Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Squeezes Win2000 Users
darkonc writes "InformationWeek has a story on how Microsoft is squeezing Windows 2000 users as Vista and Office 2007 are being released. While some new software is legitimately unable to run on Windows 2000, other software (like MS's anti-spyware product) will install and run flawlessly — but only if you remove an explicit check for Windows 2000 in the installer." The article notes that other vendors, for example Sun, have more liberal and flexible support policies for legacy products.
I haven't tried Vista yet, but at work I only use Windows 2000. I think it's much faster and even more stable than XP. At least when I open up the Task Manager on XP, every Task uses at least 5MB of RAM, while on 2k most of the Tasks use less than 1MB. I bet upgrading to Vista means also a hardware update for most people, so maybe some will switch to an open source alternative.
Windows 2000 is rarely used anymore. Get with the times. It's going to be 2007, that'll make it 7 years old. Besides, its GUI is hideous compared to Vista's Aero goodness. Does anybody really want to use an OS that looks like Win95? Furthermore, the only people still stuck on Windows 2000 are paranoid weirdos afraid of Microsoft activation and are probably stealing their licenses anyway.
Chinnery says he's accepted the fact that he'll have to use the utility to fix his Windows 2000 systems. But, lacking an easily deployable patch, it means he must walk around to tweak each machine in his organization. This is a chore he doesn't feel he should face.
This is what you get for having systems that can be administered using a simple mouseclick by somone with only superficial knowledge of the matter!
Of course it would be simple to automatically install a registry fix on all systems on his network, but he has become so accustomed to every tiny fix being installed in a hundreds of KB executable with automatic installer that he has never learned (or forgotten) how to script such simple things himself.
The daylight saving time mechanism in Windows is broken anyway. Posix DST handling is much better, especially (but not only) when the definition of start and end dates changes.
Que?
There are lots of new features in the new operating systems that may be useful in an Anti Virus product (the example you give). While they are not used now, they may be in the future. Why should microsoft limit themselves to using only technology that existed 7 years ago?
How do you know the product works perfectly on Win2000? Just cause it looks like it doesn't mean it does...
From the summary: "other software (like MS's anti-spyware product) will install and run flawlessly -- but only if you remove an explicit check for Windows 2000 in the installer."
I work for a software company - and I suspect many Slashdotters do also, and there are extremely good reasons for this. My company's software dropped support for OSX Panther in our last release, even though in all likelihood there wouldn't be any trouble running it on Panther - we weren't using anything that would specifically be known to break Panther, right?
But one has to realize that to release software on a mass scale involves a lot of QA work. You cannot say "we're not using any XP-only features, so it must work on 2K also!", you have to rigorously test your software on all supported platforms. Failure to do so is irresponsible and unprofessional. This means that, if you wish the drop the overhead of testing in 2K, then you stop supporting 2K, and to prevent consumers from installing your software and then coming back to complain about it (or worse, posting a scathing blog entry about your software's suckitude), you simply block the installation of the software on the older OS.
There's nothing evil about this, this is a simple business decision: you cannot support every legacy OS forever, and as new OS'es get released, your QA load increases. At some point you have to drop support for legacy OS'es, even if they are still technologically compatible with your software.
... and we mustn't have that!
Seriously, I run win2k(sp4) on an old PIII 600 with 128 megs of RAM. It does what I need it to do, if only grudgingly. Why would I "upgrade" to Vista, when I've never had any intention on "upgrading" to XP, which probably would refuse to work with my hardware anyway? (dunno really, haven't checked)
--- We are not in the 8th dimension. We are over New Jersey.
Most realworld products are designed for a specific lifetime, and some pessimists suspect that make their products break down after a set time on purpose. Closed source software could also easily build such a feature in (and who knows they haven't). What the beast from redmond is doing here is just a bit less efficient, but produces less outfall when their trick feature might be discovered. From their evil money-eyed perspective it makes perfect sense: forcing you to upgrade is good for their economy.
Windows 2003, didn't that come out at the time of the release of Debian woody?
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
Hey, Sun Solaris is free these days. If you have used Windows 2000 until now, you have used it for several years now. It's not like your initial investment in the OS hasn't delivered it's return by now. If Solaris is so great, why not just switch to that then?
People using Windows really should accept that they are be paying for it to Microsoft and that they will be paying for it in the future, for upgrades or various subscription based offerings. There are plenty of alternatives if you don't want to accept that.
I joined two users too late.
I was an MSDN Universal subscriber and Windows developer when XP came out, so I had 10 legit XP licenses. But I had no interest in being an early adopter setting a precedent for activation. Nor, now that they don't allow people to take their copy of the OS with them when they upgrade the machine, did I want to further lock myself into system whose costs increase while my freedoms decrease. I suppose I could have planned on piracy, but I have the odd conviction (one apparently not shared by a whole lot of companies) that it's unethical to make money by breaking the rules.
I stayed with Win2k, moved my data away from Office and into open formats (mbox, Open Office), turned my attention towards FOSS development, and finally switched to Mac. Incidentally, the Mac is very pretty, but I would have been fine with W2K's "hideous" look. Apple's no saint; someday I expect I will similarly have to make the shift to Linux.
Paranoid? No. I just want control of my computer and my data, and I don't want my money to encourage schemes like DRM which erode my freedom and that of others.
If you look at the economy large scale, it's actually very bad to force upgrades.
Too bad companies are driven by local economy goal, not looking at the big picture.
This is probably one of the major flaws of capitalism.
If you have used Windows 2000 until now, you have used it for several years now. It's not like your initial investment in the OS hasn't delivered it's return by now.
I've recently done a new install of Win2k, so have had only a few months' use.
(The box was previously running NT Server, and has been retired from that role. It doesn't have the hardware to run XP, so Win2k was the obvious choice. Win2k will be fine for that particular user, until such time, perhaps, as they start getting PDF files that need a new version of the reader that won't run on Win2k, or something like that. It was the inability of modern third party software to run on NT that essentially forced the upgrade, not anything that Microsoft have done.)
It's fun poking at MS of course, but how come Apple gets off so easy in this respect, they clearly cut legacy support far faster than MS.
The Q were always my favorite Star Trek TNG characters.
You can't take the sky from me.
cause the windows updater is driving me crazy with microsoft's anti spyware product. i'm not interested in it, so when i tell to the updater not to install it, and to never ask it again, it'll soon ask me to install the version of the month before, if i disable that one, next month, etc....
i HATE that thing already (and haven't even installed it yet)
I dunno, in the TFA there was a long rant about the daylight saving... Doesn't W2K come installed with a client for setting time (RFC 868 or whatever)? I could have sworn it did... And wouldn't this kind of solve the problem pretty easily?
*shrug*
This is non-news! Microsoft finished updating W2k long time ago (last one after SP4 was SR1 in 2005). There have been numerous bits of software and updates from MS that have only worked with XP for years now! Why is it now suddenly news that some Vista specific 'software' isn't going to work with W2k!?! And guess what! Millions of people around the world continue to use it - because it does what it supposed to do, it works, with or without this latest 'software'! Unbelievable, isn't it!
As a workstation, W2k is stable, efficient and clean, all the major software vendors in the market continue to support it (Autodesk, NI, Adobe, Mathworks etc.) and the extra features that one might want off XP haven't for me personally justified the upgrade cycle, learning curve and bloat that come with it. Needless to say what I think of Vista.
And as for longevity of Sun's support policies, don't you people realize that Land Rover has even longer support policies and longer history of reliablity then unix! So maybe all you linux people should switch your servers to 'Pinkies'. Oh, what's that complaining I hear? It doesn't run the software you want to use! Well tought shit, get with the dogma, loosers!
www.tribalnetworks.org - helping tribal people around the world to own their own means of high-tech communications
"The company has fairly strict policies defining when it stops supporting older products. In the case of Windows 2000, the end of what Microsoft calls "mainstream support" came in June 2005."
Since when did MS support any OS? I mean if I report a bug in Windows XP it won't be fixed. MS help desk will just tell me that's a "known issue", or they won't even admit the bug exists. So, basically I have the same level of support in Win 2000 as any other version.
All you need to do is avoid using MS products ( I mean IE, WMP, Messanger, Outlook, etc.) and you can continue to use Windows 2000 without any fear. Security updates will continue for the non-MS versions of those programs.
That said, 2.6 is a pretty old release and we're overdue doing an upgrade on it, but it's inaccurate to say Sun still support it. Added to that, there are a number of Sun Alerts which come out and say that older versions aren't being evaluated for certain bugs.
I phone up the Boston Globe and asked for their advice. they said I should "stop using Windows 2000"
Man, those guys are good!
The simple answer is that MS is not only illegal, but unethical. I do not blame them. But sadly, too many fools make the choice about where a program runs and will back Window only rather than thinking long term.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
But Microsoft does, through their announced product lifecycle, promise to deliver security and other fixes for a period of up to 10 years beyond "general availability" (NOT date of license purchase, a nice loophole penalising customers who buy late in the lifecycle). According to that page, Business customers can expect security updates through 2010. Perhaps they don't classify Spyware as a security issue (would explain a lot).
Al Capone put it best. You can get more upgrades bought with flashy launch hype and a gun, than just flashy launch hype.
you had me at #!
When my mom squeezes me, it means she loves me. :/
I think that's why Microsoft does it too.
I still haven't figured out why Uncle Tom squeezes me though.
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
But MS screws the users. As usual. That's what happens when any one company has so much power to abuse. In the absense of real competition the old versions of their own products are just nuisances that prevent them from ramming new garbage down our throats.
Frankly I'm sick and tired of it. I have installed Ubuntu Linux as a cross-boot on many of my machines. Unfortunately, several things are still making it hard for me to abandon Microsoft completely. One of them is actually Microsoft's DRM being used by a website whose content I like (though the website itself reeks like the proverbial big dog's m0e). (Does anyone have a solid connection inside Comedy Central that they're willing to contact?)
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
INFORMATIVE +5
I still use Windows 2000, and I like it. MS still provides the updates/service packs, etc, for download. Since they're doing that, I'm a naysayer to the accusation.
Personally I suspect that they are still making enough cash on the current releases that they don't have to resort to petty tricks. IF they wanted to pull the plug on the older O.S.'s then they could probably do a much better job than disabling software.
Anyhow, it's better to be unassuming than to assume they would be dishonest. We really don't don't know what their motive was, and, like them or not, we shouldn't just assume their action was dishonest or that it was done for an insidious reason.
The bottom line is: it's a sin to bear false witniss, even if it's against Microsoft.
"Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." -Jesus Christ The Lord's Prayer
Kind of amusing considering that XP is, primarily, a cosmetic upgrade of the shell, plus a few minor changes to drivers. The kernel itself is even only a minor version # change from that of 2k's.
Of software that claims not to work, I know of only that does not do so(a game), but that can be corrected by adding a dll not supplied to win2k users. The dll works just great on a 2k system. Everything else that has claimed not to work was easily installed by forcing the only installer that I've seen check(M$'s) to skip the OS check part of the install, after which, the software works just peachily.
Of course, this is even more amusing if you consider that most companies that I've seen using windows, are still using win2k for all of their desktops, and even for some of their servers. (The servers are usually more mixed though, being anything from 2k to *BSD...)
IOW, it's a simple attempt at yet another money grab by M$. They want to force all of those businesses to upgrade, and they want them to do it to Vista. Typical M$ marketing practice by leveraging their monopoly.
If you ready up a couple levels rather than just flaming, you'd have noticed that he develops for MacOSX.
I came, I saw, She conquered.
How Microsoft is pushing Windows 2000 users to use a non-Windows operating system.
I've been offered free windows XP licenses. I've thought about getting a free windows vista license (it's nice to have friends), but you know what? I just don't feel it's worth it. Right now, I have two computers sitting side by side. One needs to be turned off every couple of days or so or the performance suffers. That said machine also can do a total of 1 thing better (to my knowledge) than the other that machine also makes my life harder when I need to go change the security settings on. It also insists that everything .jpg or .bmp file I view should be in thumbnail mode rather than the lovely detail mode that actually tells me something useful about the file.
What it really comes down to is that I like Windows 2000 and still prefer it to XP and Vista. I don't feel MS is in the wrong to not support and I understand the business decision not to support 2k, but it's not like they ever supported it much so I won't be missing it much. They'll still support xp because it's newer and (sarcasm) so much different from 2k os-wise(/sarcasm) than xp. And I'm looking into Linux as my next os because I don't feel that your OS should require 2 gigs of ram minimum just to run. Oh yeah, there's also the drm root-kit--erhm I mean, drm system put on vista for our protection (wink-wink, nudge-nudge). Because, after all, we only own something if some large media organization say we do.
Yeah, I know this will be flamed at by someone using 1 or more of the 3 following points:
1) You should just shut up!
2) MS is right in what they're doing and they're always right. (insert ritualistic bowing to a bill gates statue here)
3) You're a stupid windows user and you're stuck there because you're stupid.
To which I'll reply with, by that argument so should you, yeah, they're right in not supporting it, I've already stated that and if FFXI can run on Linux, I'd have be there a long time ago.
please... let me sleep... a little more... yay, no longer annonmyous coward.
If Microsoft wants people to upgrade from Windows 2000 to Vista then why doesn't the Vista Upgrade Advisor http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/getready/upg radeadvisor/default.mspx
run under Windows 2000?
First of all, it's really not the OS developers that are at issue here, but the application developers. These are the people who will get the calls when something in Office 2007 breaks on Windows 2000. Even before those calls come in, there is a QA matrix that has to be satisfied. The more supported versions the longer it takes to get new software out the door. Moreover, sometimes those OS version differences cause ugliness in the application code, particularly when some might be classed "cruddy little fixes" for a version that is obsolete.
So there are a lot of reasons for MSFT to not want to do support W2K. If you don't like their business practices, don't buy their product.
Last I checked, Vista Office 2007 didn't install on my Kaypro either. What's the problem? Microsoft isn't making your old software stop working (my O2000 is doing just fine, thanks). Why do people feel microsoft "owes" them something like this? Why aren't we seeing stories about how Vista Office and SQL won't install on win95 or Ubuntu?
...old apps on new Windows. Frankly, companies that put OS checks into the installation package can go screw themselves. Feel free to not support it, but don't go aborting an install just because you don't like the OS's version.
this is like complaining that a movie was released only for dvd, not vhs! Technology changes, and shouldn't have to lag behind for ya.
OS'es need to be treated differently for Copyright than other forms of software, simply because maintaining copyright on such a product is unfair to the consumer. If a company drops support for it then they should lose right of control for the future. The public was sold a secure Operating System that can never be secure. Once support is dropped then people should have the right to pursue reverse engineering of the code to support it themselves.
when you squeeze Win2000 users? Blood?
...it was never QA'd on 2000. Even Microsoft has resource limits.
Loading...
I'm having a great time watching Microsoft self-destruct.
It seems as if they've forgotten who they work for?
Do they really believe that users will continue to take this incredibly shoddy treatment?
It is becoming incredibly obvious to me that Microsoft is trying to leverage their monopoly worse than ever before, with products and the general attitude of the software design towards the user such as Vista.
Then again, what more can you expect from a company who has pretty much 'stolen' their way to the top? The new breed of technologists are True innovators at heart, Microsoft is Marketing Machine now, I think our favorite chair-tossing potty mouth summed it up best with this little clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTkA9L2J2gY - Advertisers, advertisers, advertisers
The more thought I give to Microsoft as a company and it's history, it almost seems as if they were better at business strategy from the beginning than they were at software design, not saying that their software was crap, but it's just the 'flavor' I get. Microsoft never made 'superior' products per say, they just made sure to 'exterminate' or 'assimilate' all existing market players before joining the game. The problem with that is, you can make bullshit and it might seem great...when there's nothing else to compare it to, but now that other options are becoming viable and user-friendly, Microsoft seems to be 'wigging out', because now they actually are beginning to have 'real' competition.
Microsoft made good products (except for Windows ME / Windows XP) right up to the Server 2003 family, everything after that has been candy-coated advertising primed nonsense, including Windows XP. Microsoft's goal is no longer to engineer high quality, functional operating systems and software, but to engineer mediocre quality operating systems and wares that are designed to give advertisers prime access to your eyes, if they pay Microsoft the right price.
To sum it up? They sold out...like really soul-ed out.
But that's ok...
My associates have been researching alternate OS routes and there are many promising options on the horizon. It's all a part of the developing market of software design, it will be interesting to see how the beast we know as Microsoft will mature as time goes on, or if they will crash and burn.
I will not buy Office 2007, I will not buy Vista and I will encourage all of my clients and co-workers to do the same for the stated reasons above. Good riddance to bad rubbish. Vista is going to teach Microsoft a hard lesson, or hang them in my humble opinion.
Yes, we should upgrade sometime soon, but as long as we can buy extra Win2000 support we won't, as it would mean a *serious* investment. And for what? To have the same functionality as we already have? Get real.
!ERR: Signature not found.
You tagged a point.
For SIX years Microsoft disappeared off the deep end getting stuck in Vista development. Therefore it was the Win2000/XP choice, and everyone knew they were cousin OS's.
Now some internal analyst of MS has decided that sales for Vista won't be adequate on ship specs alone (like the repiorted incompatibility with SQL server), so they have to yank away their flagship OS that made them the company they are?
The auto companies learned that you can't artificially obsolete one model in hopes of bullying the consumer to upgrade. The Japanese turned out 15-year cars and nearly wiped Detroit off the map.
Companies have a right to believe that if they spend a thundering amount to build a mission-critical computer system, it should last them a long time if it performs the functions they need. On the heels of this announcement, because of the quick release dates between Win2000 and XP, (and XP itself had some nasty early problems), you know the end-of-life announcement for XP is close. If MS started their support clock by the repair of SP2, they'd have to start their timeline about 2004 which leads to support through about 2010.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Okay. Enough. Stop using the term DRM incorrectly. It does NOT mean 'whatever icky thing I am angry and ranting about at the moment.'
Version tests and blocking in a software installer is NOT DRM. I mean, get a clue, guy.
It makes perfect business sense for Microsoft to produce versions of their software that requires new hardware or hardware upgrades to get acceptable performance. New hardware generally equals new OEM Microsoft licenses. Think about it. To the average consumer if you've got to upgrade your processor, motherboard, RAM and/or hard drive you might as well buy a new system and that means you're probably going to be paying the Microsoft tax. It's very much in Microsoft's interest to require you to upgrade your hardware to run the latest version of their products. It's no accident and by now no one should be naive enough to chalk it up to bad coding. It's done on purpose and for very sound business rea$ons...
"The article notes that other vendors, for example Sun, have more liberal and flexible support policies for legacy products." That's because all of Suns customers are legacy. They have no new customers. Sun will do whatever it takes to keep what it has.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
I don't understand how this is even news.
Anyone who's ever built an install for an Windows environment, be it with the (weak) tool in Visual Studio or InstallShield or whatever has most likely seen an option screen where you can choose to check which OSes the install is for (and will be allowed to be used on.)
A software developer could've just as easily built software that locked out Win2k five or more years ago if they wanted to.
The computer world is in its own accelerated-time parallel universe. Just under 25 years ago (I picked 1983 with the advent of Apple II, Commodore, and Atari) the first wave of new PC's really hit the shelves. The tech types of the time started digging and hacking ... and everyone else was NOT a user at ALL, and called us Nerds. Hollywood noticed.
... Shawn Fanning would be happy to spin them a tune. It was the end of the Alt-Shift-Tab navigation inside of some poorly designed software.
Flash Forward to 1999: With the arrival of Windows 98 as the "semi-stable Win95 service pack", many companies ditched DOS and coaxed their employee armies into being users. Then they discovered that if they could bear to suffer being the Nerd they ridiculed 15 years prior,
It is only EIGHT years after that... and now we are ridiculing users for being passe by using Windows 2000?!
In many other key industries, durability is one of the vital sales points. Anything expected to collapse into unusability gets derided as sloppy, if not a complete outrage. This just proves the computer world is just barely a decade short of maturity. Eventually we'll lose the excitement over milestone OS's, a few standard versions will take hold, and people will settle into the applications they are comfortable with for a long haul.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
I can live without office-2007 and Zune.
If your not a gamer, then W2K is the best OS msft ever developed. Essentially the same kernel as XP, but without the default fisher-price interface. W2K is fast and stable, runs great on my five year old hardware.
I manage to keep my system secure without ms-defender.
Windows timekeeping requires you to run the hardware clock in local time. This means that at daylight savings time, windows will change the hardware clock. If you are one user with a computer which has one operating system, this works fine. When you bring a second OS into the mix - dual boot windows and linux - you will not want both systems to fool with the clock. Also, how do you deal with filesharing on networks which span timezone? How about a laptop when you travel to a new timezone? Yes, you can change the clock, but how does that fix file times?
I find that for my dual boot machines, I set windows to Zulu time - Greenwich mean time *without* daylight savings adjustment. Then I run linux timekeeping to use UTC and present dates in local time.
When on travel and using linux, I can set the TZ variable and get my times in the new local time. It works like a champ. Timekeeping with windows is a loser.
Yoghurt
This just in: Microsoft sucks.
I can't understand the resistance to keeping the OS vaguely up to date. Yes, upgrading can break apps. But the longer you wait, the rougher the inevitable transition will be. All systems and software eventually become obsolete.
Besides, when you run a system that no one else uses, you have no right to whine when something you install doesn't work. It's unreasonable to expect vendors to test new software with hardware/OS configurations that should have been upgraded years ago.
One thing that I've found surprising in this discussion is the number of geeks talking about how Vista looks. Who gives a rip, and what's the point in having your system resources consumed by eye candy? I need my systems to work well, not just look like they're working well.
Cowardly and lazy?
Such a decision from a professional software firm can't be called lazy... companies take decisions based on how much it costs. You can accuse them of being cheap, but not of being lazy.
While cowardly... you might be "brave" to allow installation of certain types of software in an unsupported system: games, media players, p2p apps, a web browser... but allowing the installation of a Malware removal tool in an unsupported system is suicidal. That's the kind of software you don't want uncertain behavior from.
As a Slashdot discussion grows longer, the probability of an analogy involving cars approaches one.
Agreed. I'm no expert on UI design myself, but the environment (widgets, window frames, scrollbars, window backgrounds, etc) should never be flashy or colorful enough to draw your attention away from the content. If the widgets are drawing the user's attention, then they are distracting (and detracting) from the application content. Widgets are functional knobs and buttons, not decoration. Imagine fluorescent buttons and borders on a TV; they would distract you from the show. Grey is unobtrusive.
A customer of mine called and said she was having hell with hotmail using IE6 on W2k..
I went out there and found that they've changed the online Hotmail interface.
It informs you that there is some "new & improved look" to the Hotmail interface.
It hangs up indefinitely but displays a message telling you to click a link if you are
having trouble with the new look. She must click the link for anything at all to happen,
it then gives her a Hotmail screen but informs her that she is now in "reduced functionality mode"
and that not all features will be available.
"But it works on my home computer!" and I query her, "Ah, but I'll bet it's running Windows XP, right?"
"Yes" she tells me.
So I then go to the microsoft site and check for any win2k updates that may help with this.
I find none are available. So then I attempt to track down IE7 for win2k.
Nope. According to the M$ website IE7 is available for windows XP and up.
A few minutes more of research and I find that IE7 will not now nor ever be available for Windows 2000.
Another machine in that office (set to do automatic M$ updates) is running Office 2003. Over the past several months M$ Word has become almost unusable. The woman at that machine opens online email from Yahoo then uses copy & paste, she copies the text from an online message in an IE6 window then tries to paste it into a M$ Word blank document.
Word just hangs up for very long periods, sometimes 15 minutes, sometimes Word crashes. Most of the time she just brings up task manager and kills Word then re-tries it over and over until it works.
It always worked fine until about 6 months ago. The copy of Office was pre-installed by Dell.
How much you wanna bet they sabotaged it during an "update" to cause frustration and make the customer seek a solution which of course will be a shiny, brand new package of Office 2007 ?? Eh?? No way to PROVE it, but...
Cha-ching for M$!! There are several win2k machines in that office and they all use Hotmail.
I will guarantee you that over the next 12 months that they will strangle everything else off, slowly.
Win2k and below will be choked off at an insane pace, XP will be choked off a little slower but it will still happen none the less.
I want to also note that the Linux developers are following suit.
I use Suse 10.0 on my primary work horse. I've noticed support and focus has wanned.
Everyone is all gung-ho on 10.2 (which I have no intentions of using) and developers are putting all their effort on the current release. 10.0 has been moved to the back of the bus.
I find that many of the apt repositories have been abandoned or moved and I'm having trouble
with dependencies thus making upgrading a nightmare.
Because of this and the MicroSu$e merger it appears that it's time for me to jump ship and move to
one of the latest ubuntu distros.
M$ isn't the only one pulling this crap off.
The Linux folks do it yearly, M$ does it about every 5 years.
God strike me dead for saying in defense of M$..
Can you tell me how this would constitute a anti-trust lawsuit? They are no longer releasing software for their old system which is technically 3 generations old. You can still find other software packages, and even makes them more viable solution. If anything they are giving other people an advantage. If anything they are just no longer supporting it. Your saying they are creating a global monopoly in what? they are not forcing people to use vista and xp because some of their new software doesn't work on it, its because its not supported and they don't want to.
I've been using W2K since I got it on a MSDN CD many years ago. It's a fantastic desktop OS that does everything I want it to do. I liked Windows 95/98 and was reluctant to switch. What eventually sold me was (at the time) I did some software development on Windows and the W2K platform was significantly more stable than W95/98. Since then, though, I have skipped Windows ME (yuck), XP (DRM), and Vista (ultra-DRM). The #1 reason I have not upgraded is I build my own PCs, and do not want to buy an XP license when changing hardware could invalidate it. I don't want XP, or Vista, and I don't want to buy a new PC - I use my PC as a terminal emulator and VNC client! Other than that, I use Paint Shop Pro, a few MP3 utilities, Delphi 5 for one legacy appy, and nothing that is all that taxing. My W2K is behind a firewall, so I don't care too much about security updates since I don't install commercial software (I seriously dislike the Corel version of Paint Shop Pro and stick with v 9) or spyware. Something like FireFox might have a security bug, but that doesn't affect the OS. Microsoft's biggest problem right now is that they got it right with W2K. It's fantastic. Why would I want to "upgrade" to some DRM thing that will make my system unusable if I change the hardware? Plus, there have been no substantial changes in the OS in 7 years - maybe on the enterprise level, remote admin and patching and stuff, but not for individuals. With W2K getting old, I'm looking at migrating totally off of Microsoft software and moving to Linux.
I do web application development, and have been using Windows 2000 for testing the apps against that most excellent (hah) of Microsoft products, Internet Explorer. It's the only reason I use Windows on a regular basis. Now IE7 is out and about however, it looks like I'll have to take the plunge, probably into the wonderful world of XP SP2.
I have an old P3 866MHz 256MB RAM computer sitting in my room that surprisingly ran even WMV HD videos fairly well, and anything lower than that at full speed in WMP10. Since I upgraded to WMP11, any video I play in that beast, even tiny ones like 320x240 videos, run really ridiculously choppy and slow.
Mod me down if you want but Apple has been doing this for years.
I should know, I've been a Mac user for 12 years.
Slashdot = -1 Redundant, Asperger, kdawson FUD, Libertarian, and Linux
While the /. crowd is busy complaining about windows, why no issue with Apple's rampant OS updating. At least you can still buy hardware (and upgrades) for your W2K systems. How about the users who have perfectly good Mac OS 9 applications. They are really out of luck. Apple is much less caring about compatibility with their upgrades. It's probably the difference between the consumer "disposable" thinking and the business approach.
Apple pretty much does a $120 dot release each 18 months which frequently breaks the UI and some applciations.
Actually, it's pretty good the OS 9 has died...it never even came close to W2K for reliability or usability.
For me it's not all about looks. Pixels might come cheap these days, but the reason why I buy a higher resolution monitor is so I can use those pixels to display more information.
All the candy wrapping is just a waste to me, no matter how good it might look.
Mind the frickin' laser...
but your comparison is right.
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
Microsoft should be destroyed!
"My opinions are my own, and I've got *lots* of them!"
Win2k is genrally regarded as MS best product to date. All my Windows Fanboy friends use it. All Win2k users I know have announced that they'll be moving to Linux once Windows is unmaintainably abandoned and Linux is easyer to handle (which it by now is). Some are considering the move to OS X, but in generall it's the DRM and register/lockin shit MS put's it's customers through that has put off a lot of MS users and was the last nail in the coffin for MS.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Anybody running Windows 2000 should upgrade to Windows Server 2003. Sure, it says "Server" in the name but it works just fine as a desktop OS too. I'm running it on my laptop right now actually. If you want to play games just enable Directdraw and you're all set.
Another nice thing is the GUI is almost just like 2000, you get more modern hardware support and it's still supported by MS, SP2 should be out in the next few months.
Creating software is balancing the requirements that you want to provide against what the abilities of the machine it's going to be put on.
So new version of software expects it'll be installed on faster machine than the last one, so they can shove more features in.
So if I run new version and old version on the same machine, the new version will appear to be slower. Over time you'll PC will get faster and faster and the 'new' product will appear to get snappier and snappier - until the next new version of the software comes out and you'll complain it's slowed down again.
The point of PCs getting faster is now solely so you can run your old apps faster, it's to allow you to use new apps.
This is running on everything from brand new laptops to 64bit athlons and a whole swathe of variations in between.
It just doesn't feel right on anything.
liqbase
I don't know where that guy's "grey is boring" or "black is cool/exciting" crap came from, but there is a very good reason computers have traditionally used a black background. CRTs are like a light bulb. The brighter the colors on your monitor, the more light they emit, the more eyestrain you are going to have. I'm sure that is one of the reasons the US based OSHA was recommending people use what are essentially sunglasses for their monitor. I think dark backgrounds work better.
LCDs are not as bad, but the backlight seems to cause a similar effect. What really sucks is websites and browsers break when I try to set them to a dark background.
I'm not too sure what the problem is with colors on window decorations, as long as they are not too hot. I use sort of flashy gradients on the focused window myself...
Anti-trust laws are designed to prevent separate businesses from getting together to 'fix' prices in the market or work together to squeeze out competition unfairly.
You're thinking of anti-monopoly laws. Yeah, MS may very well be a government sanctioned monopoly, but I can't see how this particular issue has anything to do with MS either colluding with another company (creating a trust) or unfairly competing against other companies (monopoly).
In fact, if anything, MS is hurting itself: by forcing the installed base to upgrade, Microsoft is forcing a choice in OS upon the users and some might not choose to continue buying Microsoft.
And thanks for the trendy-chic attempt at America-bashing. What piece of shit country do YOU live in? Last time I looked, almost every country in the world was facing major domestic and international threats and problems. But I'm sure you've got it all figured out, right?
Message contains 1 attachment: spam.gif
-b.
It's actually not just constrained to court, it applies to anyone, anywhere.
What's more, the definition [of bearing false witness] you provided is not in line with the way it's taught in church:
The definition of BFW is not exhausted on those who say a person did something they KNOW the person didn't do (altough that is definitely part of it),
BFW is ALSO saying that a person did something that you DON'T KNOW they did.
The difference is clear.
If your neighbor thinks you're murdering people, but he doesn't know it, and he starts shouting it everywhere he goes, slandering you, he's bearing false witness.
If you think that Bush is running concentration camps, but you don't know it, and then you start saying he is running camps, as if it were fact, then you're bearing false witness.
With the definition you provided, those sins would not be sins at all. But they are sins, and that's very important [to know], since keeping the 10 Commandments starts with knowing the 10 Commandments, and knowing them means knowing what they mean, not just knowing the words.
"Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." -Jesus Christ The Lord's Prayer
The picture next to the article is quite fitting, because as the Borg put it:
"Resistance is futile. You WILL be assimilated."
The bloat on linux is increasing too -- just not as fast - maybe 50% the rate of MS? I know that current versions of desktop software that was an acceptable, but a tight fit 5 years ago, probably won't run today.
:-|
:=(
Wanna think about bloat? Check out Firefox...my GAWD...can they make it any bigger and slower? It has nice features and is more secure, but it is a pig as well.
Even the base OS has bloated significantly. Sometime in the past year, some rocket scientist kernel jockey decided that including all the procedure symbols (KALLSYMS) was a good idea -- not just by "default" but for everyone not doing embedded system development. I complained and was told to move into the modern world where memory was "cheap".
The linux folks have the same bloat-attitude, they are just further behind the curve.
As for someone assertion that Win2K took only 1Meg/process vs. WinXP taking 5M/process: bull-pucky. When I upgraded the *same* software didn't "magically" take up more memory. This isn't saying the base OS (XP) isn't larger by 50-80%, but that's not what the original poster said.
Of course -- as "usual" MS has made XP significantly slower when measuring XP -- as initially released vs. the current "product". Not only has there been the bloat of hundreds of band-aid patches, but some of those patches have had a noticeable and documented performance impact of 10-20% in some cases (network performance, Office apps). MS never did fix the problems introduced by SP2 -- they were too busy producing their next fiasco: Vista.
Let's hope Vista is the last major OS release from MS for a long time. Maybe they'll have time to actually fix bugs in their current software before leaping to the next.
MS should support Win2000, no matter how old Win2000 is? Do Apple still support Apple II?
"The simple answer is that Apple is not only illegal, but unethical. I do not blame them. But sadly, too many fools make the choice about where a program runs and will back Apple only rather than thinking long term."
You Sir = Tool!
It's the post of the day!
manufacturers fates and deciding not to hold onto the past longer than necessary (constantly move the models and not make a twenty year TV, just a good one for a few years with decent features). I can't say I blame them for jettisoning the past or slowly kicking it down the road. Sun holds on to the past pretty well but is a non-performer otherwise. Yeah they may be rebounding some now, but that is not before open-sourcing the ship and buying the best research they could from outside the company for chips and servers. I think Microsoft is quietly saying now that XP is in its next support phase and Windows 2000 definitely is, it is a dinosaur in some ways, its time to embrace the future and throw off the past. We all could use a little of that anyways from time to time. Maybe they just want them to embrace the future in Microsoft's vision, that is what they are in the business of doing anyway.
However I say this when I still support MS-DOS, 95, 98, 98SE, NT 4 WKS and SRV, and SCO 3.2 and 5. Running on bus networks sometimes and hubs because the equipment can't handle switches without breaking the network. Some of the computers and servers are at least 15 years old.
In a way, MS is trying to get one major customer to upgrade a major customer: The US government which has many computers still on Win2K. The reason the government still uses it is that (1) it doesn't want to upgrade hardware. (2) it has sufficiently tested Win2K. Governments are bureaucacies and they have set procedures to do everything. The question is whether this ploy will work. My two cents.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Waddyamean, default layout? Were you hoping for an alternative to a window, or did you expect to see a start button on the right side of the screen? Obviously, the linux desktop environments use square windows, have buttons lined out to the top-left and can be read from left to right. There are good reasons for that, and it is what (allmost) all GUIs share. However, it is the underneath part that is totally different, and it is that part that "self proclamed" Linux users (hmm, unfriendly are you?) like much better than Windows, and that is because it is often of better quality and design. Of course, you need to look beyond linux screenshots to "get" that.
Win2K was the pinnacle of OS development for Microsoft, as far as I'm concerned. It combined the robustness of NT4 with the media and gaming capabilities of Windows 95 (and really, XP didn't do much to improve on these). It was simple, stable, and functional.
I only moved to XP because I couldn't get support for 2K anymore. There's really no reason to run XP beyond the fact that 2K is unsupported.
+++ATH0
They could say they will not do any testing themselves but receive any support calls (which clients would have paid for mind you, nobody is asking for charity) in order to fix problems.
Most software would run perfectly fine, other software may hit problems with the OS, for which MS would be paid for fixes.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I think it's absolutely fine to have a reduced or no-support policy on a 7 Year old OS. If you don't want new updates or programs, requiring a new OS, at least XP, is not that outrageous to me.
Some people may have the "what about the pain in my ass this causes" response. Well, it's like going to the Dentist. You can put off the visit for a long time, but eventually you're gonna have to go.
"Politicians find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the people."
Last time I checked a XP blue screen, there was a windows 2000 message in there.
I do! :(