The CNET Lounge forum

General discussion

Why is it so unreasonable...

...for Microsoft to patch even slight, though critical, parts of their older systems (eg Win2000) which it is estimated that some 50 million people/organizations still rely on heavily?? I'm speaking specifically about the new Daylight Savings Time issues that are going to be happening. MS has stated that they have no intention of releasing a patch to fix the probs in Win2000, XP SP1, or anything earlier. Actually, you can get a patch from MS but you'll have to pony up some extra dough for an extended support contract! Why not just release it!! They've got the patch, they just wont release it to you unless you pay!! Un*******believable! Why is this not illegal?? Basically, they sell you a defective product and then when they decide that they don't want anything more to do with it, they charge you to fix it because you're

1) dependent (aka vender lock-in (aka the worst nightmare possible))
2) a sucker
3) dumb

Why do we put up with this?? Why is the cost of hardware plummeting but the cost of an OS is skyrocketing higher with every release??

Oh, BTW, a third-party group has stepped up and is releasing an open-source patch for Win2000 and earlier. F-You Bill.

Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Why is it so unreasonable...
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Why is it so unreasonable...
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
dude, i can only imagine your frustration...

In reply to: Why is it so unreasonable...

how about writing that on a large postcard and sending it to Gates himself. while you're at it, if anyone you know feels the same - have them send one.

Collapse -
wait a minute?

In reply to: Why is it so unreasonable...

Weren't people here just last week complaining that Microsoft's older code was slow and buggy and should drop support for it so they can come out with faster OS? So now you WANT them to support older OS? Make up your minds plz.

Collapse -
there's a big difference

In reply to: wait a minute?

between blatantly undermining the integrity of a system's core code by reintroducing past bugs/worthless functions etc. just to babysit some other co's big ugly blob of an app that just happens to command millions of users...and saying to your *loyal* customers (who rightfully paid for their software (continuously (over and over (forever))):
"No, you're not going to get this problem fixed. I know, I'm sorry that you spent hundreds of thousands of dollars making your company into a Win2000 shop 7 years ago, but hey, we need to make some more money off you and the only way we're going to do that is if we refuse to release even the most fundamental of system patches (eg to fix System Time errors) which will either force you to pay us even more to fix your problems or force you to upgrade to our new BlobOS every few years 'cause we do our darndest to make sure that you have to use OUR products or risk losing compatibility with all your old stuff. Ha ha ha! We win! I love my life! You suck, all of you!! Ha ha ha ha!" --MS Representative


Collapse -
then change

In reply to: there's a big difference

Please don't quote when it is not a true quote. It completely undermines the reason for having them.

On your car, does the car manufacture continue to provide free service on your car? No. Maybe they might recall, but most recalls are there because lives might be endangered because of the issue.

On your computer, does the Operating System maker continue to provide free service (updates) on your system? For a bit Yes.

I don't see why you are complaining. Unless of course you complain to your car manufacture that your break light has burnt out and it should be their responsibility to fix it. Because after all you have spent thousands of dollars to buy this car and it should last for ever.

When you purchased a license to Windows 2000 you purchased it as is, in no way are they forced to do any updates. Be glad that they have done as many as they have. Could you imagine how much of a pain it would be if Windows Update didn't exist? Every time there was a bug that you wanted to patch you would have to go find a 3rd party website to get the patch.

Microsoft is a business, they can't give you free things forever. Or maybe they should just go ahead and give us every update they can think of. Maybe they can provide us with a Windows update that updates our machines to have all of the functions of Vista. You know all of the extra security features they have added in. And the graphic interface is a big deal if you don't have it so they should update that also.

By the way, if you hate it, change. There are other options.

Collapse -
I'm not a Win2000 slave...thank God!

In reply to: then change

I've heard the comparison between a software company and a car company many times, and although it's seems to fit, it's a bad analogy--or maybe it's a good one? Let me explain. Those who make that comparison only see one part of the business ecosystem. They see a company making a product which they sell to consumers for profit. They continue to update that product every so often, charging the same consumers for the upgrade. This is not wrong. In fact, when there are many competitors in their respective industries, it makes for a very healthy, vibrant economy. This is good. This is called a free market.
With respect to the current topic, this doesn't seem to apply. Inevitably there are going to be flaws with the product, be it a car or an OS. With a car made by Honda, anyone who knows how can fix it. Sure Honda offers a warranty period (and a better one for more money) during which time they'll gladly fix whatever problem their customers are having. And the machine itself is built in such a way that anyone who can take it apart and knows what the pieces are and what they do, can also fix it and put it back together. This is a sub-industry of the car industry. This is good. It means that if you own a 1996 Honda Civic, you can bet that there are hundreds, thousands of auto shops ready to fix your car for a nominal fee. These people are profiting off Honda's unwillingness to fix their old cars. This is a very large industry. This is also where the analogy to a commercial software company falls apart. For instance, when MS decided to stop fixing Win2000, there was no sub-industry to pick up the slack and make a buck. This is because no one knows how to fix it...because it's a secret. This is part of MS' business model. They see the auto shops in the car industry as merely leeching on Honda's leftovers/potential future customers. These old customers are unlikely to buy new cars from Honda if the old ones are still working long after the warranty has expired (because of the leechers fixing them all the time.) This poses a significant threat to Microsoft's sustained profitability. So, instead of allowing the free market to evolve, they stifle it by asserting their market power over their competitors. I shall not quote the testimonies of certain MS execs during the US antitrust trials, but suffice to say that one of them (Christopher Phillips) referred to Apple's QuickTime technology as "a baby needing to be knifed." This did come to pass when MS threatened steep license penalties on Compaq Computer Corp. if they continued to ship their new machines bundled with QuickTime. Compaq complied. The monopoly continued.
Anyone can fix a new Dell computer if they know how. That's because it's made from commodity hardware. You can buy a new hard drive from Newegg, or some RAM or a new motherboard and it will all interoperate just fine. That is why there is such steep competition in the OEM PC market. That's why they're so good and at such cheap prices. There's nothing really that different about any of them.
To MS, close competition is a fate worse than death. They'd rather "knife the baby" than allow for anyone to interoperate with their products, new or old. Doesn't anyone find it a bit odd that MS had to be threatend by the government before they complied with office document standards by including OpenXML into Office 2007? This should be a big hint that we're not dealing with a reasonable machine, we're dealing with the Devil. Sorry, we'll never see a subindustry to continue to make MS' products viable in the long run, not like we see with Linux. Linux is the future. It's only a matter of getting enough users to bite the BIG bullet and give MS the boot. It is, however, inevitable as the IT industry, the pros, see more and more of MS' shortcomings come alive.

Popular Forums

Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
Laptops 21,181 discussions
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
Phones 17,137 discussions
Security 31,287 discussions
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
Windows 10 2,657 discussions


Sublime suburban chariot

High on style and technology, the 2019 Volvo XC90 is an incredibly satisfying everyday crossover.