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.

Comments

Win2000 rules

[LittleImp]

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.

Re:Win2000 rules

[LiquidCoooled]

Its not just vista.

Every recent MS product has just felt *slow*.
Its like outlook and office in general, the interface looks nice and logical, but it has lost its snappiness.
Actions involving a full page refresh appear like a web page.
Clicking between folders in Outlook leaves the old mail on screen briefly and things just aren't better.

I was evaluating visual studio .net again this week and whilst it might technically do everything it needs to, its slower than VS 6 at most things.
My colleagues think I should live on oldversion.com, but I just don't like the direction MS has taken.

Re:Win2000 rules

[Jugalator]

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

This is strange, because on my test install of Vista, most tasks use less than 5 MB of RAM. :-/
And yes, that's even the total working set, not just the private.

About 30 of 38 use less than 5 MB now.

Maybe MS split up some of their tasks into more processes though, not really sure about this.

Netcraft confirms it: Windows 2000 is dead.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Netcraft confirms it: Windows 2000 is dead.

[Grimbleton]

So how tight is the foil on YOUR head?

Re:Netcraft confirms it: Windows 2000 is dead.

[Kierthos]

Hey, I don't know about you, but when I first got XP, practically the first thing I did was change the GUI back to Windows Classic because I didn't want something that looked like it was designed by the Teletubbies.

Vista can have all the oooh and aaaaah it wants in it's GUI, but guess what? When I eventually "upgrade" to it, I'm turning all that crap off.

Re:Netcraft confirms it: Windows 2000 is dead.

[rubicon7]

Does anybody really want to use an OS that looks like Win95? I said it in 1995, and I'll say it again now: NO.

Re:Netcraft confirms it: Windows 2000 is dead.

[berberine]

I still use Win2k. It's not dead for me. Yes, I want to use it. Everything I run works on it. It's on 24/7 with a reboot every 4-5 weeks. I don't play games on the computer so I don't need the latest, greatest thing. I paid for my license, am not a paranoid weirdo and don't have a problem with my computer looking the way it does instead of some Fisher Price/Playskool, created by a two-year old GUI. I have XP on my laptop. It too has the classic look. When the time comes that, what I do can no longer work on Win2k, I'll be moving to Linux. That, however, may be a long time away since I do now what I did in 1993 with my computer, with the exception of videos. I don't need some fancy aero glass to make me feel better. I just need a machine that works. BTW, my car is 6 years old. I bought it brand new. It works flawlessly, with only minor adjustments from time to time. Should I get with the times and throw it out too?

Re:Netcraft confirms it: Windows 2000 is dead.

[Rick17JJ]

On several occasions, I have recently gone into a couple of local banks and while I was standing in line, I noticed the words "Windows 2000" on their screen savers. I have noticed the same thing at several other business as well. Apparently many businesses that have not felt the need to upgrade.

Re:Netcraft confirms it: Windows 2000 is dead.

[nacturation]

I paid for my license, am not a paranoid weirdo and don't have a problem with my computer looking the way it does instead of some Fisher Price/Playskool, created by a two-year old GUI. I have XP on my laptop. KDE, Gnome, and others have been working hard to replicate your Fischer Price/Playskool created-by-a-two-year-old GUI. So should you find yourself wanting to use Linux, you'll be right at home.

Re:Netcraft confirms it: Windows 2000 is dead.

[tilandal]

90% of computers in the business world don't need anything better then Windows 2000. Heck, Most business computers would be fine running Windows NT. Most PC's in the business world are set up to do basic data entry and retrieval and don't need to do anything else. The Bank teller doesn't need DirectX 10. The call center worker doesn't need an advanced GUI. The Mechanic doesn't need a Quad core CPU. What businesses do need is a reliable long term solution that runs with minimal trouble.

Re:Netcraft confirms it: Windows 2000 is dead.

[ci4]

E&S Glaze OpenGL benchmark is about twice as fast on Vista with classic theme, compared to the default Aero. This is on a reasonable dual Opteron system with 4GB memory and Quadro FX560 graphics card (and yes, build 6000 with the currently available NVidia driver).

The first thing I do on Vista is switch to classic (the second being turn off the side bar forever). I wonder if Microsoft have ever heard that their OS is being used by real people to run CAD/CAM applications... not that they want it, but they are forced to.

Will try the same this week with a FireGL card to see if ATI are better.

Re:Netcraft confirms it: Windows 2000 is dead.

[Silver Sloth]

I can confirm that a major British bank uses nothing older than WinNT on the desktops for the back office. It's a closed network so the security issues are less and there is no driver to upgrade to anything later, indeed, there are plenty of economic drivers to keep the PCs on NT.

Re:Netcraft confirms it: Windows 2000 is dead.

[Haeleth]

with a decent black theme, XP can look pretty awesome. ;) But of course if your interested in being stuck in your gray, boring world, feel free. ;)

Because, of course, black is far more exciting than grey...?

Look, even Apple has been increasing the grey content of OS X steadily since the very start. Now half the applications are brushed metal, which is, uh, kind of grey. And remember the "graphite" theme they introduced after their graphic artist customer base complained that Aqua was too distracting? You know, the one that turns the entire OS grey?

This "grey is for boring people" thing is getting seriously old. Themes are for people who have nothing better to do than play with themes; "dull" colours like grey (and Ubuntu's beige) are for people who are doing interesting things with their computers, and want the interface to get out of the way when they're not interacting with it. Maybe you spend all your time salivating over your awesomely pretty menus and scrollbars, but some of us are too busy enjoying our interesting and fulfilling work to care what the menus look like.

Re:Netcraft confirms it: Windows 2000 is dead.

[sbben]

Hey, I don't know about you, but when I first got XP, practically the first thing I did was change the GUI back to Windows Classic
Most people did.

Windows 2000 was an amazing operating system for its time. As stable as XP, it wasn't as much of a resource hog. It would run quite nicely on 64mb of ram. Yeah, aero looks good in Vista, but when it comes to hardware requirements, it is simply not suitable for many businesses who may have hundreds of computers not quite vista ready. If you like aero and would like to upgrade, that's fine. But locking out w2k users with software that will run fine if not for an explicit OS version check is just unfair. If the software is capable of running on an OS, I expect it to run on that OS. I don't think that is asking too much.

Re:Netcraft confirms it: Windows 2000 is dead.

[UnderDark]

I don't know about you or the GP, but mine is always at, or greater than, 250 psi.

Re:Netcraft confirms it: Windows 2000 is dead.

[The Warlock]

This is what you get for relying on Microsoft for software. Really, anyone should have expected this, and should expect this in the future.

Re:Netcraft confirms it: Windows 2000 is dead.

[Guppy06]

Oh yeah, well my anecdotal evidence is more convincing than your anecdotal evidence!

How about this: a non-negligible number of people changed the UI back to "Windows Classic," and others would if they knew how.

Re:Netcraft confirms it: Windows 2000 is dead.

[swillden]

I find that one of the most hilarious things about Linux. They all hate or don't like Windows but they make their OS look 90% the same as it.

No, "they" don't. Whoever "they" is.

Out of the box, most distros have a GNOME or KDE desktop with a structure that's quite similar to Windows, sure. Why is that? Because that's what most people who are using Linux for the first time are comfortable with. The distros install a default look that's similar to Windows in order to make it familiar.

However, when you take a look at the desktops of more serious Linux users, people who have been using it for a while, they begin to lose their Windows-ness pretty quickly, some in subtle ways, some in very obvious ways. Mine's not as different as the other guy who responded to you, but it gets less and less Windows-like all the time. The equivalent of the start menu disappeared a long time ago, because I never use it. Where the "start" menu was is my pager application, that allows me to pick which of my virtual desktops to use. Next to it is the system tray (a good idea that Windows picked up from Unix UIs), organized so that 'klipper' is nearest the easily-reached corner position. That's the applet that lets me pick which of the last 40 things I cut I want to select for pasting. I have a task bar, but it's configured to work very differently from the Windows version of the same thing.

If you start looking at behavior, it gets even more different. Focus-follows-mouse is a huge difference, and one that nearly all experienced Unix/Linux users prefer. I like single-click activation. It's fairly rare that all of the windows displayed on my screen are actually running on the computer connected to the screen. A large portion of my work is actually done on command lines -- not because I can't do it graphically, but because the CLI is more efficient. My desktop can hold icons, but rarely does (Alt-F2 plus a working /tmp eliminate the majority of reasons people put stuff on their desktop).

The Windows-ish look is just a default put there for people who don't know how they really want it to be. Experienced users typically make heavy modifications, altering the environment so that it works the way they want it to. And I'm sure that some like it to work like Windows does, and that's a perfectly workable option as well.

Finally, I don't hate Windows. I just don't like the way it works, and I can't change it to work the way I want it to. I feel the same way about OS X, though it's more usable (to me) out of the box than Windows is.

Re:Netcraft confirms it: Windows 2000 is dead.

[Lagged2Death]

...locking out w2k users with software that will run fine if not for an explicit OS version check is just unfair. If the software is capable of running on an OS, I expect it to run on that OS. I don't think that is asking too much.

Microsoft faces a monumental testing job for every piece of software they release. If they cut an OS from the lsit of supported configurations, that's a heap of testing they can avoid. It also means they don't have to worry about future updates being compatible with Windows 2000. In short, a smaller set of platforms is cheaper to develop for.

And I say this as a Windows 2000 user myself. Sure, I'd rather that MS continued to fully support 2000 until there's a genuinely superior option, but I think there are non-evil business reasons for ending such support.

Re:Netcraft confirms it: Windows 2000 is dead.

[Goaway]

Themes are for people who think ";)" is punctuation.

Re:Netcraft confirms it: Windows 2000 is dead.

[Anonymous Cowled]

> I don't know about you or the GP, but mine is always at, or greater than, 250 psi.

Whoa, dude - slacken that off a bit - If it's too tight to your head, it just works as a transmitter!!

Ease of system administration

[pe1chl]

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.

Cut the BS

[p0tat03]

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.

Re:Cut the BS

[alexhs]

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, you simply block the installation of the software on the older OS. What's wrong with only showing a dialog box ?

Lots of programs in the win9x era would show a dialog box at installation when you tried to install them on a winnt system : Might not work, unsupported...
Then, it's the user responsability to choose.

Re:Cut the BS

[p0tat03]

Another poster below you also pointed out the same strategy. It is a valid notion, I admit, but considering our software is targeted at average users who may not be technically inclined, I believe ours is the right decision. I believe you are grossly underestimating the intelligence, or dare I suggest, honesty of the average software user.

If you give them the option to install, they will ignore any and all warnings and call you anyway when they run into problems. Worse yet, they will fly off the hook and begin slandering your software to anyone who will listen, and you bet your ass that their version of the story won't contain the fact that they're running on an unsupported OS.

Some won't even understand what the warning means, or some won't even read it - the "OK" button is just too large and tempting to click.

The install/runtime check is more of a preventative motion than anything else. We don't want to present a negative image of our product when know-nothing users decide to run it on unsupported hardware/software and get stuck. We don't want support calls related to this - even listening to them long enough to kick them off the line costs us valuable dollars and cents. We want nothing to do with this possibility - and the number of honest consumers who will legitimately accept the lack of support and run it on an old OS is small enough that we really don't want to open ourselves to that risk. Honestly, if there were a significant number of people still using the OS, we wouldn't drop support for it.

Disclaimer: The above is a personal opinion and in no way represents the views of my employer.

Re:Cut the BS

[Mister Transistor]

Sounds good, but the luser on the tech support line won't know the tech that installed it checked "OK" when it was installed. When that luser happens to be a corporate VP, then the fun starts.

What might work in the shop adequately may not be robust enough for general use. We take OS faults in stride...

Back on topic, I've suspected artificial version lockout on many occasions, stuff that will install on XP but not 2K, even though they are almost identical "under the hood". Seems especially common on high end A/V editing/processing programs. I'm interested that TFA pointed to the Orca editor, that sounds like an quickie way to see just how many of these programs will _actually_ run under win2k.

Windows 2000 works *reasonably* well for me ...

[rubicon7]

... 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)

I walked away from Activation

[Geof]

the only people still stuck on Windows 2000 are paranoid weirdos afraid of Microsoft activation and are probably stealing their licenses anyway

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.

Solaris 2.6 support?

[larien]

Hrm, article is inaccurate:

(Sun) is actually still supporting users of version 2.6. ... the operating system is fully supported through 2007

Not according to Sun's own website where support ended in July. We've actually called up Sun and they refused the call because 2.6 was out of support.

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.

The Boston Globe

[telchine]

I phone up the Boston Globe and asked for their advice. they said I should "stop using Windows 2000"

Man, those guys are good!

So much for the charitable theory

[toby]

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 love me, you really love me !

[Joebert]

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. :/

Article should be entitled...

[QuietLagoon]

How Microsoft is pushing Windows 2000 users to use a non-Windows operating system.

Vista Upgrade Advisor

[almclean]

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?

Abandonware status for OS'es once dropped

[MadRat]

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.

It makes perfect business sense

[Luscious868]

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...

Re:It makes perfect business sense

[Random Destruction]

If microsoft is going out of their way to make everything slow, then why isn't linux SIGNIFICANTLY faster?

Not a troll, I only run linux and hate windows, but I dont see the logic in your statement.

Re:It makes perfect business sense

[The Warlock]

Some distros are significantly faster. The thing about Linux is that it's not one operating system, it's a huge collection of different distributions, each tailored for different needs. Damn Small Linux is going to fill a different niche than Gentoo, which will fill a different nice than Ubuntu or Red Hat, etc. etc.

Linux can use any number of GUIs, or no GUI at all. If you want something significantly faster than Windows, don't use Gnome or KDE, as these are a bit bloated (or "fully-featured", if you want to put it nicely). Use XFCE or IceWM or Fluxbox, instead.

Re:It makes perfect business sense

[CastrTroy]

However, with XP, the OEMs could get away with selling a computer with 256 megs of RAM and a crappy onboard video card. With Vista, this won't suffice. You need good 3D acceleration, and at least 512 megs of RAM, probably more like 1 Gig from what i've read. No more $299 Dell that can actually run the OS.

Re:It makes perfect business sense

[inode_buddha]

"If microsoft is going out of their way to make everything slow, then why isn't linux SIGNIFICANTLY faster?"

It is. This 4-year-old P3 (Fedora Core 6) box is easily keeping up with my dad's brand-new Dell/XP setup. Both boxes are fully loaded with *everything*, both hardware and software. If I want to make it really snappy, I can do some re-compiling and just install only the stuff I use. I doubt that most MS users can say that.

Re:It makes perfect business sense

[Spikeles]

I know about JIT, and if you did, you'd also know that your statement isn't quite true. It is almost never compiled prior to the FIRST execution, usually it has to run though the same code about 2000+ times before it gets compiled. Before those 2000 times are up though it is running as byte code ( which is the whole point of the HotSpot compiler). I played with the Java VM flags once and told it to compile every method on it's first run and you know what happened? It sat there for 5minutes compiling before it even brought up the main window. Every Java program you run is being run as mixed byte-interpreted and JIT compiled code. As for .NET i must confess that i don't have much experience with it and was just blindly comparing it with Java, i'll go do some more research before i make such comments again.

Re: Evolution of the OrdinaryUser(OU)

[TaoPhoenix]

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.

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, ... 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.

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.