From: not@this.address.com   
      
   Luvrsmel wrote:   
      
   >   
   >   
   > "JJ"  wrote in message news:dvwpfd9h9023.udl13mh8m8id.dlg@40tude.net...   
   >   
   > On Tue, 19 Nov 2013 22:57:31 +0000 (UTC), Stef wrote:   
   >> Microsoft hasn't done that with any previous, and now unsupported,   
   >> versions of Windows.  I still use Windows 2000 Pro.  I know people still   
   >> using W95.  They still work just fine.   
   >   
   > I used Windows 2000 before, but can't remember if it has auto update   
   > feature. Windows 9x/ME don't have it either, if I'm not mistaken. But it's   
   > reassuring to know that Microsoft don't try to kill old Windows.   
      
   They'd loose too many Windows customers, if they did.  Bad for business.   
      
   > I think they are killing it. By not supporting it, they are releasing   
   > grandma to take home from the hospital because there is nothing more they   
   > can do for her...so they say. And as far as shelf life goes, definitely OS   
   > have them. I have an opened can of Windows 98 SE sitting on my ledge and the   
   > flies are loving it. ;)   
      
   Obsolence is a part of life.  At some point, it becomes uneconomical   
   (for Microsoft) to support out-of-date software that was designed to   
   run on now obsolete hardware, even if it still works.  Unfortuanate, but   
   that's the current world business model.  Microsoft didn't invent it.   
   They just have to conduct business under it.   
      
   Look at what Adobe is doing with their software:  They're LEASING it   
   like a car.  You have to pay monthly (or yearly) to use it. And If you   
   don't, it stops working. How long before Microsoft starts doing that   
   with their OS?   
      
   Stef   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)