From: Chris Robinson 

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