http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-from-the-news-post-17576705 en Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:21:20 EDT Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:21:20 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-IE-vs-FF-17617192 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-IE-vs-FF-17617192 Wed, 10 Jan 2007 17:35:01 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-from-the-news-post-17581902
If there was something compelling in XP or Vista perhaps MS wouldn't have to resort to these tactics.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-from-the-news-post-17581902 Fri, 05 Jan 2007 06:39:34 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-from-the-news-post-17581465 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-from-the-news-post-17581465 Fri, 05 Jan 2007 01:56:10 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-IE-vs-FF-17581387 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-IE-vs-FF-17581387 Fri, 05 Jan 2007 01:30:33 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-from-the-news-post-17580016 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.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.
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! :p
--
'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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-from-the-news-post-17580016 Thu, 04 Jan 2007 21:12:34 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-IE-vs-FF-17579228 --
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-IE-vs-FF-17579228 Thu, 04 Jan 2007 18:45:10 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-from-the-news-post-17578581
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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-from-the-news-post-17578581 Thu, 04 Jan 2007 16:58:58 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-from-the-news-post-17577940 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...~~

]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-from-the-news-post-17577940 Thu, 04 Jan 2007 15:19:11 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-from-the-news-post-17577720 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... ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-from-the-news-post-17577720 Thu, 04 Jan 2007 14:44:15 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-from-the-news-post-17577556 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-from-the-news-post-17577556 Thu, 04 Jan 2007 14:18:19 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-from-the-news-post-17577465
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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-from-the-news-post-17577465 Thu, 04 Jan 2007 14:03:47 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-IE-vs-FF-17577281 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-IE-vs-FF-17577281 Thu, 04 Jan 2007 13:29:01 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-IE-vs-FF-17577161 said by kyramilan

The reason I plunked down $1599 for the new laptop: VISTA! :o
:

Ouch... The $199 Acer laptop I picked up at Microcenter came with a free Vista upgrade voucher. Didn't know it was worth that much....]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-IE-vs-FF-17577161 Thu, 04 Jan 2007 13:11:30 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-IE-vs-FF-17577152 --
"WHEN THE LAUGH TRACK STARTS THEN THE FUN STARTS!"]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-IE-vs-FF-17577152 Thu, 04 Jan 2007 13:09:58 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-from-the-news-post-17576929
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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-from-the-news-post-17576929 Thu, 04 Jan 2007 12:34:27 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/from-the-news-post-17576903
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!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/from-the-news-post-17576903 Thu, 04 Jan 2007 12:29:19 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-IE-vs-FF-17576830
Even COX HSI gives you FREE McAfee Virus, Spam, Adware, Firewall software.

Microsoft can't even put out an OS that doesn't require 500 updates.

My new laptop had XP Pro and needed 54 updates! 54! Ummm, couldn't they put all that crap on the computer BUILT on December 26th??? Oh, I'm sure HP is to blame. HP did have 2 updates to its own software from June 2006. :uhh:

The reason I plunked down $1599 for the new laptop: VISTA! :o]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-IE-vs-FF-17576830 Thu, 04 Jan 2007 12:15:55 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/IE-vs-FF-17576705 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/IE-vs-FF-17576705 Thu, 04 Jan 2007 11:49:43 EDT