Microsoft Stops Supporting Win98 Early 477
Christopher_G_Lewis writes "Today Microsoft announced that it is 'not feasible to make the extensive changes necessary to Windows Explorer on Microsoft Windows 98, Microsoft Windows 98 Second Edition (SE), and Microsoft Windows Millennium Edition (ME) to eliminate the vulnerability' to fix Security Bulletin MS06-15. Granted, the vulnerability is easily prevented by basic firewalling, but this basically is the first time Microsoft has admitted that Windows 98 is so broken that it's crazy to be running it on today's Internet."
Huh? (Score:3, Funny)
I must be drinking... (Score:2, Funny)
:O (Score:3, Funny)
MS got it wrong... "Windows 98 is so broken that it's crazy to be running it on today's Internet" For some reason this contains a "98" which came out of nowhere. It should read
"Windows is so broken that it's crazy to be running it on today's Internet"
Re::O (Score:5, Funny)
Re::O (Score:3, Funny)
Re::O (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, the truth is that Win XP and to a lesser but still significant extent Win 2k are real, solid OSs. They're targets because of their omnipresence, and moreso because they're 'competitors' to Linux, which is so endeared unto a community like this one.
So we hear the most about the Windows vulnerabilities, yet I just updated some of the software on my Linux box to fix a few security holes, too. And in all honesty...like any other piece of software, if you keep up with the updates and are conscious of the risks and pitfalls of everyday use, it's a safe, fast, and secure OS. If you tossed a version of your favorite Linux distro released circa 1998 onto a computer you would have some VERY serious problems running it smoothly and/or securely.
Re::O (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't think that linux is just less of a target because it has less users; it is more secure because you hardly ever run as super-user.
For me on my system windows is over 30 seconds slower to load up
The safety cannot be said to be good just because the only reason that it is insecure is because it is visable (although I disagre
Re::O (Score:2)
a) What was your outlay, in currency, for these "like any other piece of software" operating systems?
b) Were you coerced^Wvery strongly encouraged towards hardware upgrades to boot the OS?
c) Were you given reasonable source-code level opportunity to deal with those little situation that arise for "any other piece of software"
I do agree with your basic premise, that later Redmond releases are quite stable. The one or two BSODs I've ev
Re::O (Score:2)
b) Um, no? There's no reason why I would be, and I didn't need it. I won't need to upgrade for Vista, either.
c) Were I to have source code access, I couldn't do anything with it anyway. Unless it was PHP, my specialty language, or perhaps Perl. Same goes for 99.5% of users worldwide. So your question really doesn't make that much of a difference except to the c
Re::O (Score:2, Interesting)
Re::O (Score:3, Insightful)
I disagree. I would say that Win2k and to a lesser, but still significant extent WinXP are running on solid OS kernels.
Too bad that the layers of code on top of the kernel aren't so good.
Why is it fair to compare Linux from 1998 to Windows 2000? You don't think that Windows 2000 came out in 1998, do you?
The problem with security and Windows is that it can only come from Microsoft, updates are few and far between, and in
I use Debian. (Score:3, Insightful)
I should try this sometime on a stable install. I updated a sarge install and a sid install recently that had both been disconnected from the 'net for a couple years (the sarge was originally a Testing machine; while I was DSL-less, sarge was released; meant I had to edit my /etc/apt/sources.list, but the sid machine didn'
Re:Micro$oft Screws Us Good (Score:3, Insightful)
Release they got their money's worth out of an almost 10 year old computer, and plop down $300 for a newer one? Or they could install Linux, although they'd be able to do less than they do with their computers now.
Or, as the article points out, put the computer behind a firewall, which pretty much every home user should do regardless of OS.
Quick Question (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Quick Question (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Quick Question (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, if you're not wedded to applications, you can get almost any Linux install to run, better, on a machine that can handle 98SE, but some people aren't down for that
Better license agreement (Score:5, Informative)
Those license agreements don't have the weird clauses about M$ being able to remotely disable your access to internet services at any time for any reason, or about your consent to have third-party DRM pushed to you over the internet automatically without your consent or knowledge (both of which are in the XP license agreement).
Re:Quick Question (Score:2, Funny)
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=me
For a fun blast from the past, try mapping network drives in 98. Now try telling a 60 year old man how to do it.
I don't say this office, but THANK YOU MICROSOFT!!
Re:Quick Question (Score:2)
Start -> Run [OK]
net use * \\server\share (Sir, Backslash is not on the same key as the ? is)
Note the new drive letter.
Oh, you meant the GUI way that changes with each release?
Re:Quick Question (Score:2)
Then I pounded my head on the wall for a day and said, "oh, screw this". That way when I get spam, I can think "Hey, maybe I sent this to myself".
Re:Quick Question (Score:2)
Re:Quick Question (Score:3, Interesting)
I have 3 PCs in my office. My main one is Windows XP, but the others are Windows 98 and Windows 95 machines.
These are all software development platforms, and it is not practical to upgrade the OS on them since they are older
machines with limited horsepower and memory. It also isn't practical to move the software development tools to
the new PC because of compatibility issues. The Win95 machines gets used occasionally, but the Win98 is used almost daily
(I con
One word solution (Score:4, Insightful)
Ditch the extra power-sucking hardware.
Re:Quick Question (Score:2)
Windows 98/98 SE are still perfectly good operating systems for an inexpensive computer used as a web broswer / word processor. There are lots of people who salvage surplused computers (5+ years old) from companies and universities, clean them up, reformat their drives, install Linux, and donate them to people who couldn't afford a computer otherwise. Windows 98/98 SE works just fine on such machines.
Personally, I wish Microsoft would make Windows 98 SE free
Re:Quick Question (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Quick Question (Score:2)
Re:Quick Question (Score:2)
Re:Quick Question (Score:4, Interesting)
Anyway, both of these older operating systems are crap so I suppose comparisons are pointless.
Re:You have to be kidding me. (Score:2)
Makes me love OS X all the more.
It only took them.... (Score:3, Funny)
I jest I jest *ducks*
Well, it *is* old (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok, Sol8 I could see I guess, but for all that I'm a Mac bigot these days, I can't really blame MS for being unable to support software that old. Sure, it was broken as hell when it came out, but at this point, I'd really rather they try to keep XP or (/sigh) maybe Vista reasonably up-to-date.
Re:Well, it *is* old (Score:2)
Re:Well, it *is* old (Score:2)
A representative Linux of that day would be Redhat 5.2... Not quite solid
Heck, I still have some Solaris 2.4 servers running that I have few reasons to touch.
Re:Well, it *is* old (Score:2)
It's no excuse. The design was WRONG. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not that Windows 9x was old, but that it was awfully designed. Linux is older than Windows 9x, and they got the privileges and file permissions right since the beginning.
Most security updates in Open Source software like Firefox or Linux are due to implementation flaws (i.e. buffer overflows), but the problem we're dealing with here, is a DESIGN FLAW.
Very different, indeed.
Re:It's no excuse. The design was WRONG. (Score:4, Insightful)
The WinNT line on the other hand was done right from day one. 32-bit from the ground up, with 16-bit Windows and 8-bit DOS functions performed by emulation, not extension. I've been using the WinNT kernel since Windows 2000, and have yet to be disappointed.
Re:It's no excuse. The design was WRONG. (Score:3, Insightful)
Agreed, with the exception of the plethora of open network ports. I think they finally figured this one out in 2004 with XP SP2, 8 years after NT4 was released.
Sadly, Win9x was and is far more secure than any other IP-aware Windows product. Even XP with SP2 still runs these bloody services, but hides behind a potentially leaky firewall.
My naive hope was that Vista would actually come in a home version (hell, the corp should too, that's what admins
Re:It's no excuse. The design was WRONG. (Score:3)
A long time ago when someone was crazy enough to let me lead a small team I had every one sing "no bug in unfixable, only bad design is!" three times in choir every morning. No I don't lead a team anymore but I'm sure my old team is still doing buggy implementations of bullet proof designs.
8 years old? (Score:2)
Okay, I don't really pay much attention to Microsoft product releases... but... isn't that more like 6?
Applies to Windows ME also (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Well, it *is* old (Score:2, Funny)
Well, they may not find it "feasable" to patch the hole, but I managed it in all of about five minutes.
I installed Firefox. Can't they handle that?
KFG
Re:Well, it *is* old (Score:3, Interesting)
Solaris 2.6 was released in February 1997. Last ship was July 2001. It drops off support in July this year. That makes for nine years of support, the first six of which were complete with rfe and cosmetic bugs being fixed.
How about Solaris 8? Solaris 8 was released in March 2000. We have still not done that last ship for it, so this means that there will be phase one suport for at least until mid 2008, and phase 2 supp
Re:Well, it *is* old (Score:2)
Missed business opportunity? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think Microsoft is missing a serious opportunity here. It's called branching.
If they are forced to fix vulnerabilities for an old piece of software without getting paid I can see how that doesn't make sense. But I cannot imagine that there is NOBODY who will pay for vulnerability fixes to their old line instead of upgrading.
Why? Because some software runs on 98 and not on 2000 or XP. Some software will probably run on XP and not Vista in the future. If they dealt with the branch constructively, this could represent another revenue stream for them.
I don't believe it's cannabilistic because the people who would stay on a branch have to because of other software, not because they are cheap. Eventually, they will spend the same amount of money on security updates that it takes to purchase XP but won't have to upgrade their custom software for the new environment.
Is there some reason this wouldn't work?
Re:Missed business opportunity? (Score:5, Insightful)
But I cannot imagine that there is NOBODY who will pay for vulnerability fixes to their old line instead of upgrading.
If you were talking about Windows NT4, I might agree with you. NT4 had significant server deployment, and I'd imagine there's still a few corps that might have some machines running it. But Windows 98/ME was a user OS, so I find it very unlikely that anyone that has the cash to poney up for supporting it didn't move their installed base over to Windows 2000 or above long ago. I think the only significant Windows 98 installations you'll see are embedded machines running a POS system (for instance). Since those kind of embedded systems are never used for web browsing this vulnerability has pretty minimal impact on those systems.
Re:Missed business opportunity? (Score:2)
If old operating systems run programs then they don't sell new operating systems without making them deliberately less compatible, which takes work.
Re:Missed business opportunity? (Score:2)
Liability? (Score:4, Interesting)
not considerably early (Score:4, Informative)
Re:not considerably early (Score:3, Interesting)
not feasible? (Score:2)
What? Microsoft can't write a simple packetfilter for windows98? I'm quite sure others have.
Oh well, better upgrade, then.
Understandable (Score:4, Insightful)
Hmmm (Score:5, Interesting)
I am not so sure they actually said that, did they? Or did you put words in their mouth?
Re:Hmmm (Score:2)
They might not be saying THAT, but they are saying something equally embarrassing: Windows 98 is so broken, it can't be fixed.
no computer with any OS should be on the wire (Score:4, Informative)
I'd like to be able to run internal services on my systems without having to mess around with restricting IPs at the app level. It's a lot easier to just open ports at the router level if I want outside people to connect to my service.
Re:no computer with any OS should be on the wire (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:no computer with any OS should be on the wire (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmm. So much for linux based routers then, huh?
Re:no computer with any OS should be on the wire (Score:3, Funny)
So does my remote, by that definition.
Re:no computer with any OS should be on the wire (Score:3, Informative)
Cost Benefit Analysis (Score:3, Interesting)
Kind of like an old car .. (Score:4, Funny)
However, 'round here in Dallas I would strongly recommend to keep it off I-635
(ya' might get shot!)
Whew! (Score:5, Funny)
R.I.P. Windows 98 (Score:3, Insightful)
Vista is gonna be around 8GB (11GB with debug files in the Beta2).
Of course, I'm left with managing over 14 machines here (and it's pro bono) for a few kids centers here, and Win98 is about the only thing that runs decently on these machines.
They have a firewall and Firefox instead of IE. Firefox also drops Win98 support in the next release.
In our eternal quest for cooler and newer and neater, we're burning dollars like crazy throwing our perfectly working machines and software. When will we learn...
Re:R.I.P. Windows 98 (Score:2)
Re:R.I.P. Windows 98 (Score:2)
I'm afraid our educational software doesn't run well under Wine.
Re:R.I.P. Windows 98 (Score:4, Informative)
Re:R.I.P. Windows 98 (Score:2)
But I'll definitely check it out.
Re:R.I.P. Windows 98 (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.skolelinux.org/portal/ [skolelinux.org]
Re:R.I.P. Windows 98 (Score:3, Informative)
Win98 support will be in Firefox's next release. It's the 3.0 release due in late 2007 that won't have support.
Re:R.I.P. Windows 98 (Score:2)
You read (and post on) Slashdot, and you don't know about Linux?
I still run Windows 98 at home and not upgrading (Score:5, Interesting)
One of the reasons why I have not upgraded is also that Win'98 is the last Windows that has full, native DOS easily accessible, so that older games work. In the recent years this argument has lost significance due to DosBox, though, but many DOS4GW games did not work properly only some time ago.
"You're crazy to run Win'98 in todays internet" is not exactly true. Win'98 has only one service that is being offered and that is the samba file/printer sharing. Turn that off and you have no open ports on a Win'98 machine - compared to Win2000 or XP where you have loads of ports active (think of all the RPC worms of the yesteryear). Yes, my Win'98 is behind a firewall, but even if it weren't I wouldn't be too concerned. I'm not using samba sharing (and yes, I've verified this with nmap).
The only attack that works would be against the TCP/IP stack itself (read: Winnuke), but that has been patched ages ago.
I'm going to keep running my Win'98 until games will require DirectX 10. Then I'll make a decision on whether I'll upgrade to Vista or check out how Cedega works at that point (Also, Dosbox probably runs everything by then). Why should I pay for intermediate versions (2k, XP, 2003 server) when Win'98 does everything that I want? Win'98 is light (compared to multimedia-laden XP) and secure enough for a single-user environment.
Re:I still run Windows 98 at home and not upgradin (Score:2)
Re:I still run Windows 98 at home and not upgradin (Score:2)
Re:I still run Windows 98 at home and not upgradin (Score:5, Insightful)
You do realize that you need to patch client application security vulnerabilities too? Sure, there may be no "invisible" wormable exploit such as that used by Blaster (since Win98 is running no services). But all of the holes in IE, AIM, MS Office, Quicken, Firefox, and whatever else you use are still there. A large amount of malware relies on client-application vulnerabilites (straight buffer overflows, file parsing errors, etc.) to spread.
Now, you can say, "I never use applications except games from Win98". And if that's true, good for you. But those games could have holes, or they could rely on DLLs that have holes (IE libraries in particular).
Even worse, a whole lot of other folks are browsing the web, answering email, and using IM from Win98. A firewall does not provide client-app security, and these folks will be quickly owned when patches stop coming. Nor does AV software protect you from a lot of attacks at the network protocol layer, as most AV software does not scan network connections in real time or only handles HTTP and POP3 scanning. Until we can formally prove the correctness of all software running on the device, patching will always be necessary for Internet-connected machines (no matter what the operating system).
Re:I still run Windows 98 at home and not upgradin (Score:3, Interesting)
I then install Win2K/XP so that I always have the option of booting straight into DOS.
This not only allows me to play old games, it also allows me to run PartitionMagic for DOS (a real lifesaver) w/o having to dig out boot disks.
Easy there mister submitter (Score:2)
What crappy journalism. This is like saying "trees are cut down so easily by chainsaws that we shouldn't bother planting them," or, "iPods hold so much music that it's crazy to buy a CD player." If you're going to post a story, be objective and let the readers draw their own conclusion.
Windows may be expensive, but at least purchasers of 98 got 8 years of free
In other news (Score:2)
What does this mean for win98 patches? (Score:2)
Will Windows update stop talking to Win98?
Industry support (Score:3, Informative)
Basically win98 was good if you still need to run some legacy 9x apps, maybe some DOS stuff, and get on the internet for email or browsing. It seems now that it's day has passed even for browsing, as the forthcoming versions of both IE and firefox have stopped support, and now patch support has stopped as well.
However, what to do with all those businesses (especially low-profit government entities such as schools) with older machines, win98 licenses, and not a lot of money to spend on either hardware or operating systems? To me, it looks this is just another push for those entities towards a linux desktop, not based on any technical details, but due to just plain ol' dollars and cents.
hurm... (Score:2)
B) More importantly, how many other OS's written that far back are still being actively supported? I'm not sure, is the Mac OS from that day still supported by Apple and being actively maintained?
The company I work at stop doing patches for software when it's more than 2 major releases old. Period. By that call 98 should have been phased out the minute XP was released (98... 2000... XP) I think MS has kept the patient al
New is better (Score:2)
The future starts tomorrow! (Score:2, Funny)
"Integrated" web browser (Score:5, Informative)
Meanwhile, Back In Redmond..... (Score:3, Funny)
If MS isn't supporting Win98... (Score:3, Interesting)
Ha ha. Win98 is safe. (Score:4, Insightful)
Except I've seen a recent push in the media to ditch Win98. They're even pushing the, "You're Not Cool" buttons, which makes me think somebody is getting desperate. . . Now why on earth would the Big World Out There care which version of Windows the public is using? Here are a list of possible answers and general points which strike me off the top of my head. . .
1. Money. If you can convince a few million people that they need to spend a few hundred bucks on a new operating system, (Like, ooooh, say, Vista which is being released so very soon), what better way to increase initial sales on a new product? Mod me down, and I know some of you will want to, (hello MS astroturfers), but this seems like a fairly obvious marketing ploy to jeer and scare people into buying a new product. In other words, FUCK Microsoft; I'm not about to be manipulated by highschool popular kid tactics.
2. DRM. Later releases of Windows are linked to Microsoft and secret services in ways which allow the Powers That Be to keep tabs on you at all times. You want to control media? What better way than to put an OS with built in spy abilities on every desktop and lap top in the world? Win98 isn't so useful to the Black Hats this way; it was written too early in Microsoft's evolution; somewhat before their dance with the devil took it down the domestic spying and social control road.
3. Fear. Anybody who tells me that Win98 is not a safe system is a fool. Win98 has a very short list of vulnerabilities. Nobody attacks it. I don't run a virus checker and my very basic firewall takes care of every other danger. Look at the last three years of viruses and bugs which have hit the world; how many of them have affected Win98? Like 1 percent? Or less? Exactly.
I'll stick with Win98 until they make it illegal not to have government eyes installed in our homes. The way this is going, I probably won't have to wait too long. . .
-FL
More Proof (Score:3, Informative)
Windows 101 for Slashdot People
Win3.x was 16bit OS for the x86 only platform and was programmed primarily in C and Assembly
Win9x was a 32bit OS built on top of Win3.x technology and again was programmed using C and Assembly in a lot of areas.
WinNT was a New OS technology with a 'real' kernel and subsystem technology that was built entirely in portable C for Cross Platform Support
WinXP is the modern version of WindowsNT, still built completely in portable C and C++ with no assembly optimization allowed outside of the HAL.
The ONLY reason that Win9X and WinXP 'look' a bit alike is purely cosmetic for end user ease.
So people that are still running Win9x, they deserve the blue screens, you won't have them with XP unless you have hardware failure - you know, like a *nix...
Also as for Win98 being lighter for test environments, you are doing a disservice, especially if you are using it for development testing. Applications run differently on WinXP. Also as for Win9x being lighter, the only truth in this is that Win9x will run well on 32mb of RAM, where WindowsXP requires 64mb of RAM for the 'same level' of performance, and with 128MB of RAM WinXP will run 'faster' than Win98.
I run into people all the time that still associate Windows 'instablity' with Win9x and a 8 year old OS that was mothballed with WinXP was released.
I understand that a lot of peeps and friends in the *nix world run Dual boots or VM versions of Win98, but you need to really move on even if you have to run a hacked version of XP. There are things that will still make you mad at MS but your computer crashing under Windows won't be one of them.
Re:More Proof (Score:3, Interesting)
Sort of. The kernals are different, the DLL's are pretty much the same. The Win32 API is an abstract layer that Microsoft sold us on. One of the selling points was "code for win32 and your programs will run on 9.x and NT based systems". Win98SE runs wicked fast on my wifes AMD64 and has an uptime of over three months.
The Win32API is from NT, not Win9x. Binary compatibility is because the NT Win32 APi was used in Win9x, however the underlyi
2000 vs Millenium (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Who ever said Windows 98 was buggy? (Score:2)
Re:Interesting... (Score:2, Insightful)
looks like they already did. [slashdot.org]
Re:Interesting... (Score:2)
Re:Free upgrades? (Score:2)
Son, there is something fundamental you don't understand about software companies...
Re:Free upgrades? (Score:2)
Re:Free upgrades? (Score:2)
I think we've established (courts, lawyers, society, whoever) that software companies aren't liable for "defective software" unless enough people get together and file suit (unless it's mission critical software, but most commercial software strikes that with their EULAs). And it would be ridiculous at this point if users tried to take MS to court over 8 year old software that hasn't been supported for 4 years (for free at leas
Re:Free upgrades? (Score:2)
From the vulnerability description:
This is a browser vulnerability, which is resolved by upgrading your browser, locking down your browser, or getting a different browser. While Outlook is affected, they really contract HTML rendering to Internet Explorer
Re:Free upgrades? (Score:2)
Re:Oh well... (Score:2)
I don't think Linux is *more* bloated than Windows. After all, Knoppix manages to fit a kernel, X11, OpenOffice.org, several web browsers and several media players onto a single CD. Its like getting both Windows and Office on the same disk. Windows Vista alone exceeds the capacity of a single CD-ROM, and includes a far smaller selection of applications than comes with an elementary Linux distribu
Not necessary (Score:2)
Re:Windows 98 is still usable (Score:3, Informative)