same as Win 98/ Win Me, should we keep them?
It's probably not for me to do the cost/benefit analysis (I'm a squirrel-type personality that keeps functionality long after anyone needs it.)
However, the question is this: Is there a "market" for 98/ME/NT/2K support? I had a client who, up until he retired 2 years ago, was using Win98 and running 16 bit DOS apps (written in Clipper) under it. How many other folk are like him, running ancient/vulnerable systems because it would take too much time and too many dollars to change? Where do you go to find out this kind of information, especially when someone responding to our request would be immediately identifying themselves as a sitting duck?
Personally, I'm for retaining support. But that's an opinion, not a conviction. I hold on to my opinions loosely, and my convictions tightly.
I think both choices have pros/cons. I think there are some stats available publicly that tell the market share of diff OS. I think a decision should be taken at some because we can't keep keeping lines of code if they aren't in use. 98/ME/NT/2K are just TOO old to be still supported. I agree to XP because I'm certain that tons of people are still using it. I still do too :)
Okay, well let's run with "XP/Vista/7/8". That'll keep us busy enough. How far back do we go with Server versions?
that sounds great, we can do the same thing with servers, we can drop windows server NT4 and 2000. I'm sure some people still use 2003
Mark van Tilburg
Server 2003 is still supported by Microsoft.