 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Windows Server Forum / Windows NT / Setup / February 2004request for windows nt sp7
there are too many updates since sp6a please make a sp7 so as to savee some time on choosing which update to install and what not. let windows nt lives on will only benefit microsoft. abandon it is not a wise decision. people will not buy windows server 2003 to replace windows nt running on legacy hardware. they will simply choose linux, which always has timely updates available. by not releasing new service pack for windows nt, microsoft is alienating the customers. [This followup was posted to microsoft.public.windowsnt.setup and a copy was sent to the cited author.] > there are too many updates since sp6a please make a sp7 so as to savee > some time on choosing which update to install and what not. let [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > which always has timely updates available. by not releasing new > service pack for windows nt, microsoft is alienating the customers. MS is ceasing NT support, including new patches, this summer. That's already after an extension or two. Support was supposed to end a year or two ago. SP7 was cancelled long ago. NT is 8 years old.  SignatureIf there is a no_junk in my address, please REMOVE it before replying! All junk mail senders will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law!! http://home.att.net/~andyross > there are too many updates since sp6a please make a sp7 so as to savee > some time on choosing which update to install and what not. let [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > which always has timely updates available. by not releasing new > service pack for windows nt, microsoft is alienating the customers. LOL and re-think the situation. When released in 1996, Windows NT was really the state-of-the-art in operating systems. Now in 2004, after going through 2, perhaps 3, generations of new hardware, one realizes just how old "legacy" can really be. Just as, using for an example removable media, there is now the transition from the SCSI ZIP drive (1996) to the USB 2.0 jump drives or Firewire external drive systems of today, the operating systems have to change as well. Patches that accumulate into a Service Pack shall suffice? Hardly. But for those who want SP7 to allow NT to remain critically operational, are you willing to pay for the new programming? Well, SP7 exists in the form of Windows 2000 Pro. We just made the transition to Windows 2000-SP4, rather late mind you, but hardly missed a beat. It is SP7, and more, is already here. In a few more years, as life goes on, when wondering if there is going to be a Windows 2000-SP6 (or whatever), perhaps Windows XP (if not another alternative) might have matured to be its replacement. Thank about it. > > there are too many updates since sp6a please make a sp7 so as to savee > > some time on choosing which update to install and what not. let [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > perhaps Windows XP (if not another alternative) might have > matured to be its replacement. Thank about it. keeping windows nt 4.0 in good health has another reason. windows nt is a model of micro kernel OS design. this is how textbooks are written. there are plenty of people who need windows nt 4.0 running just for study and research or hacking the OS. and windows 2000 is not sp7. i have both nt 4.0 and 2000 installed and i boot into nt to do all the work and i just like the minimalist style of nt. my primary use of windows 2000 is to play games. so i am not blink to the benifits of newer things. i have both and i need them both in good shape. cancelling sp7 was a judgement microsoft made in 2001. but since a lot of patches appeared after it. that may justify sp7. Hi p2pdotcn :-), I made similar comments in another thread in this group about a week ago. To quote: I agree with you Errol, I think this issue needs addressing - the number of patches / hotfixes that needs to be applied to plug all the security holes on NT4 and remove the last of the bugs (I hope) is getting completely out of hand. Unfortunately, I'm sure Microsoft are not in the least bit inclined to help us at all, it is in their interests to make sure we abandon NT4 in favour of a later OS. (thus earning them more money) I suspect if a solution is to be found to this problem, it will have to be one of our own making. Theoretically, it should be possible to 'marry' all the hotfixes since Q299444 (the Post6a SRP) into a new 'rollup' thus reducing the patch steps required from 30 odd for a machine rebuild, down to 3 (SP6a, SRP and new rollup of hotfixes) Unfortunately, I lack sufficient detailed knowledge of how hotfix.exe functions to be able to tackle this chore :-( Perhaps others in the group may have comments on this matter. For a current listing of the 'state of play' for NT4 see: http://nt4ref.zcm.com.au/patch.htm Calvin. > keeping windows nt 4.0 in good health has another reason. windows nt > is a model of micro kernel OS design. this is how textbooks are > written. there are plenty of people who need windows nt 4.0 running > just for study and research or hacking the OS. Insofar as the microkernel is concerned, it should not matter what service pack is being used. And as for both historical purposes and education, the original Windows NT will always be a satisfactory starting point, with changes going all the way through SP6. Also, just how much of a difference is there between Windows NT and 2000? At the kernel design level, should not be really too much. > and windows 2000 is not sp7. i have both nt 4.0 and 2000 installed and > i boot into nt to do all the work and i just like the minimalist style > of nt. > my primary use of windows 2000 is to play games. so i am not blink to > the benifits of newer things. i have both and i need them both in good > shape. No argument here. But bloatware has been happening even with the move from DOS 2.X to DOS 3.X to 6.X, etc., and all the way through the Windows operating systems. But so have features that are found in today's computers. > cancelling sp7 was a judgement microsoft made in 2001. but since a lot > of patches appeared after it. that may justify sp7. And here's the rub. Anybody willing to pay for the generation of SP7? Just how useful is Windows NT when it relies on third-party programmers (see some of Calvin's postings) to provide USB? What more will it take to add Firewire? How about Hyperthreading? IOW, it is OK to stop at a particular benchmark, such as NT4.0+SP6a+SRP, even "...for study and research or hacking the OS." Of course, a grassroots effort, such as that found amongst the Windows 3.X users, can always arise and persist. That is ancient but not for an old shellback still playing around with a Pentium-90 machine. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.