That is extremely cool... The dual boot bit at the end was genius :) --K
For a reasonably comprehensive list of basic WindowsBox maintenance tasks to try on computers normally used by the less technically savvy, see [How to Fix Mom(sic) and Dad's Computer]. It probably would take an entire Thanksgiving weekend to get them all done, though.
It does not seem to be widely mentioned that Microsoft provide, for free download, a package of unixy stuff for NT-based Windows systems (including Win2k, etc.) that contains an NFS server, a telnet client and server, a posix build enviornment, Perl and a bunch of standard unix shells and utilities. They even mention a native version of XFree86. Kind of like Cygwin, except rather more tightly bound to Windows internals. In what is presumably a tribute to GeorgeOrwell, they call it [Windows Services for Unix]. Freedom is slavery!
Just a slight note - there are a couple of basic telnet clients shipped with every version of windows from WindowsForWorkgroups? onwards. There's a command-line ftp client too. But this pack does include a heck of a lot more. I presume the answer is no, but is this x-server complete enough to allow you to run apps on a networked box and have the windows on your (ahem) windows box? --Vitenka
If it's an XFree86 port, I'd be surprised if it wasn't TBH. And even if it isn't, there's plenty of newsgroup posts by people who've compiled their own under earlier versions of the pack, along with Gnome / KDE. However, since the download requires a Microsoft passport account - to which I'm allergic - and I already have Cygwin, I'll leave it to someone else to find out if this is actually any good ^^; -MoonShadow
It doesn't include the x-server, only the client. So you can run an xterm on your windows box and have the window appear on your linux one, but not vice versa - and, in fact, you'll need to install the cygwin X server to be able to run X programs on your windows box displaying on your windows box. On the whole I quite like it though. --Lmm
I'd say rot in hell, but actually it's still the best available system for gaming, and all that dropping support for it will do is increase the window that worms can propagate in. Those millions of Win98 systems aren't going to go away just because Microsoft says 'please buy more stuff from us'. --Vitenka
WindowsUpdate? stopped working for me a while back... my poor little defenceless Win98 box had been coping just fine - SunKitten, still faithful - for now
Playing DevilsAdvocate for a while, what were they supposed to do? We are now three major versions (ME, 2k, XP) and 4 or 5 years down the line. How long should they support it for? --Kazuhiko
Either until it stopped being used - or, perhaps mor sensibly, they shouldn't have made it a stark "upgrade or be incompatible" choice. If xp drivers still worked for 98, I'd have no problem. And it's their duty to fix security holes that threaten other people for practically the rest of all time. Of course, sooner or later, the holes will stop appearing - 98 s immune the the latest big scare, for example, being too old to hav the service being exploited. --Vitenka
Welcome to the world of commercial software. If they wish to move their business forward they cannot possibly hope to support everything they have ever written for the rest of eternity, surely? And similarly they cannot be expected to write every XP driver so that it is compatible with a completely different legacy system. Sorry, maybe I am being naive here... Is there any other commercial software developer that offers full support on software four/five years old and three versions back? Let alone, until death do us part? --Kazuhiko
Most large database etc. companies do. Most anyone who makes software that it so central supports it for a very long time. I don't have too much of a problem with them not supporting a minor revision - but I do have a problem with not supporting the last in a product line. (ME doesn't count, since it was so awfully broken) Maintaining backwards compatibility would be a good thing. But I don't see it as being unreasonable to expect a piece of consumer equipment to keep working for more than five years after purchase. --Vitenka