From: Chris Robinson 

Fair point - although you kinda know in the back of your mind that once you gone
through the whole ordeal of upgrading to 2k server/ 2003 server and locked
it down, MS will do the same thing again when they come near to their ends
of life.  The problem is that how much more can be done to Windows servers
to make them actually worth upgrading to?  This is bound to mean un-needed
"functionality" being added in the future to further insist on
upgrades.

Chris.

"Geo." wrote:

> 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