Slashdot Log In
End Of Support for Windows NT 4.0
Posted by
timothy
on Tue Jan 11, 2005 10:12 PM
from the I-never-supported-it-at-all dept.
from the I-never-supported-it-at-all dept.
IdleMindUI writes "This month is the last month that hotfixes for Windows NT 4.0 will be released. Security fixes will only be released to Microsoft customers with Custom Support Agreements. Custom Support Agreements are still available for customers that need them and can be obtained by contacting a Microsoft rep. More information is available on the NT 4.0 support lifecycle site."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
I have one positive remark (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I have one positive remark (Score:3, Funny)
One dupe of this.
Another story about the end of online support on Jan 1st, 2007.
and
Another dupe of that.
Re:I have one positive remark (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Thank God this is over ! (Score:5, Funny)
We just make sure the MSFT's R&D Division (commonly known as 'Apple') stays in the game ...
abandonware (Score:5, Funny)
Re:abandonware (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:abandonware (Score:5, Insightful)
Laugh as you may, Microsoft's number one competitor is itself with people hanging on to old software and systems.
Prime target for the penguin.
Parent
Re:abandonware (Score:3, Insightful)
Or since most of the consultants brought in would probably be MCSE's (or equivalent), they now have more power to grab a bigger pay-cheque from those companies with huge upgrade and maintenance costs.
Re:abandonware (Score:4, Interesting)
Windows 2000 Embedded style licensing (which we use on most PC based products now) is preferred, but there are issues in upgrading these devices. Of course, Windows XP Embedded just plain stinks for what we are doing, and XP Pro OEM licensing is a nightmare for a company like us (ie we would not qualify for corporate licensing and we cannot pre-activate the OS).
Parent
If only... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If only... (Score:4)
Parent
Re:If only... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:If only... (Score:5, Insightful)
Most software companies do that, it's not unusual at all.
Parent
Re:If only... (Score:5, Funny)
Sounds interesting. Let me try:
<insert finger in throat>
HUGRHGAAGH
</insert finger in throat>
Dang. Another Ubuntu.
Parent
Wait, Microsoft... support? (Score:5, Interesting)
Dont be fooled by the statistics, NT4 hasn't been supported for a while. When was the last service pack for NT4?
The difference between support on linux and support on windows is mostly statistical. Look at debian, gentoo, even freebsd. You can upgrade to stable packages (maybe not gentoo) dynamically without running a time wasting installer.
I personally dont like these automated tools, but I'd probably use them before windows update on a critical security network.
Parent
Heh (Score:4, Insightful)
That's like buying a betamax, no? If you're running NT 4, you could be running something else.
Re:Heh (Score:4, Insightful)
A decade ago my old man had a friend who still used a TRS-80 that I would make fun of. Why?
Because all his data on tapes could not be transferred to a modern system.
In the business world if its not broke why fix it?
Also the layoffs and understaffing due to the
Parent
Re:Heh (Score:4, Insightful)
really? cool please tell me what OS can run my servers that each use SCSI mpeg decoder boards (24 decoder boards per server) run the commercial spot insertion software I use, and is no more difficult or even less difficult to maintain?
Oh wait, you can't. The vendor has no plans to move from NT 4.0 because W2K is considered unstable to them still for anything but workstations.
MOST of your TV commercials on cable TV are broadcast to you using NT 4.0 and NT3.51 (or in some cases DOS)
and there certianly are noi plans in the near future (5years) to replace them.
I have several Pentium I 133 mhz servers that can play 24 seperate and different DVD quality mpeg2 videos all at once. each server makes the company around $11,000 an hour in ad revinue.
NT4 and even NT3.51 are still very useable operating systems, and are still in use be large amounts of companies making large amounts of money off it.
Parent
Now is the time to gain ground! (Score:5, Insightful)
Use the line:
It'll be an even better domain controller, and if a user comes in with an exploited laptop you can be safe knowing that your PDC isn't hosed by it.
I've been using SAMBA as a windows PDC for several years now, I had one setup that was so sucessful that I started charging them for all the months I didn't come and fix it (it was so reliable I had to switch from a charge-to-fix to a service contract).
Clarification for the vagueness (Score:5, Informative)
Makes Sense to Me. (Score:5, Informative)
Windows 2003 was released on Apr 24th, 2003.
A replacment to NT 4 was released, followed by a replacment to THAT, and NT 4 has still been getting support for a year+ after that. I'm a bit suprised that NT was still supported without needing those special contracts up untill now.
For reference, 2K will get "mainstream" support (cost-per-incidient, free hotfixes) untill Jun 30 of this year, and "extended" stupport (hourly cost, pay for hotfixes) untill Jun 30, 2010. Hotfixes are free for everyone untill '07. I can't find End-of-Life dates for Windows 2003.
New machines still being built to use NT4 (Score:5, Interesting)
end of online support 2007? (Score:3, Interesting)
What do they mean by this exactly? Does this mean they pull the website for Windows NT 4.0 and deny that it ever existed? I know a many companies still run Windows NT boxes stand alone (in a lot of industrial control systems), denying access to existing patches or online help for this OS doesn't make too much sense. I could see many Windows NT boxes still running for the next 10 years or so.
Re:end of online support 2007? (Score:3, Informative)
All in all .. (Score:5, Insightful)
NT4 Workstation was state of the art at the time - NT Server 4.0 was pretty damn stable and was the first really big Novell killer.
Sure it wasn't perfect - Sure it wasn't secure - but give it its props - this was a decent platform
Is anybody reading this using NT4? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Is anybody reading this using NT4? (Score:5, Insightful)
So yeah, I still use NT4. I don't upgrade my toaster because a new one comes out, I don't upgrade my car stereo when a new one comes out, I don't upgrade my lawnmower when a new one comes out, I don't upgrade my lightbulbs when a new one comes out, and I don't upgrade a server just because a "new" one comes out.
Call me crazy, but I only trash these things when doing so will accomplish a measureable objective. I'm also one of the few retards who dares to run NTS4 without a firewall - I've got one that's a quad-homed box, hosting two T1s and a DS3. No firewalls, just straight from the NICs into Adtrans etc. I put it on the line back in mid '99, and to date it has yet to be compromised or faulted, despite hosting both IIS4 and Exch55, and running some rather unique and complex software in each. Why the f*** would I want to swap that out... well, a Linux solution aside, why *else* would I want to swap that out... no "current" MS product is going to do any better than what I've got now, and in fact will probably do worse. Much worse.
I don't repaint my car every year, I don't replace the doors on my house every year, I don't buy a new bed every f*ing year, and I don't toss a solution that will continue working perfectly unless there's a damned good reason. "New screensavers" and "wizards" doesn't cut it.
Parent
Re:Sits back, grabs a drink and.... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Sits back, grabs a drink and.... (Score:3, Informative)
I however managed to get 1 linux box into production running some web services such as a frontend to our call logging database and an inventory management program, both of which i wrote myself.
All of the windows servers have a scheduled job to res
Re:Supporting? (Score:4, Interesting)
Let's exclude IBM Mainframes here -- despite the hardware changes and market drift over the last few decades, it's still IEBGENR & CORGZ under the skin. And they haven't dusted the o/s since the 70's...
Parent
Re:Supporting? (Score:5, Interesting)
I know Linux does. The 2.0 development cycle has seen work from July 1996 to February 2004. Since the source is open and I'm sure there's some 2.0 folks still around, any security fixes, as rare as they come up in the kernel, could easily be backported.
Companies EOLing stuff after 9 - 10 years scares me. With the notion of pervasive computing and kernels showing up in a wide range of things, the concept of software lasting far longer than we thought is now nothing new. Consider Y2K-affected machines--engineers never thought their products would still be running 30 years later, but somehow, they were.
You'd think that as big a company as Microsoft is, they'd support old crufty stuff ad infinitum to give their own products that lasting aura of strength and integrity. Of course, there's no money to be made in releasing patches for 10 year old stuff, but the simple notion that all customers could have access to them could be a major competitive advantage.
Just think, do you really know when you're going to be replacing that server you've just setup?
Parent
Re:Supporting? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Supporting? (Score:3, Informative)
There are military deployments where NT 4 will be running until 2015 at the earliest.
On the flip side, consider also that there is plenty of Sun kit running SunOS 4 laying about as well.
Re:Supporting? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Proposed new software law. (Score:3, Interesting)
I figure that this makes sense, but others may have o
Re:WinXP is what NT4.0 should have been (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm still cleaning out tons of mal|spy|ad-ware laden SP2 machines every day. They still seem to get viruses too.
As for running with no firewall, proper behavior for ANY IP stack is to reject ALL connections unless there's a service up-and-running waiting for a connection. The problem is that on Windows, default users have the ability to open privileged ports. Firewalls add a layer of complexity and frustration to everyone, admins, users, and hackers alike. Properly implementing an OS that defaults to security settings that reflect the mean intelligence of your user base are what Windows needs, not more bubble-gum and shoelace to hold a bad thing together.
Parent
Re:Uhh... (Score:5, Interesting)
No, he's saying that a proper IP stack will not respond to a request for service from a TCP/UDP port that has no service listening to it on that machine. I'm not 100% sure of the veracity of the statement, but I'm pretty sure XP does this as prescribed.
Whether the firewall is a separate service or whether it is built into the networking stack or whether it is a separate machine sitting at the root of the network, a firewall is needed.
Yes, for any external communications, a firewall (and encrypted links if you want to be picky) is a neccesity, and has been for quite some time. SP2 finally provided a firewall on by default, and gives the average user a fighting chance.
If you are cleaning out "mal|spy|ad-ware SP2 machines every day", you work with idiots. Or perhaps you are the idiot to continue working with them. Either way, I'm glad I don't work where you work.
I'm a BOFH. I work with lusers. Lusers are SpongeBob Squarepants without the personality. They are un-intelligent generally, but more so when it comes to computers. They don't know about computer security, nor do they care, since it's not thier job to administrate thier machine. The luser should be able to log on, go about it's business and not concern itself with what is in my prevue - making sure our comapnies data is safe.
Now, the problem XP, Win2K and NT present is that I, as an intelligent, responsible admin, do all that I can to prevent security issues and they still occur regularily, despite my best efforts. In order to be truly protected, I'd need to remove some of the machines functionality, which kinda removes the point of having the bloody PC there in the first place.
When I need to teach a luser how spyware gets on to thier XP SP2 machine - firewall and all - in order to try and prevent that event from happening is when I begin to question how much value XP really provides.
Soko
Parent
Re: WinXP is what NT4.0 should have been (Score:4, Funny)
> Though many years late, Windows XP is what WinNT4.0 should have been
Yeah, and in two years you'll be calling it crap, just like the people who used to rave about NT poop on it now.
Why don't you beat the rush and admit that XP is crap now.
Parent
Re:WinXP is what NT4.0 should have been (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you talking about Windows NT 4.0 server here? Or workstation? Because you cannot be seriously comparing the NT 4 server to an XP workstation, especially recommending the upgrade path like that. Windows XP is limited to not provide many server-like functionalities so you have to purchase a more expensive Windows 2003
Re:It will be interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:It will be interesting (Score:5, Interesting)
Why invest 20k for NT or Linux if you don't have to?
Parent
Re:It will be interesting (Score:3, Informative)
I switched from NT to Samba running on Debian over a year ago. I'm not stuck relying on some company to deliver on-time updates. I've never had a virus infection. Oh, and the only time I need to reboot is to update the kernel (w
Re:It will be interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, this is an opportunity for everyone who isn't Microsoft, not just Linux.
Parent
Re:It will be interesting (Score:4, Interesting)
What other vendor keeps supporting an OS 8 years after release and 5 years as a legacy OS?
Certainly not any linux distribution. I run Linux on my machine and it is still on fedora core 1. I refuse to update the machine to another core (due to RedHats cavalier approach to Fedora) and need to upgrade soon to another distro because I really like getting regular security updates from a reliable source.
When NT 4 was first out I was running RedHat 5 which I then had to upgrade to Redhat 7/8 and then I jumped to fedora core 1. Does RedHat even support 7 anymore?
My wife is using a win 2000 machine and it has been getting regular updates since the year 2001 and I expect her to get regular updates probably till the year 2008. I only WISH a Unix/Linux vendor had the support MS does for thier legacy products!
I would not consider this bad press for MS.
Parent
Re:It will be interesting (Score:3, Informative)
Here is Sun's Solaris lifecycle [sun.com]. In fact, it looks like the latest patch cluster for Solaris 2.5.1 came out in September. Solaris 2.5.1 first shipped in 1996.
Re:It will be interesting (Score:3, Insightful)
Swirling vortex? This is how you define an end to a product cycle which has been around over a decade? If you are running NT4 and have not upgraded since the start, then why start now? How is this nonsense insightful? Oh yes, it is a M$ bash. Duh.
I am betting very few, unfortunately. It's just too much of a leap for most people...when Windows XP/20XX offers such a wa
Re:It will be interesting (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Do you even remember how to admin an NT 4.0 box (Score:3, Informative)
The "window system" is not inside the kernel. The *display system* (somewhat similar to X) runs in kernel *space* - a different thing.
Re:It will be interesting (Score:3, Funny)
Re:NT Support License vs. Mac Mini (Score:5, Insightful)
My guess is that if you can get it to run on a Mac you should have switched years ago.
Parent