Firefox to Drop Pre-Windows 2000 Support 491
cyclomedia writes "While more and more platforms are getting (or aiming for) Firefox ports, the trunk itself seems to be going the other way. In an effort to clean up the API calls used and reduce the codesize a patch was posted at Bugzilla removing support from pre-W2k versions of Windows. There's a fiery discussion going on over at the Mozillazine forums about this after a counter bug was filed. The official position appears to be that Firefox 3.0 will maintain this un-compatibility, but developers are, obviously, free to work on a separate Win 98 compatible 'port.'"
Why not? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why not? (Score:5, Insightful)
Up until now, the most secure thing for win 98 users (for whatever reason they are still using it) has been to sit behind a router and use firefox.
Knowing that firefox won't support them will be bad news in my eyes.
Additionally, aren't Win 2000 and Win xp less secure than running an old OS which doesn't have the available OS features which l33t virus people exploit?
Re:Why not? (Score:5, Insightful)
'Cause they don't want to pay for a new version or bother getting a pirate copy, or deal with the headaches of upgrading, and maybe it simply works for them and feel no obligation to change?
Additionally, aren't Win 2000 and Win xp less secure than running an old OS which doesn't have the available OS features which l33t virus people exploit?
All versions of Windows have holes which Microsoft will never fix. But no updates at all will ever come for very old versions. Holes in 98 will forever be there while with 2000 and XP you can at least still hope for fixes. AFAIK most significant exploits and virii are applicable to all versions of Windows since they share the majority of their code base (especially the Win32 API).
Re:Why not? (Score:5, Insightful)
I've personally never met anyone for whom Windows 98 Just Works. But I guess maybe that has something to do only being brought in when the Windows 98 shit hit the fan. Seriously though, who could still be running an original installation of Windows 98? Standard operating procedure for Win 98 pretty much dictates a fresh reinstall every so often anyway. Why not upgrade while you're at it?
What is it with Windows and legacy support, anyway? Only in the Windows world (it seems) do you get a significant number of people who stubornly refuse to give up their applications and OS from 1995. Well, I guess there might still be some Amiga users out there...
-matthew
Re:Why not? (Score:5, Interesting)
Arguing against stopping support for windows 98 makes about as much sense as being against companies stopping support for DOS or CP/M. Windows 98 is in the same boat, eventually the only users will be people running highly specialized custom niche software that CANT run on any other OS.
Re:Why not? (Score:3, Informative)
Look online for windows instalation from harddrive or without CD or something like that.
Good Luck.
Re:Why not? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why would these people even bother upgrading Firefox? 1.0 should be enough for those people. And if they don't care about their OS of choice's vulnerabilities, they surely won't care about their browser's either.
Re:Why not? (Score:5, Funny)
Actually, up until now the most secure thing for win98 users has been to leave the computer turned off, and unplugged from the wall.
Re:Why not? (Score:5, Informative)
W98 support will be dropped for Firefox 3.0 because it's using Cairo (which does not build on W98
Firefox 3.0 is at least a year in the future, mid-2007 that is. If you haven't switched from W98 nearly 10 years after it's been released, you're asking for trouble no matter what.
W98 is a piece of crap security wise.
Firefox 2 EOL + a solution (Score:3, Informative)
Firefox 2 which will be out in the third quarter of 2006 is the last version of Firefox to support Windows 9x. Mozilla has a policy of supporting a milestone release till two add ional milestone releases are made. This means that Mozilla will be supporting Firefox 2 with security patches until Firefox 4 is out or whatever the milestone release after Firefox 3 is named. An educated guess would be that Mozilla support of Firefox 2 will end some time around the middle of 2008.
mozilla.org bug - Don't kill Win [mozillanews.org]
Re:Why not? (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's do a reality check here. If you're running Windows 98, do you care if you can run the latest and greatest programs? Probably not. My guess is that the best approach is to maintain a feature-locked fork that only gets major bug and security fixes.
Re:Why not? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Why not? (Score:2, Interesting)
I think its smart to drop support for Win9x; its a dead code base, and its numbers will only shrink.
Someone in the counter bug report got all huffy about using Win32 API calls (in response to another developer saying there are APIs that would help reduce code complexity alot, but can't use b/c its not compatible with 9x). I'm not sure what people expect; at some point, you're going to have to make calls t
Re:Why not? (Score:2, Informative)
Sure, Linux still supports QMAGIC and ZMAGIC A.out binaries, but last time I wanted to run a binary from that era, I had to download and compile libc5. Open source is the only thing that keeps software from that era alive. (Else we wouldn't have QuakeForge, Twilight or DarkPlaces.)
Re:Why not? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why not? (Score:2)
Re:Why not? (Score:4, Insightful)
While that may be true of the kernel, it is not true of the desktop
environments (Gnome, KDE, etc) or of any apps that make use of the
large widget libraries (qt, gtk, etc).
Re:Why not? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Why not? (Score:2)
Even if the official version stopped, though, I'm sure an unofficial one will appear. If the OS/2 folks can do it with their much smaller numbers, I'm sure the Win9x folks can do it.
Re:Why not? (Score:5, Informative)
The support is being dropped from Firefox 3. Firefox 2, out later this year, will have windows 98 support. Firefox 3, which probably won't be out for another 18 months after that, will be the one without windows 9x support. By that point I would expect to still see some, but even less, windows 9x boxes.
Re:Why not? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Why not? (Score:5, Insightful)
You use them or just happen to have them sitting around gathering dust? There is a difference. I used to "use" and old HP 9000 server in my house until I realized the difference between using a computer and simply being an ubergeek with a tendancy to collect crap.
-matthew
I use them. (Score:4, Interesting)
One of the Win95 OSR2 boxes is my secondary desktop box at home which I use almost daily (mainly things like Word 97, StarOffice 5.1a, FireFox, various MIDI apps for my Yamaha keyboard, Visio, etc.) and which is still my main gaming box (I play a lot of classics like UT, Tribes 1, TA, SC, AOE2, HomeWorld, NFS 3/4, Madden 2001, etc).
A second Win95 OSR2 box is my main fileserver (a Proliant 2500), and a third is smaller fileserver dedicated to MP3 files (an IBM IntelliStation 6899, which is a VERY nice PPro box).
Most of the others are multiboot boxes which are booted into other things most of the time (Linux variants, eCS, or OS/2), but which are booted to Windows 95 OSR2 with a QuikMenu 4 desktop if I want to put together a gaming LAN, so those copies are mostly idle. That much less reason to upgrade them, though.
Re:Why not? (Score:5, Interesting)
"It's too old", by the way, doesn't mean "Nobody bothers to find infection vectors for it", it means "they were never implemented."
Other than the TCP/NetBIOS stuff (that never, to the best of my knowledge, had a remote exploit that let anyone take control of the box), a box running 98SE runs no services. No uPNP exploit. No DCOM/RPC. No Messenger. No nothing. For all intents and purposes, it's already firewalled when you plug it into the wall.
Warning: Rant coming on.
I'd go so far to say that 98SE out of the box, plus Mozilla, is more secure than XP ever was. After a user actually runs the malware, it's a draw. 9x has no security model, and the XP box wins in theory: an OS that supports privileged/nonprivileged users is at least capable of defending against user stupidity. But in practice, the 2K/XP malware uses privilege escalation bugs to turn XP's security model something effectively identical to 9x's: "None at all."
9x is also IMHO more recoverable than XP; replacing a borked .DLL for an updated (or downgraded, because some idiot installer overwrote it) .DLL is easy when you've got a "talk-to-the-bare-metal" DOS prompt and there's no OS in the way telling you you can't overwrite the file. DRM? What DRM? You can't do DRM when you've got no security model. 9x doesn't phone home. 9x doesn't care - doesn't know - if you make a drive image (ah, a DOS prompt again!) of your boot partition, burn it onto a CD, and file it away until the user hoses something badly enough that it can't be recovered.
Sure, the OS was a fancy DOS shell that sucked balls compared to any real OS if you were trying to develop software on it, but it made a damn good single-user home/gaming platform. If it weren't for the 137GB drive (not partition, drive) size limit and the 512MB RAM size limit, I'd run it today as my gaming rig.
OK. Rant over.
I suspect that the real reason the Mozilla team is dropping support for 9x is because the OS sucks balls, and the ball-sucking makes it not fun to develop software on it. It's got nothing to do with security. Because the OS that runs no services, doesn't get 0wn3d.
Re:Why not? (Score:3, Informative)
This is true only if you didn't install the IE4+ desktop update. Otherwise you have a load of vulnerable shell components that will never be patched.
Re:Why not? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why not? (Score:2, Insightful)
3 older running 98se
2 Running XP
The rest running various linux distros.
Yeah, I could upgrade those 98 machines, but up until now, for the purposes they are used for, no reason to.
One of the 98se machines I use almost constantly, the others less often, I for one would be peeved if they dropped support.
As a matter of fact, I'm posting from one right now using FF.
Re:Why not? (Score:4, Funny)
LOL? (Score:2, Funny)
Man, that's the funniest thing I've read this week! Win98, the most stable version of Windows ever! HAHAHAHAH... Man, I'll be laughing all fucking day at that one!
Re:Why not? (Score:2)
For those of us who don't open up random emails and visit random websites, it is probably easier to stay virus and worm free on Win98.
Re:Why not? (Score:2)
I respectfully disagree. The most stable version is XP SP2, in my opinion. However, I do agree with you sentiments. Win98SE was, in its day, a pretty good version of Windows. Certainly better than 95 or (the horrible) ME.
Re:Why not? (Score:2)
Re:Why not? (Score:2)
I never had any stability or security problems on my Windows 3.11 office network. I think that would give Windows 98SE a run for most stable and least problematic.
Re:Why not? (Score:2)
Goddamn man, where do you get your acid? It's been years since I've been able to find the good stuff!
Seriously, you're either on drugs or you've never used 98SE for a significant length of time.
Re:Why not? (Score:2)
shrug (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:shrug (Score:2, Interesting)
Factory-installed Win 98. IE used only for windows update. Internally, it might be swiss cheese, but it runs so few services (and it's protected by an external firewall), it's probably more secure than the older "NT" derivatives...
And it's "too slow" for the kids. No Flash, IM, iTunes, etc.
I NEED MUH FIREFOXEN!
Re:shrug (Score:2, Insightful)
If you want to keep running your old hardware on your almost 10 year old OS, go ahead, but don't keep everyone else back that wants to move forward by demanding FF to support you.
Re:shrug (Score:4, Insightful)
There's no logic bomb that says that NEXT YEAR when FF 3.0 is realeased, FF 2.0.x suddenly stop running on Win98.
Re:shrug (Score:3, Insightful)
-matthew
Re:shrug (Score:2)
Firefox is the only browser that we can use safely. it's not like we can trust IE. with the firewall I have kempt viruses to a minimum and spyware is an occasional hassle.
So there's a dozen machines for you. Why because they haven't had har
Re:shrug (Score:2)
However, you might consider setting up a test box with Linux and Wine to see if you can use your win9x-only software under Wine. If only to know what your real options are.
Re:shrug (Score:2)
Let me guess, your server is Banyan Vines (or whatever that was called) or Netware 3.x.
Firefox is the only browser that we can use safely.
And you will continue to run Firefox... just not 3.0.
-matthew
Re:shrug (Score:5, Insightful)
One way to go... (Score:5, Insightful)
The last version of Firefox to support 98 and earlier should be kept up for easy download.
Re:One way to go... (Score:2)
Its true that a sizable number have moved on to Linux but quite a number like me, still
Re:One way to go... (Score:2)
What is your security vulnerability threshold? Though the vulnerabilities in the OS itself may dwarf anything exposed by the browser, there is still some ethical question about enabling possible stupid behavior.
The increasing availability of free, robust, svelte GNU/Linux distributions might offer a better alternative than metaphorically sticking forks in the electrical outlet with an old Windows version.
Exactly (Score:2)
Re:One way to go... (Score:2)
Re:One way to go... (Score:2)
If code bloat is their concern, it would make sense to split windows support into 2 seperate areas (the base tree already supports a large number of os's, so split windows into 2, one with 9x support and one without) and then concentrate on the newer versions, but keep the older code around so it can still be built, and anyone wanting to keep upd
Do you want to live forever? (Score:2)
Re:Do you want to live forever? (Score:2, Interesting)
It's a technical decision -- Win98 doesn't support the transparancy APIs or something like that.
Re:Do you want to live forever? (Score:2)
W3Schools Browser Statistics [w3schools.com]
You're welcome.
Re:Do you want to live forever? (Score:2)
Re:Do you want to live forever? (Score:2, Informative)
Current numbers:
W3Schools Browser Stats [w3schools.com]
This says that as of April 2006, the site had the following OS breakdown:
WinXP W2000 Win98 WinNT W2003 Linux Mac
74.0% 11.2% 1.8% 0.3% 1.9% 3.3% 3.6%
Obviously this is not a totally valid study for the Internet as a whole (it also says 25% of the browsers in April were Firefox), but if we say the W3Schools demographic is about the same as the Firefox demographic, and also consider the user base for Win98 is dropping by about .2% per month, then the
Typical Microsoft mindset (Score:3, Insightful)
Firefox is already much slower-loading that it used to be a few years ago, loaded with a lot of things that probably aren't really necessary. Not all of us require the latest and greatest thing to do what we need to do and I feel that the developers of FF have lost touch of that, being driven by feature creep and "keeping up with the neighbors" mentality.
Re:Typical Microsoft mindset (Score:3, Interesting)
As a programmer I understand why the developers of Firefox are doing this. Win 95, 98, and Me are actually pretty different from NT, 2000, and XP. They use a different code base and have a lot of different APIs.
At the company I work at we have just also ended support for the 95-Me code base. It was getting too hard to support both the new OS and those old and inse
Re:Typical Microsoft mindset (Score:2)
Yeah, best to stick to supporting those new and insecure OSs instead.
Re:Typical Microsoft mindset (Score:2)
Re:Typical Microsoft mindset (Score:2)
OSS is not immune from creeping featurism and bloat.
Re:Typical Microsoft mindset (Score:2)
Anyone still on 95/98/ME probably isn't much of a gamer anyway, if they are playing any games then there's a very good chance that it's been the same one or two for years and you can likely get those working in Wine/Dosbox/Cedega.
And most major Linux distros are better at pretty much everything else than pre-Win2k Windows is...
Put Ubuntu on there, spend the 30 minutes it takes to make sure that all their hardware is working and that multimedia will work properly (install mp3
Re:Typical Microsoft mindset (Score:2)
Hell, if they have DSL/Cable/Whatever, I tend to install NX, and SSH; enable remote access for a particular account (with my password). Open a port in their firewall, and have the machine phone home to setup a DDNS name for me (so_and_so.remoteaccess.mydyndns.com)
If I really like 'em I'll even throw in a new-ish motherboard (currently running around the cheapest "good" stuff I can get in my area, which is Athlon XP 2000+ to 3000+ type stuff).
As I've said in other discussions, I don't do Windo
Re:Typical Microsoft mindset (Score:2)
Then the 98 people will all move to Linux! (Score:4, Interesting)
I guess it's a little mean to the 98 people, but I think it's reasonable. It's hard to support a lot of platforms, and with Vista coming out that would have been 4+ Windows platforms to support without dropping 9x. Also, since it's open-source, there's plenty of opportunity for people to make a fork designed just for Win9x if there's enough interest. 9x people should really upgrade though. Win2k, FYI, is one of the easiest Windows to pirate. There's a hack that someone found to make the CD not even ask you for a key to install. I'm sure most of the ISOs at http://www.isohunt.com/ [isohunt.com] have it, if anyone needs it. Or here's [ubuntu.com] another place to get your upgrade.
Re:Then the 98 people will all move to Linux! (Score:5, Funny)
Necessary bummer (Score:2)
It is a bit sad for our grandparents who've been running the same old machine for AOL purposes since the stone age, but it's high time we built them some new Athlon boxes anyhow. P
Re:Necessary bummer (Score:2)
Re:Necessary bummer (Score:2)
That's all well and good functionality-wise, but try telling a classic car enthusiast who keeps an antique Ford roadster running perfectly that it'd be much easier and cheaper to just get a new Toyota.
Sounds reasonable. (Score:2)
Truthfully, I don't see that much support.
Re:Sounds reasonable. (Score:2)
If there is demand for it, then it would be a nice little cash-earner for some university student. 3.0 comes out, has 9x-related bugs, the student fixes them, says "when I receive [x] amount in donations, I'll release the fixes".
Remember this is open-source software, you don't have to put up with whatever the copyright holder decides.
Nothing to worry about. (Score:3, Insightful)
Good! (Score:4, Insightful)
-matthew
Re:Good! (Score:2)
The is slavish devotion to legacy support is a disease. If a person can live with an OS that is almost a decade old, then they really ought to be able to live with its associated browsers. This backwards support has hamstrung Vista, let's not let it creep into Firefox. I love the new upgrades every six months or so. Its wonderful.
Total Nonsense. (Score:2)
Re:Good! (Score:4, Insightful)
The same is true for many Windows 95 users, they have machines that will still run fine for years and will do exactly what they want - their e-mail and some web surfing. I have met these people, when I can I upgrade their hardware so that it's able to at least run 2000, I do so, but sometimes I just don't have the spare parts sitting around waiting for them.
Not everyone has a couple grand they are able to flop down at the drop of a hat in order to get the latest and greatest, some people have very tight budgets.
While it is true many of these people don't expect the biggest and best of the software world to run on their machines, it's not that they don't want them to.
These people are out there, and will stay out there for a long time. The Internet will always have traces of these legacy systems as long as it exists in it's current form, is it not better to at least try to give them something reasonably up-to-date in order to protect ourselves from their inevitable infections?
That is why OpenSSH runs on so many systems, it was meant to remove a insecurity via telnet and rlogin from the Internet, for everyone's benifit.
Re:Good! (Score:3, Insightful)
The same people for whom OS 9 is still good enough tend to be the same people for whom old applications are good enough. And besides, they
Unicode support (Score:2)
And people think these gnomes are going to Linux? (Score:2)
Dear God! (Score:2, Interesting)
If we don't remove support for old stuff like that then there will never be any room for new things.
I'm not saying that every time something new comes out that everyone should upgrade, but when there's a significant change to a significant change from the old software (vista to xp to win2k/98) then I'd say its about time to abandon those who seem unwilling to change.
...but Windows Me is newer than Windows 2000! (Score:3, Interesting)
Lots of People Still Use Windows 95/98/Me (Score:4, Informative)
But, many of these people can, with a little help from a webpage or a techie friend, install a new browser. One that can protect them from online nasties. One that doesn't let people install random bits of code. One that lets them explore new areas online. This is far easier than an OS upgrade. Or a new PC. And it's free.
Firefox officially dropped Windows 95 support quite a while back, but it does still run fine on Windows 95. I keep instructions on how to Run Firefox on Windows 95 [johnhaller.com] on my website for just this reason. It gets a couple thousand page views a month. And I still get emails from people thanking me for compiling it.
Windows 98, on the other hand, has been officially supported this entire time. And lots of people are running it. While we may not have a solid source for stats (and, no, W3 Schools is not a solid source for stats... it's geek-centric and not reflective of the overall web), something like TheCounter.com provides some global OS stats [thecounter.com] that are a bit more indicative of the net at large... at least in terms of those visiting smaller sites.
So, basically, dropping Windows 9x support would be a disservice to lots of folks around the world. Now, if Firefox 2.0 is going to keep support for it AND have security patches issues for quite a while after FF3 is released, that wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. But having an actively-maintained, secure browser for these older Windows users is important.
I'll tell you people who are using 98 (Score:3, Interesting)
These 3 found it nice to have a computer but didn't feel the need to get a new machine. Nothing's broke and everything works, well except, strangely to them, their computer keeps getting slower and slower, and crashes more. They don't want something new, they just want it in the state that they originally got it.
I have reinstalled for them a few times but sooner or later it gets back in the 'bad' state. I'd recommend xp but these machines are pII 450's,- pIII 600's and I think only one has 128 megs of ram.
So in the end I made a ghost image of their drive and even showed them how to restore it.
Now, every so often they restore their image, and everything back the way it was and they love it. Cause this way, it's not just a fresh install, it's got all their drivers, programs installed, email configured, shortcuts they like etc all ready to go. I just tell them back up my docs (and save everything there) and copy that back once the restore is complete.
Yes, pretty trivial stuff to the average geek, but my friends feel impowered now that they can always get their machine back into a perfect state if it every starts acting up.
And, to put off restoring, my main piece of advice was never ever launch ie and always stick to firefox.
Ya, I guess these machines are getting really long in the tooth now, but it still does what they want, surf the web, check email, listen to tunes, burn a cd. Thats all they want and these machines and 98 still fit the bill. And sadly, linux isn't an option here. Kde or gnome are pigs on machines like these and believe me they'll want kde or gnome, anything less will seem too barebones to them. Xfce is close, but not yet.
It's not like FF 1.5 will just stop working (Score:3, Interesting)
So what's the big deal? The people *still* running win98 are clearly not bleeding-edge upgrade-or-die types, so what's the commotion? It's not like they're being forced to upgrade to a new, incompatible firefox.
I still use Win '98 and I'm proud, damnit! (Score:3, Interesting)
Why? Because I own it. So for me its free. And Windows XP is absurdly expensive.
Unlike XP which "phones home" with each install, Win 98 can be installed, and re-installed on successive machines.
Its stable. And perfectly fast enough for coding, web design, etc. I have resisted purchasing
XP almost out of pride: I *like* '98. It does what any good operating system *should* do: it works.
And it runs all the software I want it to run: OpenOffice, Flash, Firefox, Outlook, etc.
Saying "Microsoft stopped supporting '98, so why should Firefox?" is an absurd question.
Microsoft stopped supporting '98 because they'll do anything in their power to get users to
purchase the next version of Windows, (even if that new version does virtually nothing to enhance
the experience of most users).
Why the Firefox team is asking users to purchase a new version of windows makes little sense to me.
Microsoft hasn't even come close to convincing me that Windows XP is worth the upgrade cost. So
why should I?
Re:Misleading title (Score:2)
Sorry, wrong. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Sorry, wrong. (Score:2)
Re:i don't understand (Score:3, Funny)
Hell I'd love to try out Windows 3.1 with the abstraction layer that emulates Aero Glass! Watch my i386 become l33t before your very eyes!
-Jar.
Excuse Me? (Score:2)
You want me to dumpster this, invest in a new box -- and why? Because it doesn't matter. I guess you don't have much of a "green streak". After all, this computer MAY run Windows XP, but I am pretty sure it won't do it well. Besides, I have no need for that upgrade.
In fact, the ONLY software
Re:Excuse Me? (Score:3, Informative)
I believe the gp actually said you should install Linux on it, not dumpster it.
He recommends Debian, but if you don't know a Linux guru, I recommend Xubuntu. You can try out the live cd and see if you like it without hurting Windows.
Yes (Score:2)
Re:Yes (Score:2)
Let me comment on this.
My house. Built in 1970. Uses aluminum wiring, which is "not supported" anymore. Hasn't been for 20 years. I can still find inspectors to look at it for insurance purposes. Previous house used "knob and tube" wiring. Same deal, even though it hasn't been "supported" for, what, 50 years?
I drive a 1996 Saturn. Still supported (and passes its "drive-clean" with flying colours). I expect another 2 years from the vehicle.
Mos
Re:Pre-2K ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:W3Schools says pre-2k only 2.1% (Score:2, Insightful)
My company's statistics list 98 and below ranging from 12%-20%. On a daily basis. Again, ours is skewed to the non-technical user. But its not 2.1%.
Your best bet is to use statistics from major po
Re:W3Schools says pre-2k only 2.1% (Score:2)
I'll point out one other problem with the logic, which is the fact that using your arguments, they should just drop Linux instead, which is probably a lot more work to code for than another Windows variant, and would mean that 96.7% of users are unaffected.
Heck, why should anyone port anything beyond the Windows world, when 93.1% of users in your sample size use an OS based on Win32?
Then again, the flaw in my own logic is that the percentages fo
Re:W3Schools says pre-2k only 2.1% (Score:4, Interesting)
Only 3.3% of people are using Linux. Might as well drop support for them, too.
And who's maintaining a Mac build for only 3.6% of the population? WTF?
Re:W3Schools says pre-2k only 2.1% (Score:2)
At the same time, I wonder if Firefox shouldn't dump W2K as well or a
Re:Battling legacy browsers winner: Firefox (Score:2)
Oh, and of course it runs the newest versions of Firefox.
Re:Good (Score:3, Insightful)
And no I can't switch to Linux untill I get a new modem since mines a Winmodem. Which again costs money.. So that leaves me using 98 happily or using my DS to play pictochat alone. Which do I pick now?
Re:Old Games Machine? (Score:3, Interesting)
It's on the same LAN as my wife's relatively new iMac, a FreeBSD server, a Linux laptop, and an OpenBSD firewall. It's not that we're technically illiterate or poor, but that there's no legitimate need for us to upgrade the little g