ITDebate: Microsoft pushing NTW4 aside?

I don't know if this one called for an answer or not, but I'll throw in my 2 cents worth.

Microsoft is driven by "marketing" and "management". Markething new products produces revenue. Can't blame them for that. Management dictates that company resources need to be re-directed to support the bottom line. If this wasn't the case, we would now be up to dos version 6.99Z. At some point, every company must drop support.

While there is an "implied" support promise in every package of software you buy, I haven't seen any legalize that promises support for any length of time, only that support will be made available. ( PUrchased software support falls under a different level however ). If the implied support held any weight, users would still be calling Microsoft asking about features in Dos 3.3

I don't blame MS for pushing NT 4.0 aside, as it filled it's niche, and Win2k has become a "fairly" stable replacement. MS is in a unique position that it's producing both bulldozers and wheelbarrows, and its user base demands that the products have some interchangeable features. I see the new marketing trend to be a more manageable "middleware", with optional modules for corporate and business users.

As for the notice that should be given? Reading the software agreement, the product is obsolete once you remove the shrink wrap. Customer goodwill and future profits drive the level of support given, not any charitable notions on the part of MS that now that we've forced this product on em, we gotta support them.

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 you could use to replace 95. 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 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 support for hardware and new technologies that will drive the conversion. If MS won't write it into their older products, we will have to move to new products.

Whether or not you like what MS does for/against/to you, you have to recognize that they will require a revenue stream to continue to making products. We have a defacto subscription service in the constant upgrades, and that may be the best they can do.

Novell killed itself in the Network OS market by supporting NetWare 3.x for so long that NT 4.0 gained a strong foothold before customers had upgraded to NW 4.x. MS while a much richer company could stand a lot more erosion than Novell, but they can't afford to support Windows 95 until the Linux desktop solution is viablefor more shops. They have to do what they are doing to survive.

Technical support for 95 is not much of an issue, but driver and hardware support is. When PCs are replaced the next time, it will be time to move to Win2K.

Let my start by saying that I am not an avid Microft fan or hater. Like most computer professionals I do use Microsoft products. I have been using Microsoft since the early DOS 3.x days.
That being said, MS cannot be expected to keep supporting an OS forever. Windows 95 is on the far end of its life cycle and any company that continues to use the product should use it accordingly. I think most companies accept this and move on. After all a lot of companies have already converted from DOSto Win 3.x to Win9x to WinNT/2000. It is not easy nor neccesarily fun but if you want to run the "latest greatest" applications that is life in our industry.
Technet and internet sites will still be around to help support the OS long after MS offically stops supporting the product. As to "would I risk my company on a product that wasn't supported anymore"? No way. If I didn't have critical applications or data then I suppose I could run an unsupported OS.
The company I work for is in the process of converting from NT to 2000. We have a few Win95 pc's around but overall the majority are already 2000. Microsoft doesn't really have to give a date set in stone because users start calling for more features or stability or whatever. Voila a new OS is on the way.
Wow I didn't mean to go on that rant. Oh well, there is my two cents.