Avira discontinuing support

Vendors do decide themself what they support and what not. That is the result of that people having intelligence as well there. So why should you block a vendor just because he's not offering a os system version which you don't even use? That's something like let's boykott all apple vendors because my preference is oranges. Can you tell me a SERIOUS reason why you would do that with a software vendor? If he offers the things you need and they work for you then buy it. But encouraging people to block such vendors is just very very silly and unprofessional.

 

In my opinion, Windows 2000 is still the best operating system that Microsoft has made thus far. However, most of this decline in support for Windows 2000 is actually Microsoft's own fault. Windows 2000 and XP were very much the same underneath it all. But Service Pack 2 for XP changed things so much that for software companies it ended up being twice the work to make things compatible with 2000. Even Microsoft made it so Windows Defender, IE7 and the latest WMP would not install on 2000, despite the fact that they WOULD actually work on the system if it weren't for the intentional blocks. I wish MS would do another service pack for 2000, but it wont happen. So if this is continuing to go more off topic then it already was.

 

i belive windows 2k was the best microsoft Os ever made as well.
i just which they shipped that to the home users instead of the worst operating system they made at the same time called windows me.
home users always get less.
i mean the same time business users get the best OS from ms
and home users got the worst os from ms
lodore

 

Ok, Inspector and Stefan, get this stat from DoH&HS! Over 83% of Americans ages 28 and older, would rather put their PCs in the closet or in the garbage or go dailup rather than be victims of costly upgrades. If married, they said, they needed to spend more time with wife and kids, who are failing in school. If single, they said, the were now in trouble with credit cards from BIG SCREEN TV + PREMIUM HI DEF CABLE + DIGITAL PHONE, etc.

BUT DON'T TAKE MY WORD FOR IT: WHEN YOU FIND YOUR CORPORATION IN TROUBLE FROM LACK OF CUSTOMERS, I TOLD YOU SO!

BTW, I HAVE had MANY elderly people come to me to have XP WIPED for an OS which they CAN understand! This is NOT abnormal.

BUT, don't take my word for jack! NOD32, Avast, AVG, Dr.Web and many more shall be taking what would have been YOUR subscription money!

Dave/HAL

P.S.: Inspector, while your having fun at posting boards, we cannot update our F-Prot! Your servers time out.

 

I fully agree there is no need to support such an old OS .

But are you sure with the following :

A friend of mine bought a new computer which came with XP . After using it some months , her father decided to remove XP and change it with Win 98 . New computer -> Win 98 . I was shocked to understand he thinks Win98 is more secure than XP because his personal experience shows XP gets more viruses than 98 It will turn out to be true

 

If you request, IBM, Gateway and Dell will sell 9x machines with the latest hardware drivers.

Dave/HAL

 

I enjoy your car and car mechanic explanation.

AV companies are more aware of their offering and marketing. We, end-users, need to understand in open-mind fashion about their approach. I definitely will hate to see AV vendors using off-shore support to remedy this. Better keep the good supportive staff than using someone who has no clue about the AV itself and broken English.

 

FRug

I've installed the VIA 4in1 drivers many times on new 98SE PC builds, and don't see any problems with them. Can you elaborate as to what yours where please ?

Inspector Clouseau

Ever heard of classic cars ? Anyway someone could have any vehicle of any age and install the most fantastic sound/video system, or satnav etc, that would be better than in most brand new vehicles of any cost. They could also install lots of things that would dramatically improve it, like changing the suspension, brakes, wheels, etc etc.

The same goes for 98SE as there are plenty of applications, security and otherwise, available that work just fine on it. All that's apart from being able to disable lots of things in it that are or could be a security risk, and very easily too. The same goes for XP by the way.

Even with XP that was supposedly the most secure OS ever from MS, look at all the patches and fixes it's needed, and still will. Also plenty of people still wouldn't run it without lots of extra security applications in place. And as for Vista, well it's early days of course, but i'm not holding my breath. See this for example, Vista Security Model A Big Joke? http://theinvisiblethings.blogspot.com/2007/02/vista-security-model-big-joke.html

I agree what you say about 3.x but i wouldn't be surprised to learn that millions of people are still using 98 around the world. I understand that for some vendors their customers using 98 will be less than other vendors.

If 98SE was really crap and i couldn't make it secure as i have, and wasn't able to do all the things i can on it, i wouldn't use it. I've built numerous brand new PC's, and i've installed 98SE on every one of them, and it runs perfectly well, unlike lots of other people i know with XP. Oh and i don't get infected as many of them do, well only on purpose sometimes lol.


StevieO

 

Don't know about IBM or Gateway, but do know Dell:

Dell Driver Download site

Look at the above site and specify Win98 and you will see a total of four Drivers,
including Diagnostics and Upgrade tool, System BIOS and one Printer Driver.

Select WinXP and you will see seventy-one Drivers offered.

The above was for a Latitude D820 which has been out for a year.

The above system would be extremely limited to unusable on Win98.

The Dell User site has had requests about "My Corporation specifies Win98..."
and answers of impossible to use on much older systems due to hardware limitations.

I only stay with Win98 on my old Latitude LM because of hardware limitations, Win2k would be too much of a stretch for it.

 

reallly?
can they sell it with windows 2k pro and disc on any pc if asked?
because this is very interesting...
lodore

 

Not surprised at the announcement since Microsoft abandoned support for Windows 98 earlier. Software development always goes to the newer programs since the user base for the older versions shrink. Eventually, all of my systems will be unsupported, but that is not big deal to me. Since I don't invest much $$$ into hardware and software, I don't "waste" paying money into products that will become obsolete. Maybe Microsoft will eventually develop the "perfect" operating system that will be the final product to end all products (or as they reported that PCs will be obsolete very soon in the future), but I will not follow the "herd mentality" with their constant announcements to upgrade over and over and over again.

 

yep and its probably OS fault why some av companys dont have vista compatible av's at the moment, probably not releasing certain information.

lets all blame bill gates, its just easier that way hehe

 

Well, OK, I guess it was silly of me to say that. Sorry. I was just a bit annoyed at the lack of Win2k support, even if I don't use it. I find Win2k to be a great OS, and it is still supported by Microsoft (well, extended support, but anyway). So I felt it should still be given support by software. Though I myself use XP, I can imagine how Win2k users would feel being left out in the cold for no real reason, considering that it wouldn't require too much work to make an XP compatible software work with 2000

 

Sooner or later, the Yugo haD to die. Why go after thE best protection but yet to fail the basic function of updating your OS.

 

It's hard not to laugh when I hear people comment about how old 98 is when XP is only a couple years newer. It's really a pointless discussion when the entire obsolescense issue is artificial, a M$ tactic to try and separate users from their wallets. How did this thread shift to boycotting vendors who don't support older systems? Software vendors have to support what's being used, simple as that. If a vendor chooses not to support 98, there's no point in boycotting them. For all practical purposes, the vendor boycotted that section of the market themselves, however small it may be.
Those of us who choose to run an older or classic system like 98 or 2K are in a similar position to a classic car owner. You don't just run to the local department store for parts (or software). They're harder to find, but if it's important to the user, it's worth the effort.
Regarding

Show me the code! There's lots of code available for use against XP that's almost impossible to detect and remove, several of which are being actively discussed in this forum. Show me the equivalent for 98, equal in severity or an equal quantity.
98 might be vulnerable "out of the box", but XP doesn't fare any better. With the advances in rootkits, that statement doesn't hold true anymore. Microsoft has been trying to convince users that every older system is hopelessly vulnerable when compared to the recent version. Pure hype and marketing noise. 98 didn't need a weekly patch day and patches weren't released 10 at a time for it. If it weren't for 3rd party security-ware, XP wouldn't have a chance of staying clean. If Microsoft really thought their newer operating systems were so secure, why would they be entering the security-ware market? It's not to secure or support the older systems.

You almost have to split the users of older systems into 2 separate groups.

1. Users that stay with an OS because they prefer it and intend to keep running it.
2. Users who can't afford a newer system and aren't technically minded enough to tackle Linux.

The first group will do fine, whether individual vendors support them or not. Like classic car owners, they know their systems and know how to take care of them. The 2nd group, those "driving the old clunkers" because they have to, they have a problem. Without a working knowlege of how to maintain and defend their older system, they are very vulnerable. By the same token, the typical user of XP isn't much safer. XP is just a slightly newer "clunker". Windows as installed is insecure, period, regardless of which version it is. That includes Vista. If it weren't for 3rd party security apps, most Windows PCs would be hopelessly infected, all of the versions. Fortunately, the opposite is also true. With user knowlege and a few good security apps, all versions can be secured well enough to be used safely. While we 98 users might have to do without a resident AV eventually, 98 can be well secured without one. It's not the OS or the security-ware that truly secures a PC. It's user knowlege. That works on all versions.
Rick

 

Since this was brought up, I had links for the update files for F-Prot for DOS in my download manger, which were launched regularly by my scheduler and unzipped automatically. Was using ftp://ftp.f-prot.com/pub/fp-def.zip and ftp://ftp.f-prot.com/pub/macrdef2.zip. Those links don't work anymore. The way it's set up now, I have to go to the update page and get the files manually. Can't save the new links in the download manager as the link changes to one like this, with the colored part always changing. http://us-3.updates.f-prot.net/files/defs/v.3/20070208181761b00ea78c156375a0738c6d888e58b438eaeeae/fp-def.zip
Why make it harder to stay updated?
Rick

 

BTW, I took a course on Operating Systems back in college before the PC revolution. Operating Systems, in and of themselves, do not need to be updated unless you wish to add new functionality or bug fixes. A third ulterior motive would be to force your users to fork over more money in order to stay current.

 

I understand all ofthis, but this is the reality of commerce. I cant fault Microsoft for this, nor can you. That would be like saying that Ford should still warranty the Model T. It is just the way things are in life and you can holler all you want, but it is the truth.

 

I was under the impression that its just new program builds that you wont be able to get on 98SE,and that you would continue to get virus/malware definitions.Personally i wish theyd kept version 6 just for 98 (with a disclaimer of course) ,and provided sig updates for it.
ellison

 

Hi Firecat. Symantec or Norton still supports windows 2000, 98, and Me. However, you have to purchase the 2005 version which is still avalible on their website. Click Here Then scroll down the page and click on Click here if you have an older version of windows. 2000, Me, and 98 users can purchase their product there.

You're correct, that 2007 version only supports xp. I have no idea why they stopped supporting windows 2000 in their 2007 version. If I'm not mistaken, Microsoft will continue to support windows 2000 for 2 more years. My guess is their probably having to use all their avalable resources to try and become compatible with vistaMe.

 

I would imagine that there are millions of users worldwide still using pe XP OS.Is it that hard to just provide virus/malware sigs updates for those program's that worked happily on 98 through to XP?.If avira handnt made it so hard to stay with version 6 (auto updates etc) id still be using it.I wont be changing my OS to XP or vista because im happy with 98se.I may be odd but i find a great sense of satisfaction getting the right programs with the least resources,that works well.I still smile when the gfs sony vaio dual cpu 1gig ram takes longer to boot up and open folders than my humble p3 733.It does become like a well tuned machine .all that is asked for is a minimalists AV gui with up to date av defs.Is it really that hard to support?
ellison

 

Not hard to support, but hard to justify keeping developer/supportteams etc on to develop for a smaller & smaller userpool, you will find it more and more difficult to find an effective AV supporting this OS (W98 ).

You can of course rant about it, but in the end anti-virus makers are busineses that need to see a profit from their investments.

I can guarantee you one thing, as long as there is a large enough profit to be made, the AV makers will continue to make software available for W98, however the end is near!............1-2 years perhaps if we are talking about top anti-viruses.

 

Why is it any harder to provide sig updates for previous versions of an AV than for current versions?.Im not suggesting that vendors continually upgrade the engine(that would be silly to suggest),only that they could still provide signatures.Didnt kaspersky 4.5 still have sig updates provided (not sure if it still does?).If sigs can still be manually downloaded and used in avira version 6 ,then i really cant see why they still couldnt be auto updated using the v6 updater.Of course AV vendors are in the buisness of making money ,and if avira still provided autoupdates for version 6 ,theyd still be taking my money for yearly sig updates .
ellisn

 

Yes, i believe you, they would be making money out of you....................but would they make money out of enough users to sustain the support and believe me having 3-4-5 programms to support is more work than having just the 2 latest.

You can't just keep on releasing signatures to an old aging version because signatures are not just signatures which can be fetched by any version on the same server, there is simply more work in preparing this and with less and less W98 users...................

Btw. I absolutely hated Windows until XP arrived and only after 8-12 months when it had been developed a bit, W98 i hated, it constantly made me aware of it and it's many limitations in daily computing. Just my opinion of course.

P.s. Yes, there are still Kav 4.5 users with a key, but you can't actually buy a key for it anymore and it's being fased out as keys expire and there won't be any left in 08, it's the same for version 5.0 and i think they will make the same business decision like the rest of the AV vendors in the next year to discontinue support for W98, perhaps already in version 7.0 which is not that far away (this year), which will leave version 6.0 for W98....but for how long?