Jonathan Hutchins wrote:
There are rumors floating on the Hampshire (UK) LUG list that many of the recent patches for Win98/ME are destabilizing. They have been ported from XP patches without adequate checking - and there are a LOT of different combinations of patches possible between the original relase of 98, OEM2E, and ME.
Some people are suggesting that Microsoft is deliberately sabotaging this platform because they want to get it off their backs and migrate people to XP. Microsoft would never do something like that, would they?
Actually stated somwhere was that the intent of MS policy never was to continue life of products after a new release. IIRC the reason for "patches" was to allow a user to retain functionality prior to migration to an upgraded release
The ugliest side of a proprietary software model emerges when "upgrade or lose your data" becomes a marketing force. With ZERO trace of sarcasm consider that giving someone poison and price gouging the antidote could describe both the Malware/protection racket* AND the rumored tactics .
The joke that describes Windows "security software" marketing best ? "This salesman attempting to sell these toothbrushes with toothpaste in the handle has sold not a one- so he sets up a convincing looking sample table of bean dip and chips - first customer takes a chip- scoops up some dip -tastes it and screams almost while vomiting "This dip tastes like crap" To which the salesman says "It IS ....Wanna buy a TOOTHBRUSH ?" Punch line being more ominous - the last job the salesman had was shilling for Passport .
* IT remains to be seen what will become of the first case where someone is convicted for writing malware at the renumeration of a "protection " software company . Arguably RICO investigations of some companies would bear fruit .
Oren