Yes, but those NT4 systems and Win95 systems are as close to stabilized as they'll get, and the consumer is [apparently] satisfied. No more need for official support. That's my point: legally forcing a company to maintain servicing resources for somthing that old is too costly.
So you support requiring businesses and consumers to continuously pay for the upgrades instead? I would rather it cost Microsoft more, rather than costing the rest of us.
The idea of the requirements is to keep old versions COMPATIBLE, and to keep Microsoft and other companies from rushing out new versions every 3 years.
It means that you don't have to upgrade before you can buy new software you need.
Microsoft already supports Vista, XP, and 2000 SP4. Adding Windows NT and Win9x adds the additional costs of both simply retaining existing resources, plus training for anybody who joins the team.
GOOD!!!!
That means there will be fewer versions released! Maybe one every TEN years, instead of the mad 3-year rush they have now.
I'm thinking of protecting the consumer, not Microsoft.
It's not like the employees familiar with the source code necessarily stick around that long. Heck, 5 years on the same team at Microsoft is a rarity.
They get fired that often? Or do they burn out quick like CFLs on a security motion detector fixture?
What do you do when the ISP won't let the older versions of Windows on their systems?
How …