Readers Respond: Win 98 Is Dead

Readers respond to the eWEEK editorial, "Win 98 Is Dead."

I agree with Jim Rapozas sentiments regarding Windows XP being the next Microsoft operating system to die an early death [Tech Directions, "Win 98 Is Dead," July 24]. My guess is that Windows will use Genuine Advantage combined with Automatic Updates to turn off users software and move them all over to Windows Live. Why? Because Microsoft wants the monthly revenue stream of the cable companies, the telephone companies and utilities in general. In fact, I think that becoming a "utility" is really what Microsoft is all about.

Ive just switched my home PC over to Ubuntu Linux. While the learning curve will be long for me, I expect to be much happier than I am with the robbery now taking place. I see no new features in Vista that I need. I can make MP3s, use a PVR [personal video recorder], watch DVDs, control my lights, interface with my ham radio and so on right now. Unless there is something really compelling offered, I cannot imagine putting up with Microsoft much longer.

Marc Cram

I, like many others in IT, have a strong sense of security, and Windows 98 never, ever had it! With that being said, instead of recommending Windows ME when it came out, everyone smart knew Windows 2000 was the best option for NTFS security and was a reliable/stable operating system.

Anyway, it makes no sense how Rapoza is almost sad that Windows 98 is at its end of life support. Not only that, but I dont even remember Microsoft offering updates for Windows 98 for a few years. I think he got to publish a much-too-personal opinion of this horrible operating system that lost its glory when everyday people realized they could use Windows 2000 rock-solidly for everything they need.

Its not Microsofts fault that Rapoza and others like him decided to wait to upgrade some dying-breed PC.

Michael Rhodes