Hi Roy,

-=> Roy J. Tellason wrote to Bo Simonsen <=-

 TW> Windows 98 gets a reprive

 TW> REDMOND, Washington (AP) -- Microsoft reversed a decision to stop
 TW> support for some older Windows operating systems, saying Monday some
 TW> customers in developing countries were not aware of the change.

 RJT> Heh.

 BS> You can never count on Microshaft.

 RJT> I knew that!  (Notice that I never capitalize m$,  either?  :-)

Ahh :-) In a year or so, you don't need to run Windows anymore
because we have a "finish" maximus. :)

 TW> Support for Windows 98 and Windows 98 S.E. had 
 TW> been scheduled to expire
 TW> Friday, and for Windows Millennium Edition on December 31. Under
 TW> Monday's decision, the software giant would 
 TW> maintain paid phone support
 TW> for the operating systems and review security threats to determine
 TW> whether it will provide customers with security patches through June
 TW> 30, 2006.

 BS> Wow! Then we can buy cheap old hardware, because people don't wonna
 BS> run a unmaintained OS.

 RJT> Even now I find it very inexpensive and easy to 
 RJT> get "older" hardware
 RJT> that people just don't seem to want any more.  Judging by the
 RJT> way I see some of it running m$ crap,  

 BS> Yes, it's nice for us which is running Linux, we can get cheap old 
 BS> hardware :-)

 RJT> Works for me...

Most of it works for me too ;)

 RJT> Of course,  we still have the software authors writing their bloatware.

 RTJ> I can well understand why!  I've just written a bit ago a rather 
 RTJ> long email to "support" for a given set of web pages.  These 
 RTJ> pages are giving me an error message when I try to select certain 
 RTJ> menu options, saying that "my browser has been inactive for 20 
 RTJ> minutes or more",  never mind this was within five minutes of me 
 RTJ> getting online.  Their pages also have a "system checklist" 
 RTJ> function that my end _fails_ on each and every count (except 
 RTJ> one).  

Aha.

 BS> Aha, also people wouldn't get security updates for their buggy
 BS> Internet Explorer if they are running it on Win95/98/ME, so the
 BS> crackers would get a easier life :/

 RJT> Yet I know darn well that all of these capabilities are there.  
 RJT> I'm just not running the software that they think I should.  
 RJT> Maybe my email will give them a clue,  though I seriously doubt 
 RJT> it.  Subj. line said "This is bullshit"  :-)

 BS> Haha! :)

 RJT> Update on that situation:  I got an email from one 
 RJT> "customer service rep",  and today I got another one.

I do get alot of Mails from "Microsoft" every day, but they get into the
virus/spam folder ;) 

But you're talking about those ones from your ISP?
  
 RJT> So I replied again,  and spelled stuff out.  
 RJT> Apparently it's not just IE,  but also some specific 
 RJT> version of netscape that they support.  I told 'em why 
 RJT> I wasn't running that,  either -- that it's a pig,  a 
 RJT> real resource hog,  and buggy.

Aha, I mean how defficult can it be to support a extra browser, which
look like eachother (mostly) ?

 RJT> I pointed out that I have a choice of who to deal 
 RJT> with,  while they have customers,  or they don't.  

Indded.

 RJT> Their site name contains the word "Global" and I 
 RJT> pointed out to them how lots and lots of people all 
 RJT> over the place,  particularly outside of this country, 
 RJT>  weren't running m$ software any more, and that maybe 
 RJT> they oughta take note of it.

Yes yes, now I understand.

 RJT> I pointed out how this was "text" that they were 
 RJT> talking about presenting,  and that I didn't see how 
 RJT> even text with graphics should impose any sort of 
 RJT> serious limitations on what browser I can use,  
 RJT> particularly when there's all these other sites I 
 RJT> don't have a problem with.

I don't like smart pages which I can't see properly in LYNX. 


 RJT> I told them that this was "the 'net",  and how the 
 RJT> whole point of it all was so that machines on wildly 
 RJT> different platforms could interoperate,  and not have 
 RJT> a problem.  Except when some webmaster weenie wants to 
 RJT> use every gimmick he can dream up,  and thereby limits 
 RJT> who they can talk to.

BTW The whole world could learn something from the Fidonet'ers,
we do understand to get things working together! :)

 RJT> I told 'em how this was "the web",  where HTML was the 
 RJT> standard protocol,  and that my machine spoke that 
 RJT> language just fine.

Haha! :)

 BS> Or maybe we'll get more Linux users.. Who knows..

 RJT> Yep!

 BS> Many OS/2 and Amiga people did consider Linux as a good 
 BS> alternative,  maybe the Win9x people would see it in the same way..
 BS> I'm really doubting, but there might be a chance.

 RJT> Most of what I'm seeing is that unless they're really 
 RJT> motivated to change for some reason they don't want to 
 RJT> bother with what they think are excessively technical 
 RJT> requirements to have to learn.  Though I know of a 
 RJT> bunch of people who are managing just fine,  in spite 
 RJT> of not wanting all that much to be into the technical 
 RJT> side of things.

Yes those people aren't running Amiga or OS/2 afaik ;)

 RJT> My brother is among that group,  he describes himself 
 RJT> as "a GUI kind of guy" and sees the computer as an 
 RJT> appliance,  a tool to do certain jobs,  and that's it. 

In this network most of us see's it as a hoppy :-)

 RJT>  But his eyes were opened when he went from home to 
 RJT> work with a floppy one day and all sorts of info _from 
 RJT> his home machine_ started showing up on the machine at 
 RJT> work!  All because of a ".doc" file...

Cool! ;) 

Bo



--- Maximus/UNIX 3.03b