From: "Geo." 

Upgrading is cake, locking it down again once it's been upgraded takes
forever. Locking Linux down takes forever and a day so not sure about less
hastle to switch .

Geo.

"Chris Robinson"  wrote in
message news:3E894D81.BE57729F{at}NOSPAMtotalise.co.uk...
> Yeh, I even think that people would be happy to pay a yearly subscription
fee to
> keep NT4 server alive! - it really is that pointless upgrading.  Microsoft
can
> say all they want about various time-saving tasks and ease of use in newer
> Windows Server versions but the fact is, the downtime, training and effort
> required to upgrade to a newer server version would negate this
imediately -
> it'd probably be less hastle to switch to Linux!
>
> Chris.
>
> "Geo." wrote:
>
> > I don't think providing security patches should be considered
"support".
I
> > think it should be considered a legal responsibility like when you have
kids
> > you have a responsibility for 18 years..
> >
> > Geo.
> >
> > "Antti Kurenniemi" 
wrote in message
> > news:3e882a6f$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> > > There's also the fact that a company who is in the business of making
> > money
> > > really can't support and old product endlessly. We too are using a few
NT4
> > > servers, and would like to extend their lives indefinetly (they're
rock
> > > solid), but I do understand that it had to end some day. Didn't they
> > already
> > > extend the deadline a couple of times?
> > >
> > >
> > > Antti Kurenniemi
> > > (Liked NT4, Like W2k)
> > >
> > > "Chris Robinson"
 wrote in message
> > > news:3E87FEA1.2B5592C5{at}NOSPAMtotalise.co.uk...
> > > > Fair point - I'm guessing they've probably thought
"well, support
ends
> > > > in a year or so, so it's not really worth the
effort".  Maybe they
don't
> > > > realise how many people still use NT.
> > > >
> > > > Chris.
> > > >
> > > > "Geo." wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "Chris Robinson"
 wrote in
message
> > > > > news:3E840946.5942ACF1{at}NOSPAMtotalise.co.uk...
> > > > > > Yeh - they should do that.  I'm no expert on
what fixing the
problem
> > > would
> > > > > > require but how difficult can it really be? 
Win2k is "built on
NT
> > > > > technology"
> > > > > > afterall - just how much did they change
"architecturaly"?
> > > > >
> > > > > In W2K they took part of NT4 and completely
rewrote them from
scratch
> > to
> > > fix
> > > > > things they said weren't designed right, one of
those was how
domains
> > > was
> > > > > handled, they wanted it to be based on dns.
> > > > >
> > > > > It was a major rewrite of some sections so I have no problem
believing
> > > they
> > > > > couldn't use the same approach to the fix. But then I'm just
> > suggesting
> > > they
> > > > > take care of their customers if they don't want to
do the work a
> > second
> > > > > time.
> > > > >
> > > > > Geo.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4