From: "Geo." 

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