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.
So how tight is the foil on YOUR head?
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?
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.
I phone up the Boston Globe and asked for their advice. they said I should "stop using Windows 2000"
Man, those guys are good!
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.