Win9x to Vista "upgrade" - ethical issues?

[VirtualLarry]

I've got someone that talked to me today, that wants to migrate from an "old" PC, to a "new" PC that a different neighbor gave them. I previously worked on (reformatted, and added RAM and an SSD) to the "new" PC. It's a Dell Core2-era dual-core, with 8GB DDR2, and a 60GB SSD, and of course, Vista.

I just realized, after offering to help them, that Vista is EOL on April 11, 2017.
http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/lifecycle

So, they shouldn't continue to use Vista past that date, as there won't be any more security updates (unless MS extends that date, but I'm unaware of any businesses using Vista. Most skipped it for Win7.)

So, I could re-format the Vista PC again for them, to make it "fresh" again, but ethically, I think that perhaps I shouldn't do that, because they'll have to migrate again in a year.

OTOH, if their "old" PC is as old as I think it is (Win9x-era), then perhaps it really doesn't matter if they're still using an outdated OS past EOL date.

Then again, the person mentioned Comcast forcing her to use Chrome. (Which, really doesn't make sense either, perhaps they downloaded something with a Chrome installation as companion-ware.) But if the old PC has Chrome, and it runs, does that necessarily mean that it's newer than Win9x? Does Chrome even run on Win9x currently? (I know that Chrome is EOLing on XP and Vista.)

 

[dave_the_nerd]

Chrome wouldn't work on 9x.

Did you post this somewhere else?

 

[Magic Carpet]

n/m.

 

[SparkyJJO]

They probably "forced" her to use Chrome because IE8 wouldn't work right on the web anymore.

You could explain how Vista is outdated and just leave it up to them. No ethical issue, really, just say look, MS is dropping support for this OS next year so it may not be worth doing, but you can do it.

Alternatively, try to get them a Win7 (or newer) copy as that computer is more than capable of Win7, 8, or 10.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Apparently, the old PC may be XP, and not Win9x. There was a game that they liked to play, that was for Win9x, that they wanted to be able to play. I guess I should tell them that if it's a 16-bit app, or has a 16-bit installer, than it won't run on Vista 64-bit, or even Win7 64-bit if I upgrade them to that.

Also, the new PC in question has 8GB of RAM installed (I upgraded it when it was the property of the former owner), so they need 64-bit Windows to take advantage of that memory.

So, if they want to continue to use Chrome, they'll have to upgrade their OS anyways.

So I'm thinking of proposing to upgrade them to Windows 7, and swap the 60GB SSD for a 240GB SSD, giving them credit for the old SSD (I'll take it back and wipe it), and doing a re-format / installation on the new SSD, as a package deal.

This is all before worrying about migrating the data over from the old system.

 

[Mike64]

So, I could re-format the Vista PC again for them, to make it "fresh" again, but ethically, I think that perhaps I shouldn't do that, because they'll have to migrate again in a year.

What in God's name does "ethics" have to do Vista going EOL in a year? If anything that truly rises to the level of "ethics" is involved at all, it would be less "ethical" to force him to stay with what is already a security risk or force him to buy a new computer right now just because "reasons"... Tell him about Vista going EOL next year and the consequences, and if wants to stick with what he's got (or is about to have...) for now, migrate the damned computer for him. A year is a long time to keep an eye out for a good deal on a new computer... (And if you're really that worried about his Internet security and want to be the Good Samaritan in this situation, put a reminder in your calendar and email him a couple of weeks before the back-to-school or Black Friday sales start so he can be on the lookout for a new machine.😉)

 

[BonzaiDuck]

What in God's name does "ethics" have to do Vista going EOL in a year? If anything that truly rises to the level of "ethics" is involved at all, it would be less "ethical" to force him to stay with what is already a security risk or force him to buy a new computer right now just because "reasons"... Tell him about Vista going EOL next year and the consequences, and if wants to stick with what he's got for now, migrate the damned computer for him. A year is a long time to keep an eye out for a good deal on a new computer...

There had once been a busy thread here over the last six months beginning with a news feature about the US Dept of the Navy contracting for some $3 million with Microsoft to continue support for the XP and its final service pack -- I think there was an SP3. That was less than a year ago.

Would it not be the case, that since such support was purchased on behalf of the public, that the public would also have access to any updates?

Did I hear someone else say that they had an XP system that was still getting updates? In a post dated this year?

If you have several computers, you can continue to get use from the oldest of the lot without purchasing a new OS for as long as it works. The security side? It depends on how visible it is beyond your LAN.

Personally, I let go of VISTA in 2010. I still have a retail Ultimate license someone just gave me. I just can't see installing it on any of my machines, no matter how old.

And probably the oldest is my Q6600 Kentsfield WHServer box. I just ordered and paid for a version of Server 2012 R2 Essentials for about $290, knowing I probably wouldn't find it if I waited for that price. I'll just hold onto it until I can determine to rebuild everything but the storage subsystem. Sooner or later, an HDD could go bad, but I don't expect it to happen soon. I found my particular model of a 2TB drive today for about $60, or $50+ less than I paid in 2014. So I could pick up some spares and maybe add a drive to the pool. It's still only filled to 1/3 capacity.

It's all a balancing act for what you want to do. I just happened to spend my life running into one learning curve after another, actually getting high on the adrenalin. So I even plan my learning curves and save my money.

 

[Mike64]

Would it not be the case, that since such support was purchased on behalf of the public, that the public would also have access to any updates?

Did I hear someone else say that they had an XP system that was still getting updates? In a post dated this year?

Dunno about the second point (and more importantly, whether that's true for Win9x as well), but as to the first, whether or not the public should have access, if the public does not in fact have access, for all practical purposes, it's a moot issue as far as this particular situation is concerned, anyway.

I just can't see installing it on any of my machines, no matter how old.

I obviously don't know the whole story here, but it sounds like the neighbor would be getting the "new" computer for free or very cheap and it they just use it for email/web browsing/etc, that strikes me as no small consideration and a perfectly good reason for dealing with a (not particularly steep) "learning curve" to go from Win9x to Vista (at least in terms of basic-user functionality, I mean.) [And for that matter, they're going to have to go to, (probably) Win10 in the not-too-distant future anyway, so there's no harm in making the leap from Win9x's truly outmoded GUI to the desktop paradigm that doesn't really vary all that much from Vista to Win10...)

The security side? It depends on how visible it is beyond your LAN.

Well, a single computer connected to a modem or router does technically constitute a "LAN", I guess, but I think it's most likely that anyone who's still using Win9X in 2016 probably does not have a "LAN" in the ordinary sense of the word, with any sort of firewalling or other non-default security precautions in place.😀 Just a computer connected to an ISP that is, in other words, wide open to the 'net...