I hate Microsoft. With. A. Passion.
May 5, 2007 | 8:40 pm
#16
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: ORD
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 1,084
Agree 100% with what frogger said. The problem comes from the equipment vendor/integrator, not from Microsoft.
To off-line test things, you might be able to get WinFLP via an MSDN subscription, they supply lots and lots of legacy OSes. But you do not get a live license this way, license(s) only usable for development (and testing and documentation and certification, etc.).
The VMware suggestion is off base. It's not free, and you need to install an OS into it just like with any physical hard drive/system.
To off-line test things, you might be able to get WinFLP via an MSDN subscription, they supply lots and lots of legacy OSes. But you do not get a live license this way, license(s) only usable for development (and testing and documentation and certification, etc.).
The VMware suggestion is off base. It's not free, and you need to install an OS into it just like with any physical hard drive/system.
May 7, 2007 | 8:00 am
#17
Original Poster
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: A Southern locale that ain't the South.
Programs: Bah, HUMBUG!
Posts: 8,014
I'm missing why you can't just leave these devices on Windows 98. It may not be ideal, but it sounds like their LOB devices and they shouldn't be messed with. I've worked in lots of situations whereby the machinery that ran the business worked on some old OS (DOS, Windows 95, 98, etc) and that was that. If you break the widget machine the copany stops making money adn the IT department has no job, so why not just figure out how to support the widget machine as-is until the company needs a new widget machine?
XP is MUCH more stable on the device than 98. 98 would simply blow up at random and quit printing labels, etc. The vendor wants to sell us new hardware which absolutely isn't necessary. Mind you, it works decently well. It's simply that WinFLP works MUCH better. It completely solves the minor-yet-persistent issues we've been having. So, this is more frustration that I can't perfect things only due to MS licensing BS.
It's not available via MSDN *or* TechNet. We have MSDN Universal and TechNet subscriptions. Even at that, those licenses aren't legal to use in production.
So, this is a case where we're at fault as we don't want to replace the equipment in order to get something that'll run XP better. Yet, given that this is fully functional and doesn't NEED to be replaced, I fault MS for not realizing that *many* out in this great wide world have legacy PCs that are perfectly operable save access to a smaller-footprint OS.
Last edited by kanebear; May 7, 2007 at 8:19 am
May 8, 2007 | 3:58 pm
#18
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: LON, ACK, BOS..... (Not necessarily in that order)
Programs: **Mucci Diamond Hairbrush** - compared to that nothing else matters (+BA Bronze)
Posts: 15,939
XP is MUCH more stable on the device than 98. 98 would simply blow up at random and quit printing labels, etc. The vendor wants to sell us new hardware which absolutely isn't necessary. Mind you, it works decently well. It's simply that WinFLP works MUCH better. It completely solves the minor-yet-persistent issues we've been having. So, this is more frustration that I can't perfect things only due to MS licensing BS.
It's not available via MSDN *or* TechNet. We have MSDN Universal and TechNet subscriptions. Even at that, those licenses aren't legal to use in production.
So, this is a case where we're at fault as we don't want to replace the equipment in order to get something that'll run XP better. Yet, given that this is fully functional and doesn't NEED to be replaced, I fault MS for not realizing that *many* out in this great wide world have legacy PCs that are perfectly operable save access to a smaller-footprint OS.
It's not available via MSDN *or* TechNet. We have MSDN Universal and TechNet subscriptions. Even at that, those licenses aren't legal to use in production.
So, this is a case where we're at fault as we don't want to replace the equipment in order to get something that'll run XP better. Yet, given that this is fully functional and doesn't NEED to be replaced, I fault MS for not realizing that *many* out in this great wide world have legacy PCs that are perfectly operable save access to a smaller-footprint OS.
Last edited by Jimmie76; May 8, 2007 at 4:05 pm
May 8, 2007 | 6:45 pm
#19
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: ORD
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 1,084
XP is MUCH more stable on the device than 98. 98 would simply blow up at random and quit printing labels, etc. The vendor wants to sell us new hardware which absolutely isn't necessary. Mind you, it works decently well. It's simply that WinFLP works MUCH better. It completely solves the minor-yet-persistent issues we've been having. So, this is more frustration that I can't perfect things only due to MS licensing BS.
It's not available via MSDN *or* TechNet. We have MSDN Universal and TechNet subscriptions. Even at that, those licenses aren't legal to use in production.
So, this is a case where we're at fault as we don't want to replace the equipment in order to get something that'll run XP better. Yet, given that this is fully functional and doesn't NEED to be replaced, I fault MS for not realizing that *many* out in this great wide world have legacy PCs that are perfectly operable save access to a smaller-footprint OS.
It's not available via MSDN *or* TechNet. We have MSDN Universal and TechNet subscriptions. Even at that, those licenses aren't legal to use in production.
So, this is a case where we're at fault as we don't want to replace the equipment in order to get something that'll run XP better. Yet, given that this is fully functional and doesn't NEED to be replaced, I fault MS for not realizing that *many* out in this great wide world have legacy PCs that are perfectly operable save access to a smaller-footprint OS.
I'd make the vendor find a solution to the 98 problems. They sold you the device with 98 on there, as the OEM they are responsible for making it work correctly.