Microsoft told Computerworld it has no plans to make Windows 95 fully year 2000-compliant : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

"Microsoft has recently reversed their recommendation ... and will not guarantee [that] Windows 95 will be Y2K-ready, nor will they develop a migration path from Windows 95 to Windows 2000,"

-- Mark Mastrorilli (, March 31, 1999


Hey, when you're a monopoly, you have to throw your weight around once in a while to remind folks.

-- No Spam Please (, March 31, 1999.

Of course not. They could fix it, but they make more money selling disposable software that you have to replace every year.

-- @ (@@@.@), March 31, 1999.

It worked for the auto industry for a long time -- why should Microsoft do things differently? Give away the razor, sell the blades forever.

-- Tom Carey (, April 01, 1999.

that's o.k.- we're still using windows 3.1 or whatever- no hope there.....

-- anita (, April 01, 1999.

While Microsoft's position may not be "right," it is common.

Look, they have had a replacement product out for some time now, namely Windows 98. Microsoft can sit back and sing the mantra that the software idustry has always sung, namely "upgrade and we support you, fail to upgrade and you are on your own." And, given the fact that this is the way the industry has operated for a long time now, they shouldn't be blamed for doing it now.

As for there not being a migration path from 95 to 2000, that's not surprising. Windows 2000 is a product that comes from the OS/2-NT product line, not the 3.1-95 line. (Windows 2000 is simply the new name for NT version 5) They are similar and yet distinct product lines aimed at different markets. And if users in the 2000 target market are using 95 and want to upgrade, MS can reasonably tell them to get to NT 4 first.

My God, I can't believe I'm sticking up for Microsoft. I sure don't stick up for Chairman Gates often.

-- Paul Neuhardt (, April 01, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ