoft continue to offer free service packs for the Win 95 or NT OS's?
If you bought a car in 95 would you expect the car manufacturer to support and upgrade the cars sterio system or suspention system in 2000 for free. Call Ford or GM and ask them to do this for you. They won't I assure you. Will Ford and GM continue to try and convince you you need a new car simply because it's a new and improved car? Yep!, they sure will! So why should Microsoft be any different?
Microsoft is a bussiness people. They write software and sell it. They are better then most at support and they give an ample time period in the support itself. They have been supporting 95 since 95. That's better then adverage these days. Also, how much money have you and your company made as a result of the Windows95 or NT investment you made. If you are like most companies you have made a lot of profit from Win 95. So, stop whineing and moaning about free support and quit holding Microsoft to stanards your company would not stand for. Stay with Win 95 and NTat your own risk or employ people who know how to script for the OS. I assure you you will pay more for the developers percent wise then it will cost you to upgrade that delapitated old PC running 95 and NT.
The funny thing is, is that most people who criticize make their living because of Microsoft.
Thanks to Microsoft my kids eat good meals and have clothes on their backs.

I believe that you should be given until 2 ("full point", ie 2 to 3 to 4, not 2 to 2.1 to 2.2) releases have followed your version. Furthermore, (This will get me roundly hated) I believe that once you discard a product you should make source code available (with some reasonable restrictions on using it to create a new product). There are a lot of small business operators that could get along quite nicely for the forseable future on Word 5.0, Excel 5.0, etc. (with any bug fixes). They just don't need the power, and it is not right to force them to upgrade for the sake of upgrade when they gain no benefit. If someone wants to take the time to learn the code and support old products... SO WHAT? If you have all you can do to support the current (plus 2 previous) release why worry? If you (be it Microsoft or Corel or anyone else) are doing your job eventually you will have a compelling feature that these people will see SOLVES A BUSINESS PROBLEM for them and upgrade. Isn't that what we are supposed to do when writing software?

I can certainly understand Microsoft's position on the matter. At this point, their entire existence is based on improving existing products and "reselling" them. Additionally, think of the overhead that Microsoft would subject itself to if it were to offer support for products as long as someone was still using them. Each time they create a new product, or improve upon an existing one, they have to create a support structure for it. At the same time, they would have to keep their existing support intact. Think of the operating systems alone, not to mention all their other product lines: DOS, Win3.11, WFW, 95, 98, ME, NT 3.5x, NT 4.0, and 2000. I can certainly understand why MS might say, "We're sorry, but Windows 95 has been in the marketplace for 6 years and we no longer support the product. However, we do have new and improved operating systems on the market that we do support. Perhaps you would consider one of those."

As far as continuing to use Win95 after QFE support stops, why not? My company rolled out Win95 in 1997 (mainly because NTWS was almost 3X as expensive). I have every Win95 patch, fix, and update saved on my network. I have Win95 books on my shelves, and KB articles and white papers in my files. After 3 years, I have probably seen every possible quirk that the OS has had to offer. What do I need Microsoft QFE support for? At this point, my IT department is pretty good at supporting it themselves.

My company plans to eventually go to 2000 in the winter of 2001-2002. In the meantime Win95 will have to do.

It's ludicrous to think that all present Win95 stations will be migrated to Win2k just because microsoft has decided to end the support. The cost of doing this is probably in the range of what was done for Y2K!! (a slight exageration...) Companies are still getting back on there feet from that escapade. On top of that, there is no true upgrade path from version to version... Sure you can upgrade from 95 to 98... but this is looking for serious trouble in the best of cases when done on a companywide scale... Users must be re-trained, help desk procedures must be updated, this is not a walk in the park! If Microsoft had the forethought of planning ahead instead of plowing into it's customer base, they might have seen that the crossover wouldn't go as they had planned it. That being said, support for Win95 must stay. It might be downsized... but it can't go yet. There should be at least a 4 year moratorium on support phase out...

Although I would not be all that disappointed to see Windows 95
killed off, or the entire Windows 9x family for that matter,
I would be very upset were Microsoft to kill of Windows NT 4.

Especially since Windows NT 4 is Microsoft's only remaining
foothold in the RISC market and there are still many Alpha
and PowerPC systems that will remain in use for years to
come running NT4, Premature obsolescence is one way to get
an IT manager slathering, and when it comes time to replace
those RISC systems prematurely IBM, Compaq, Sun and
possibly Apple may fall in higher favor than a PC running
Windows 2000 or Whistler.

I thought that there was a U.S. law that any service had to provide support to it's service for 7 years. But hey 95 came out in 95 right:) yeah right it still has bugs that the big Bill gates can't fix. So we get a new O/S that will take many service packs and updates. Shoot the new software just came out and guess what a service pack came out right after it! Well I am still going to use win95 and win98. And guess what I use Linux with alot of other things because it wont blue screen or just stop working.How many years notice should Microsoft give to businesses prior to ending support? Microsoft should not stop supporting any of it's software if it wants to keep up with other software. It was big at one time but now it's just letting people see how big it thinks it thinks it is. It still acts like a virus, it over writes the master boot secter and removes any thing that it dont like.
I use windows and all it's programs but only because all the users use it. We or some of us need to let microsoft know that the software needs to be debuged befor it is sold to the masses.

As a MCSP, we are required by Microsoft to have at least 70% of our Workstations running the latest iteration of their premium OS; in this case Windows 2000.

As a Internet-solution provider, certain members of staff are required to run some pretty specialises software that flatly refuses to run under Win 2K.

What are our choices then? Dual Boot?

No thanks.

Linux is looking better and better every day...

I guess I don't understand why an automaker can continue to support models it made years after the last one rolled off the assembly line but Microsoft can't support more than one or two operating systems at a time. There is no benefit to going to W2k. I know, I'm using it. It has the worst memory management since Win 3.1 and offers no new features to make up for it. Win2k should make everyone root for the Justice Dept.

I happen to do most of my support for a non-profit organization. Although MicroSoft offers attractive discounts to non-profit (Charity) organizations, it is still a major cost and inconvience to upgrade the hundred or so pcs in the agency. I am replacing pcs at a rate of one per month and currently am adding Win98 as the OS. My users have enough problems upgrading to Office 2000, let alone Windows 2000.
I don't think it would be unreasonable for MS to conmtinue support of Win95 for at least 2 more years

1. This kind of move is not uncommon with any large OS Mfg. Sun does it, HP does it and so does Microsoft. It's just that Microsoft gets more press than the others. Windows 95 is now over 5 years old and very few of the larger Manufacturers willsupport an OS for that long. So in reality, this is an inevitable migration strategy in our IT environment.

2. I believe that a 12 month notice is more than enough notice for anyone to upgrade. There's always Windows 98 SE, which is a far better anyway than Windows 95 and is still supported by Microsoft.

3. It's time to move up to a more current OS than a 5 year old product. I support the change and encourage our employees to upgrade sooner than later.

This question was closed by the author