Microsoft Pulls Plug for Support on NT4 611
seymansey writes "According to Neowin.net and News.com, Microsoft has apparently announced that as of the end of June, support for the now aging NT4 OS will be pulled. NT4 Server users have until the end of 2004 for support. Windows 98 users will be the next on the list for axed support too. Of course, Microsoft will still provide its knowledge base, but we wont see any more patches, etc. developed for the OS. After 7 years, it's kind of sad to see NT4 go."
Even more Microsoft sympathy? (Score:1, Insightful)
We still have NT4 servers... (Score:5, Insightful)
Now there will be companies like ours scrambling to get 2000 Server or 2K3 server on their servers by the end of next year. And we won't have a choice. Upgrade or lose support. What do you do? You upgrade.
WTF (Score:1, Insightful)
Maybe you meant to say it this way:
Factually speaking, NT4 was the first stable, fast and useful (as in drivers, functionality etc.) OS from MS, that offered a semblance of security.
sad to see it go? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it should have gone a LONG time ago, NT4 was tricky as a desktop OS because DirectX was pretty much nonexistant. I think once Win2K (and the first two or three SPs)came about, NT was a goner. The sad thing really is what came to replace NT and the like for the future-> XP, longthorn, etc.
NT (4.0) wasn't that revolutionary, anyhow. kernel is about on par with 3.5, and the OS itself didn't become really stable until SP5 or so (SP4 caused crap (read: exchange) to crap out, IIRC), and by that time 2K was just right around the corner.
I will be sad when 2K goes. in my opinion that's so far the best OS microsoft made. (XP drops low on the list b/c the nasty theme and horrible amounts of crap-service that comes pre-enabled, which (especially sys-restore) slowed your computer to a crawl and more).
Re:We still have NT4 servers... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How often... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, they acutally do provide lifetime support for their products. The only problem is that they define when the lifetime of the product is over.
This policy could work to linux's advantage.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Budgets are tight, and MS is expensive, and I doubt they'll be offering their OS for free to small and medium sized buisnesses. And we all know and have always known that's where MS going byby will start. When the bosses of bigger buisnesses learn from their friends of a medium buisness that they can use linux, they'll bother their IT Staff for a feasability assessment, and try to earn some brownie points for implementing it...
Re:Even more Microsoft sympathy? (Score:2, Insightful)
Some of us actually have to administer a Windows Network, or at the very least know whats going on in the Windows world.
Altp.
I think some of you have missed the point. (Score:1, Insightful)
Now, everyone who's slagging off the moving is citing NT4 as stable, or at least making implications. If NT4 is stable, then lets just let it be. If any new worms crop up, well, tough, buying one operating system in the seven years that the technology sector has seen it's biggest expansion is a pretty silly choice to make. I'm sure there's new worms out for Windows 3.1 out there somewhere, but I've honestly not seen a serious complaint about it for a while.
Perhaps it might not have occured to you that if Microsoft kept pouring it's talented folks down the well in that fashion then it would be detracting from the current crop of products, although given Windows 2K3's relative impunity (A handful of fairly immaterial bugs have arisen in the many months since it's release) it's probably not as big a point as it once was.
In short, if you want to drive a Model T Ford, don't complain when the manufacturer won't sell you parts, provide you with fuel or the blueprints to troubleshoot things yourself. The upshot is that you can buy a more modern care that's got a place in showrooms today, or you can consult independant specialists who will cater to the archane vehicles as long as you pay the dues.
ms has every right (Score:1, Insightful)
If I bought an application from a third party and was told it would be supported for 10 years, I would make damn sure the contract included things like what happens when MS stops supporting the OS. It's perfectly fine to use windows, unix or what ever you want, but the decisions need to made by people who think clearly. Not some dork who is the CTO because he went to school with the CEO, but is totally unqualified. Most IT managers suck. Change that, most managers suck period! Very few people are great at managing and many barely have the skills to get the job done. The same is true of programmers and every other profession out there.
Re:sad to see it go? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:We still have NT4 servers... (Score:5, Insightful)
NT4? Who cares? (Score:3, Insightful)
NT4 came out 7 years ago... and 6 service packs later, they almost have it working. There are still so many bugs with it, I can't keep track. It's a nightmare to maintain, and nothing is kept in a logical place. Even the log-in key-press sequence (ctrl-alt-del) is anti-intuitive. The graphics are horrible and bland. The hardware support is pathetic, even for its day. To my knowledge, you STILL can't access anything via USB on NT4. It's a system-resource hog (that's kind of given, since it IS Microsoft). Can ANYBODY tell me why they're still using it? The cost for maintaining it over 6 months is more than purchasing a new computer with Windows 2000/XP. What can NT4 possibly offer that Windows 2000/XP (or even Linux) can't? All the other options are easier to work with and/or cheaper.
I don't blame Microsoft at all for getting rid of it. I just wish they would have done it sooner... or even never come out with it in the first place. They could have just continued development on it until 1999 and come out with Windows 2000 and actually had a product that made it worthwhile to put on a server (in some people's opinions).
The devil you know (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not convinced this is a good thing. While I generally think MS got Win2K right (though not XP), several people in my office still explicitly request NT4 on new machines. One guy who works on my team is considering this now, after spending a week chasing a bug somewhere on his WinXP box that causes it to reset without warning when running some essential software. Sometimes, better the devil you know really is good advice.
Re:We still have NT4 servers... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sometimes having a server that works isn't enough. Eventually you will need more features or additional security or more hardware/storage. When that time comes, you'll be screwed.
Okay, MS pulled the plug... What about vendors? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:After we finally got the thing stable.... (Score:1, Insightful)
Torvalds? Cox? Tosatti? Someone please help.
What a patronizing dweeb. (Score:3, Insightful)
It is no suprise to most here that poor behavior from any supplier, be it Microsoft, Sun, SCO, IBM, Redhat, etc., is not desirable. It has nothing to do with Microsofts "cause", but a few AC's, being part of that majority which automatically takes for granted what is handed to them by the mainstream, continue to try to make topics that present alternative analyses and experiences look like monochrome religious causes.
NT was one of the first efforts by Microsoft to create a real operating system acknowledging that not all PCs are simple consumer devices and there was merit to something stronger like OS/2, which they had abandoned. Open source and standards would have made it even more interesting, but the world being what it was, it was clearly of great interest and a great step forward, perhaps greater (performing, more stable, and/or secure) than any later advance from Microsoft in terms of OS kernels.
Re:This policy could work to linux's advantage.... (Score:5, Insightful)
And then your bosses financial department screams at you the next time he can't read their convoluted, thoroughly programmed-to-death excel files. Most People who find staroffice a useful alternative aren't using ms-office so much as halfway to the limits of its functionality. I found this out the hard way: accountants are not Most People. Neither are auditors, and in some cases, even the people in the human resources department. They know crafty Excel techniques which simply don't translate into Freebie Office documents of any flavor, for good or bad.
Desktop evangelism can be dangerous, as it tricks the typical geek into thinking that because Staroffice is good enough a replacement to him for word and Excel (particularly the latter), that it's good enough for everybody. In a perfect world, maybe, but not in a real office with a lot of legacy programming, legacy programmers, legacy users, and genuinely talented Excel weenies. Much less Access weenies.
Same debate? Gimp versus Photoshop. I've had people 'explain' to me why the gimp is a perfectly suitable replacement to Photoshop. For making web graphics, sure. For doing advanced production work for high level print processing? Not only is Gimp not even in the same league, it's not even playing the same game.
Half of the corporate honchos I've had to deal with in regards to desktop issues get irritated that their office PC doesn't have the same annoying shovelware, quirky desktop setup, and bells & whistle proprietary add-ins as their ridiculous and expensive name brand PCs. Visions of apoplexy dance in my head at the idea of explaining to them why the "My Computer" icon is called something else, why it behaves differently when opened, and why the hell I can't load their three-versions-old copy of AOL onto a sweet chromed linuxy desktop, or if I can (via an emulator) why it runs slower, and why there's extra "stuff to click".
These are the same people I had to have meetings with about why the naked dancing chick.exe attachment their cousin sent them doesn't seem to work at the office (all attachments stored at server, released by me as appropriate - e.g. no exes,
I'll pass on evangelizing a more complicated (or even just 'different') user experience to these people, thank you very much.
So let me get this straight (Score:0, Insightful)
This is just silly, first off, Samba can't act as an Active Dreictory domain controller. Well the AD is probably one of the best and coolest advances offered by 2000 server. It is better than an NT 4 domain for so many reasons. However almost equally important is the fact that Windows Server is the Microsoft solution. To me, saying that you should run a fully Windows environment and then use a Linux domain controller is like saying that you should run a fuly Cisco netowrk at teh access layer but use Foundry at the core. Why? Cisco makes a solution that does the job just as well or even better, and of course works very well with all the other Cisco equipment. Finally there is always support to consider. Your largest number of support people are most likely going to be Windows people. Even if they know Linux if they primarly use and work on Windows, their Windows skills will be the sharpest. Forcing them to work on a non-farmilar platform is asking for trouble.
This "Linux for everything" bigotry is just silly. Linux has many good uses and I certianly think it has a place in mixed environments, as well as being a strong contenter to be an exclusive environment by itself. However, if you have a Windows environment it is just silly to try and force Linux server in it (by this I mean as DCs/ file servers, as a seperate webserver it is a good choice).
You should always try to use the best tool for the job and the best tool for a Windows Domain Controller is, well, one of the Windows Server line. To shackle yourself to the old NT4 domain method and create additonal support hassles simply because "Linux roxorz!!!" is not a good idea.
Oh and please, let's not be silly about security. A competent Windows admin can keep Windows boxes secure (our DCs have never been hacked since I've worked at my current job) and a stupid admin can get a Linux box hacked.
Re:Upgrades? (Score:2, Insightful)
Second, an upgrade is always a bad idea. Clean installs are the best way to go. Stuff like email, contacts, etc should all be stored on network drives and not local hard drives so that they can be easily reconnected after installing.
Third, if there is not somebody in your company who can handle an installation as mindless as XP or 2000 then maybe your company should think about hiring one of the millions of out of work MCSE's out there.
Finally, $399 to $199 is a 50% discount for upgrade pricing. You consider this tiny? And that is the full retail price. Corporate pricing is much more favorable.
Any more bullshit you would like to spew?
Re:Oh Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
And (drum roll...) the next two Dell file servers we are getting in for pure storage will be "tested" with FreeBSD running Samba. Took me three years - but they are going to let me try it and see if it "works out" for us. The thing that finnaly pushed this over was when me and the big boss was going over the pricing for the servers - I said "remember we have still $1600 worth of M$ that we need to buy" and he said "Oh shit thats right" - and BOOM I went into action and low and behold we are going to try it out and see what happens...
I even went out and bought Using Samba - just in case ;)
Regards,
Duke
Re:So let me get this straight (Score:5, Insightful)
You have to hand it to Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
Contrast that with Red Hat for example, who are yanking support for their 'personal' operating systems 12 months from the time of their release. It's kind of sobering to think that Red Hat 8.0, 7.3, 7.2, 7.1 are end of lifed in six months from now and 9.0 a mere four months after that.
While this might save Red Hat money in the short term I have to wonder what impact it will have on customer confidence. Even assuming you bought it on the very day of release at best you get twelve months maximum of bug fixes, which isn't very much especially if you were planning on deploying it. If some horrible exploit is discovered ten months from now you're screwed. You might appeal to the community to produce an updated patch, but you still forfeit any QA testing or automated RHN update that you would have gotten before.
But let's face it, only a small fraction of people would be aware of or bother to manually plug new exploits anyway. With time a burgeoning number of exploitable RH boxes will become a prime target for crackers. Too bad for them you say, but often those cracked boxes are used to launch attacks and are therefore a danger to everyone. Look at Microsoft's reputation concerning security of their operating systems and wonder if Red Hat's end of life policy will mean the same for them.
USB Errors (Score:3, Insightful)
For awhile it looked like MS would do the samething with USB2 to force people to upgrade from Win2K to XP. But yesterday they released Win2K SP4 to include a USB2.0 driver.
Re:Okay, MS pulled the plug... What about vendors? (Score:3, Insightful)
Venders are more "bleeding-edge-to-make-money" oriented therefore they tend to concentrate on the newest technologies.
-Rob
Re:So let me get this straight (Score:4, Insightful)
So "Linux for everything" is "bigotry"... but...
It is better than an NT 4 domain for so many reasons. However almost equally important is the fact that Windows Server is the Microsoft solution.
No support for Windows 98 OEM either (Score:3, Insightful)
The ones i've found:
Windows Media Player 9
Novell ZENworks for Desktops Management Agent (this REALLY sucks since we're deploying ZFD at our company)
Acrobat Reader 6
Solidworks 2003 Viewer
I'm sure there are many others. A disturbing trend, to be sure. There is actually a workaround to get the ZFDMA working on 98 OEM machines without using the installer, but it's an ugly hack and can't really be automated.
Re:The devil you know (Score:5, Insightful)
98SE is a good OS considering it's 16-bit (read: it sucks!).
Very simply put, XP = 2K + crap.
You should have installed 2K, it's the best Microsoft OS so far (I have yet to try 2K3 so currently have no opinion on it).
Re:So let me get this straight (Score:4, Insightful)
Neither can NT4, which is what you're replacing....
Hitting a Wall (Score:3, Insightful)
This dropping of OSes is just going to cause a pain for support techs and admins dealing with these systems. You can't run anything newer on them without a hardware upgrade, but you can't get anything updated for the old OS, either. Software vendors drop their support as soon as M$ does, not because they are sheeple, but because they know it'll just cause problems. Want to install IE 5.5 on Win95? Good luck finding it. (you can, but not at M$) Want to install the latest Adobe, or MSN, or etc? Nope. And it'll just get worse.
I realize the push to deprecate OSes is for good reasons. They want to get rid of OSes that are buggy and insecure (ok, good call) and they want to push for new hardware in the market and keep sales running. Good ideas in the long run, but there has to be someplace where people just stop buying because it doesn't make sense to keep upgrading. (which I think we're starting to see now)
I read all these rediculous troll comments.. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:So let me get this straight (Score:2, Insightful)
if you simply are talking about the fact that user data is stored in LDAP format on windows 2000 servers, then use a bloody linux box with OpenLDAP.
Just a heads up, though - Windows servers are continually having exploits found in its buggy code..and the only way a Windoze sysadmin can fix them is by rebooting. I know that in my linux environments, we go for 5 9's. with Windoze, i'd be looking at 87% or something silly like that...
Re:This policy could work to linux's advantage.... (Score:3, Insightful)
YES for specialists, OpenOffice is not a solution. However, not everyone is a specialist, indeed, most people can barely use the computer, follow printed instructions, or do much to help their cause beyond phoning the helpdesk.
Re:The devil you know (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's face it, unless your components were designed with XP in mind, you are stuck in the eternel hell of unsigned drivers, finger pointing, and second-class-citizenship from vendors and Microsoft.
Re:You have to hand it to Microsoft (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, but some people actually buy Red Hat software. You know, actually put down money on the counter of Frys or wherever in exchange for a boxed set. They're in the same boat as people who've downloaded the OS. If I bought ten boxes to deploy somewhere I would be mighty upset if I got ten months of support for my troubles.
In fact, I would say that getting a paltry ten months of support would make me more inclined to not buy the boxed set. After all, maybe I should hold off for 9.1 (or 10 if the trend continues), or buy some other dist, or just download it and be done with it?
I might even look over to the shelf selling MS XP starting at $85 for the home upgrade edition and wonder how they manage to offer years of support, while Red Hat can't even after I've just paid them $149 for what I could have gotten for free.
Perhaps the answer is for Red Hat to include a support coupon in the box that gives you a year or two extra support. In other words start putting extra value into the boxed sets and perhaps people see more reasons to prefer them to a free download.
Re:nt4? (Score:3, Insightful)
Obsolescence (Score:2, Insightful)
I have an old scanner, (like a lot of people probably) which still works fine with Win98 but as soon as you install it on anything Win2k or XP it's obsolete. But it works with Win98, how can it be obsolete?
Which means that I have to get rid of my scanner because the OS decides not to support my scanner or the scanner company (Plustek) doesn't know how to create a driver that will work on the newer platforms. I can almost see the bubbles over the marketing VP's heads now:
Ahh we sell em' so cheap that they'll buy another one, after all they had enough money for the OS...
Which obviously egged me on to another question: Who are they to dictate that we're rich enough to throw away good working equipment, in order to bend to the will of the OS?
I know that most techs I know are in the middle class or lower upper class section of the Revenue system, but heck...I know I'm materialistic, I don't need some 2-bit company telling I should throw away stuff that still works.
That burns the sh** outta me.
Isn't it a bit the same with NT4? I mean the software is stable as all hell, except when you're dumb enought to install a Win9X driver on it, in order to blue screen it (I mean it's not complicated to crash it is it?) And the lack of support for USB ports, which I thought MS missed the boat on that one. Anyone who has any idea what I'm talking about have moved on to Linux by now.
Yes somehow we believe we should throw away good working equipment (or some of us believe in dual/triple booting their pc's) but with the coming of XP, who would want to go back to 98?
Way to go progress! Here's a thumb up your ass for your efforts!
QD
Re:nt4? (Score:2, Insightful)
Jumping into clutches of Novell or IBM hardly seems like a smart thing to do after escaping those of Microsoft.
As for open source alternatives to Exchange there were numerous articles in the past:
Can we finally ditch Exchange? [slashdot.org]
SuSe OpenExchange [slashdot.org]
Re:So let me get this straight (Score:3, Insightful)
-j
They just don't get it, do they? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is where MS *always* makes it greatest mistake. They desire to become respected in the Enterprise market, yet these idiots cannot put a leash on their marketing department.
Hint to Microsoft: If you want to be taken seriously, stop changing your OS's willy-nilly. IBM supports OS's and hardware for years after they've gone past their prime. Why? Because their customers still use them. Businesses are built using your software as a tool to get work done. Now just because you decide that hammers are out of vogue, you cannot force everybody to switch over to pneumatic nail-guns. This "ok, ok, ok, we're serious now. We've come up with a great new way to do X" shit has got to stop. DDE, OLE, OCX, ActiveX, COM, DCOM, COM+.
You know, it is possible to run a network with their tools (quiet down, I work for people who have made this decision and pay me to implement it), but for cryin' out loud, business processes change slowly if at all and once that you realize that marketing won't sway established systems to change at the drop of a hat, the sooner that you will find customers that will stick with you for the long haul.
That is until you get greedy and start gouging on licenses...
Re:We still have NT4 servers... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:We still have NT4 servers... (Score:4, Insightful)
Err... maybe the approx. £1000 that forking out for a Win2K server license will cost. Take it from me, but for a small business, even months later you can be feeling the pain of an unnecessary cost like that.
Also, what exactly is wrong with NT4's networking that is fixed by more recent Windows systems? I mean, OK, XP has a hacked Kerberos system which is kind of useful when working with multiple servers (I don't). What exactly are the other improvements that have been made over what NT4 supports?
Re:After 7 years... (Score:3, Insightful)
If:
1) The more recent Linux kernels weren't better in almost all respects,
2) Linux wasn't open source, and
3) Linux kernels came packaged with various servers and network clients many of which are regularly found to contain hideous security holes
I would agree with you. All 3 of these conditions hold for NT4.
Re:As a professional and (former) NT only shop (Score:3, Insightful)
Dirty little secret: some of those major, KNOWN security holes also exist in 2K, XP and Server 2K3. They are kernel-level and fundamental to the NT5 security model and would require moving Windows off of the NT kernel and onto something else.
Good that you are migrating away from Windows. People are going to have to face up to the fundamental flaws within sooner or later. And the way Microsoft is moving to "fix" it (Palladium, etc.) is only going to make matters worse.
NT4 was what made me switch to Unix admin (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:After we finally got the thing stable.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Um... NT and 9x?
Re:After we finally got the thing stable.... (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with Microsoft stuff has always been that it is easy to use, meaning your average Joe Know-nothing things he's done a bang-up job setting things up when in reality the entire network infrastructure is one big house of cards ready to collapse at the slightest security breech.
That's where I think Microsoft has done a better job with Windows 2003. Time will tell of course, but so far it seems to do a much better job of automatically putting everything into the most secure state possible. No extra services are installed by default, and when you do install some (like IIS), they are locked down. You must go in and specifically enable the features you want.
Re:The devil you know (Score:3, Insightful)
NEVER upgrade a Microsoft OS! Install from SCRATCH!
Re:We still have NT4 servers... (Score:1, Insightful)
You want to go in at 3am to fix that? nt4 works. No sound card, no video, two less things to go wrong != featureless.