and gave millions of people their first taste of computing. Its arrival coincided with an explosive increase in the number of homes getting a computer and going online and by and large it served them well.
I don't doubt that in three or four years time there'll still be many machines humming along quite happily on Win98SE,but the end is definitely in sight. I for one will mourn the passing of an operating system that really opened up the possibilities for home computer users in a way that hadn't happened before, and will probably not happen in quite the same way again.
Whilst I appreciate the thrust of the thread has merit, it is only Microsoft that is trying to kill off 98.
Interesting, a recent survey suggested as many as 60%+ of companies are still using either '98 or even '95, and have no plans to change. Many more use Win2K.
When you ask users how stable the machine is, mostly they are agreed that it's very stable indeed, and I think this is due to business machines having limited software loaded that has had the bugs ironed out.
I think most would agree, '98 was a significant improvement over '95, and in business with capital expenditure being so tight, this Christmas motto seems to be, "if it 'aint broke, don't fix it".
Keep in mind, for machines not accessing the internet, security vulnerabilities are resticted to internal problems, for example disgruntled employees screwing a machine or stealing company data. No amount of patches will resolve those issues! Even those that do have access are normally protected by a decent (often hardware) firewall, so Microsoft's decision, is based on selling more software, not necessarily on the merits of the operating system. Yes, one can argue XP is more stable, but I could argue, no more so than Win2K, of which it is an obvious derivative.
So far from being in it's death throes, I suspect you will see it around for many more years to come!