Although I agree with a company's right to make a profit on product, I believe that a company is responsible for that product throughout the lifetime of its existence. What is that length? I don't know.

In short, a car company doesn't stop being responsible for a car's safety just because that product is more than a few years old. Why should the paying world continually upgrade to avoid the latest evil, while there is no tangible benefit from the software's features?

Let's face it, a Win9x computer can type a memo as well as a WinXP box. Further it seems that the "features" that are added to help sell the newer product, end up detracting from its attractiveness from a security standpoint.

Just out of curiousity, how many vulnerabilities are there for Win3.x running Works? I guess after all my blathering, I'm simply trying to point out that Microsoft has made the money from the previous products, it should continue to support them. In terms of the lifetime of an object, 6 years (win98) is hardly a long time.

The only real reason I've seen to upgrade to a newer OS is for game play.

[ reply ]

Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/columns/254/27453#27453