jc1350
join:2004-09-23
2 edits | reply to Maxo
from the news post...
"But they shouldn't complain when MS moves on to other OS's. It's called progress." Microsoft had announced Windows 2000 would no longer be supported two months ago"
There's a difference between "no longer supporting an OS" and purposely BREAKING it or the software that runs on it.
If there was a technical reason why it wouldn't run, then it'd be no big deal, but all it does is check to see what OS is running then it refuses to run. I call shenanigans! |
|
Sabre
Di relung hatiku bernyanyi bidadari
join:2005-05-17
 ·Comcast
| That's a good point.
To me, "unsupported" means "We'll release stuff. We won't test it on this platform, we don't know if it'll work, we didn't even think about this platform, because it's unsupported. We have no idea WTF it will do to this *unsupported* platform. Play with it however you want, but don't come crying to us if it messes your system up, because as we told you, we don't support that platform any more. You're on your own, friends."
This seems more like "let's just set a kill bit so it can't possibly run on this old system."
Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but it seems to me that Microsoft is not paying attention to PR here. Upgrading to a newer OS may not be a bad idea, but this is not a wise way of encouraging people to do it. (No, I don't have any better ideas. But those who do are free to contribute them.)
--
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. |
|
rgillis70
Premium
join:2002-12-30
Herndon, VA
| But if...and obviously this is not that case...but if they allowed it to run and simply said we do not support - how many calls and complaints would they get when the people call over an issue and they are told, that does not work, upgrade.
They got grief over stopping support for Win 98. An more grief over 2000. Some want support for life for free.
Personally, there is rarely a way not to make stuff run when it is said not to. Heck we even got FPSE2000 to install and run on a 2003 Server, though MS said it is utterly impossible to do so. |
|
stomp357
join:2003-04-13
Lake Charles, LA
·Suddenlink
| reply to jc1350
[BQUOTE=jc1350
If there was a technical reason why it wouldn't run, then it'd be no big deal, but all it does is check to see what OS is running then it refuses to run. I call shenanigans!
[/BQUOTE
SHENANIGANS! Now pull out the billy-clubs, and wack-a MS Execs. knees. |
|
Pirate515
Premium
join:2001-01-22
Brooklyn, NY
| reply to rgillis70
said by rgillis70  :But if...and obviously this is not that case...but if they allowed it to run and simply said "we do not support" - how many calls and complaints would they get when the people call over an issue and they are told, that does not work, upgrade. They got grief over stopping support for Win 98. And more grief over 2000. Some want support for life for free. If that's the case, what's the big deal with turning those callers down politely? It's simply a matter of repeating verbally what is already written in requirements section. IMO, ignorant users who don't bother reading documentation before downloading and using software will end up calling Microsoft b*tching and complaining either way: whether the software refuses to install or whether it actually installs, but then does not work properly. In either case, Microsoft will tell them off in the following fashion: according to documentation that we put out, we have specifically stated that your OS is not supported, so p*ss off.
I personally think that Microsoft chose the lesser of two evils so that they won't be getting any heat from those who have an urge to install it on Win2000 box and end up hosing their OS. That way, to those who call and complain about the fact that the software won't install, Microsoft will just answer: "See, we are the nice guys here. Since we wrote this software in a way that it will only install on the OS's that are officially supported, we are looking out for your best interest by preventing you from installing it and bringing your OS down. Now, can we interest you in a copy of WinXP?" (trying to make some money while they are at it won't hurt).
--
Ask me no questions, and I'll tell you no lies...
A MESSAGE to the RIAA and the MPAA: You shouldn't wound what you can't kill... |
|
La Luna
Surviving Ashraful
Premium
join:2001-07-12
Warwick, NY
clubs:
·Optimum Online
 ·Vonage
| reply to jc1350
said by jc1350 :"But they shouldn't complain when MS moves on to other OS's. It's called progress." Microsoft had announced Windows 2000 would no longer be supported two months ago" There's a difference between "no longer supporting an OS" and purposely BREAKING it or the software that runs on it. If there was a technical reason why it wouldn't run, then it'd be no big deal, but all it does is check to see what OS is running then it refuses to run. I call shenanigans! Of course, that comment was take out of context here....it was addressed to the OP saying why he didn't want to upgrade and another off topic complaint that this is a "MS tactic to force people to upgrade". If people are going to quote, they should make it clear what the quote was about.
The OP in that thread was using the old beta version of WD, which expired, and then tried to install the final version. The final version is NOT supported on W2K:
Windows Defender: System requirements
Published: February 13, 2006 | Updated: October 23, 2006
Minimum system requirements for Windows Defender:
Personal computer with an Intel Pentium 233-megahertz (MHz) or higher processor; Pentium III recommended.
Operating system: Windows XP Service Pack 2 or later, or Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 1 or later.....
»www.microsoft.com/athome/securit···req.mspx
Just because old betas "worked on W2K" was no guarantee that the final would work.
As a way has been figured out to force it to work, the entire discussion is a moot point anyway and hardly seems "news" worthy.
--
~~Well, I think you're crazy, I think you're crazy, I think you're crazy, just like me...~~
|
|
ColorBASIC
8-bit Fun
Premium
join:2006-12-29
Corona, CA
| reply to rgillis70
Or instead of having the disabling function give it a popup saying that it hasn't been tested and is not supported for Windows 2000.
As others have mentioned...this isn't lack of "support" it's Microsoft ACTIVELY OBSOLETING an older OS in hopes of forcing users to upgrade when it is obviously not necessary. |
|
Kylemaul
Lovin' My Firefox 1.5.x
Premium
join:2001-03-30
North Port, FL
clubs:
 ·Verizon FIOS
| reply to La Luna
said by La Luna :Windows Defender: System requirements Published: February 13, 2006 | Updated: October 23, 2006 Minimum system requirements for Windows Defender: Personal computer with an Intel Pentium 233-megahertz (MHz) or higher processor; Pentium III recommended. Operating system: Windows XP Service Pack 2 or later, or Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 1 or later..... » www.microsoft.com/athome/securit···req.mspxJust because old betas "worked on W2K" was no guarantee that the final would work. As a way has been figured out to force it to work, the entire discussion is a moot point anyway and hardly seems "news" worthy. LOL!
A proggy written for a machine that can only handle Win98 but needs to run XP. (I'm too lazy to look up the machine requirements for XP, but I'm willing to bet they're higher standards than those you listed for WD)
News worthy: one person's prattle is another's aria! 
--
'The tighter the RIAA squeezes their grip, the more stars and systems will slip through their fingers.'
Member of the Official AnarchistTelecommunications(&)Terrorists bashing club. |
|
sivran
Long Live The Suite
Premium
join:2003-09-15
Arlington, TX
clubs: | reply to Pirate515
Because it costs money to even tell them, "not supported." That's why. |
|
ColorBASIC
8-bit Fun
Premium
join:2006-12-29
Corona, CA
| reply to La Luna
It's newsworthy that Microsoft is FORCING obsolescence of a great and still relevant operating system. They don't want to support it, fine. They don't want to write updates, fine. But adding an OS lockout that is obviously unnecessary simply to prod users to XP or Vista is lame.
If there was something compelling in XP or Vista perhaps MS wouldn't have to resort to these tactics. |
|
