  MaxoYour tax dollars at work.Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL | IE vs FF This is just like when websites won't let non IE users in, even though their site will run perfectly well on other browsers. | |
|
 | | | Re: IE vs FF Norton 2006 and Norton 2007 deals with Spyware, Adware, Worms, etc.
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. 
The reason I plunked down $1599 for the new laptop: VISTA!  | |
|
| |  intellerSociopaths always win.
join:2003-12-08
Tulsa, OK | Re: IE vs FF um, you dont get Mcafee for free. You get their super junky AV for free.
--
"WHEN THE LAUGH TRACK STARTS THEN THE FUN STARTS!" | |
|
| | cahiattPremium
join:2001-03-21
Smyrna, GA
1 edit | said by kyramilan 
The reason I plunked down $1599 for the new laptop: VISTA!
:
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.... | |
|
| | | | | Re: IE vs FF I have a Sony Laptop. | |
|
| | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | |  TrelGood EveningPremium
join:2002-10-08
Hillsborough, NJ | Re: IE vs FF I feel for you. | |
|
|
2 edits | 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! | |
|
| |  SabreDi relung hatiku bernyanyi bidadari
join:2005-05-17 | Re: from the news post... 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. | |
|
| | | | | Re: from the news post... 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. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: from the news post... 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... | |
|
| | | | |  sivranBack to Opera againPremium
join:2003-09-15
Arlington, TX
kudos:1 | Re: from the news post... Because it costs money to even tell them, "not supported." That's why. | |
|
| | | |  ColorBASIC8-bit FunPremium
join:2006-12-29
Corona, CA | 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. | |
|
| | | | [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. | |
|
| |  La LunaSurvived AshrafulPremium
join:2001-07-12
Warwick, NY
kudos:3
 ·Vonage
 ·Optimum Online
| 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...~~
| |
|
| | |  KylemaulLovin' My FirefoxPremium
join:2001-03-30
North Port, FL | Re: from the news post... 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. | |
|
| | | ColorBASIC8-bit FunPremium
join:2006-12-29
Corona, CA | 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. | |
|
| KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | Re: IE vs FF this is like DX10 not working with XP, on the code side they are 100% compatible however MS has big plans for DX10(such as the PC release of Halo 2) which they know will drive sales of Vista.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
|  GMF
@dewr.gov.au | I wonder if the car manufacturers are looking at this. GM's next car could automatically stop working following release of a new model. What a wonderful idea... | |
|
Stumbles
join:2002-12-17
Port Saint Lucie, FL | Boo hoo Well the answer is simple. Cough up yer clams to by a new machine, cause the one you got now surely can't, that can run Vista. See, now wasn't that easy. | |
|
|  en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Re: Boo hoo Don't forget, you also can't upgrade IE to version 7 with Windows 2000 
Oh well, at least I can still run Linux off the other drive. | |
|
| MaxoYour tax dollars at work.Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL | Or recognize that the one you have works just fine, and stay put. | |
|
|  HallPremium,MVM
join:2000-04-28
Dayton, OH
kudos:1 | said by Stumbles:Well the answer is simple. Cough up yer clams to by a new machine, cause the one you got now surely can't, that can run Vista. See, now wasn't that easy. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Why should people upgrade to Vista ?? Oh, I forgot, because it's released. Well, welcome to the real world, kid... The average home PC user doesn't upgrade their OS. They run the original one their PC came with 'til they buy a new PC and very few people buy new PCs every two years or so.
--
This is my .sig. I like it bold. | |
|
|  44402812Hack The PlanetPremium
join:2006-08-28
Plattsburgh, NY | said by Stumbles:Well the answer is simple. Cough up yer clams to by a new machine, cause the one you got now surely can't, that can run Vista. See, now wasn't that easy. Sure I have 500.00 but WTF would I want to spend on a POS OS! | |
|
|
| | Yeah yeah "UPGRADE OR DIE!" That is the Microsoft way. | |
|
| patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | Re: Yeah yeah said by Trinijoy:"UPGRADE OR DIE!" That is the Microsoft way. If a OS never needed to be replaced, then would MS have any profit? Anyways, when will MS just stop these games and sell OSes by "* year long licenses"? | |
|
| | bmn? ? ?Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus | Re: Yeah yeah said by patcat88:Anyways, when will MS just stop these games and sell OSes by "* year long licenses"? I don't know when they will start going that route, but I know exactly when people will stop using their software...
--
Prove it... | |
|
| | Typical MS It's Microsoft, what do you expect? They want to just force you to upgrade rather than provide a working solution.
Don't even get me started on he fiasco they are handing us with the DST issue that still run Win2k. That is - F-off. They basically are only bothering to release a patch for 2k3 and XP. The rest need to be done manually with tool and a registry hack....
The largest software company in the world can't be bother to patch a widely used OS on a widely-known about issue.
Upgrading at this point is not an option.
I'll be cheering the day MS becomes irrelevant. Think it won't happen? Just ask Lotus, Novell, Borland, IBM, etc. All once dominant players, now pretty much irrelevant. | |
|
| rjbasye
join:2000-05-24
Dry Ridge, KY
2 edits | Re: Hack It There is a way to hack the install file using a program called Orca which allows you to edit the .msi file. You have to change one line of code and it will then install and run on Windows 2000 fine. | |
|
| | | Re: Typical MS I have two issues here.
One: How can you expect software that is nearing 8-9 years in age to continue to be supported, when hardware is turning over at months pace? Would you continue to use a PC from 1999? Possible, but quite unlikely.
Apples and Oranges, yes. But I'm sure you get my point.
Two: Maybe this uproar is more an issue of failure to support / provide an application to Windows 2000 users that XP users have. Either way, the real issue is this application is (for lack of better terminology) garbage.
In comparison to some of the high-rated free adware / spyware removal / prevention tools on the 'net, Windows Defender fails in comparison. The definitions are rarely updated. It does not capture items that others pick up. It has a history of conflicts with other common applications.
I guess my point is.. this issue is a non-issue. | |
|
| | amungusPremium
join:2004-11-26
America Reviews:
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: Typical MS Almost a non issue... agreed, but it's still a shady move.
I tried defender on 2k once, and it just flat out sucked.
Had trouble even getting the thing to install right, and I also agree that the overall usefulness was nowhere nearly as good as the 1st anti-spyware app that they ported from Giant.
Don't even use defender on XP, I could care less as there are other far more useful programs out there. | |
|
| | | | quote:
One: How can you expect software that is nearing 8-9 years in age to continue to be supported, when hardware is turning over at months pace? Would you continue to use a PC from 1999? Possible, but quite unlikely.
Considering that OS is still widely used by organizations for SERVERS and is still a fine OS for running certain things, MS has an obligation to provide support for it. Other vendors (IBM, HP, etc) will support OS's far older than this.
And the fact is that most of 2k3/XP comes from the 2k codebase, so for something as trivial as DST there should be little issue in supporting it. And if Defender ran OK on it all through beta testing, there is no reason to cripple it now.
quote:
Macs aren't much better. New OS. New Mac required.
Bzzt, wrong. Guess that's why I have Tiger (latest Mac OS) running on:
1) Vintage 2002 iMac (the iLamp), G4/800, 512MB. Upgraded from 10.1 -> 10.2 -> 10.3 -> 10.4. My Dad is using this today.
2) Vintage 2002 iBook, G3/800, 640MB. Upgraded from 10.1 -> 10.2 -> 10.3 -> 10.4. The machine works, but like most iBooks from that vintage it has the GPU issue.
3) Vintage 2005 Powerbook, originally shipped with 10.3, upgraded to 10.4.
So, yes Virginia, you can upgrade a Mac | |
|
| | | | | Re: Typical MS I have Tiger running on my circa 2001 G4 Cube.
--
Retaking our country one election at a time. | |
|
| | | Dissman
join:2001-04-26
Alexandria, VA | I put 10.2 Panther on a G3.
It worked, runs slower than molasses, but it worked. | |
|
| | | XP was fine. Why come up with Vista? $5 billion for Vista and it's full of holes. Sounds like a Government project.
Macs aren't much better. New OS. New Mac required.
Microsoft
Thinking Behind.
Apple
iPods are KING! | |
|
| | amungusPremium
join:2004-11-26
America | Re: Typical MS XP is fine...
So is 2000 for that matter. Windows 2000 still runs great after all these years, and has takes up far less room on a hard drive. | |
|
| |  N3OGHYo Soy Col. "Bat" GuanoPremium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
kudos:1 | said by kyramilan:XP was fine. Why come up with Vista? $5 billion for Vista and it's full of holes. Sounds like a Government project. Hey, I'm a government employee. If you don't watch, I'm gonna take that being compared to Microsoft personally. 
--
Never ask what sort of a computer a guy drives. If he's a Mac user, he'll tell you. If not, why embarrass him? -Tom Clancy | |
|
intellerSociopaths always win.
join:2003-12-08
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
 ·Cingular Wireless
| MS should push upgrade incentives I think if you look back you will see that XP adoption didnt really take hold until that was the only OS vendors offered. I think MS needs to work with vendors like hp and dell to offer upgrades for older PCs that are Vista capable but don't have a vista ready sticker. My hp laptop from 2 years ago will run vista just fine, but I dont get any sweet upgrade deals, so I wont be taking the jump. XP with IE7, WMP11, defender, and one care give you a large part of what vista will deliver.
--
"WHEN THE LAUGH TRACK STARTS THEN THE FUN STARTS!" | |
|
 viperpa33sWhy Me?Premium
join:2002-12-20
Bradenton, FL | Microsoft analogy fails once again Switch to another anti spyware program and don't give Microsoft anymore of your money. Is Defender that good that Microsoft expects people to spend the $200 to upgrade to a new OS just to use it? It's easier and cheaper just to switch anti spyware programs.
People who are still using Windows 2000 are content with what they got. They have no need for XP or Vista. If Defender is able to run on Windows 2000, then let the masses use it. Microsoft analogy fails once again. Not caring what the users want, only what Microsoft thinks users should have. | |
|
scooper
join:2000-07-11
Youngsville, NC
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·Embarq Now Centu..
| I'm happy with Win 2K... I'm still using Windows 2000 on MY Vista capable (built from Tiger Direct parts) because I haven't bothered to buy a copy of XP yet. I don't really see what I'm missing - except not being able to put an HDTV tuner card in my PC - that one is kind of a craw right now... | |
|
|
See 8 replies to this post |
|
| | ALL software companies should be forced to support their... ...products with security and Bug fixes for a minimum of 10 years just like auto manufacturers are required to provide replacement parts for a minimum of 15-20 years.
For those who don't already know, no one needs a new O/S every 2-3-5 years. In fact few people really need any software upgrades at all other than repair of the shitty code that was originally sold to consumers as a quality, secure, defect free product - which most are not.
MICROSUCKS is scum and has been convicted countless times for violation of law. If there is any possible way for Bill Gates to defraud consumers out of a few hundred BILLION more per year, you know he will. | |
|
| | About the anti-spyware jazz I don't bother to use anti spyware/virus programs. But I do have a lot of older operating systems.
I think it would be hard to upgrade my 200MHz PPro to Vista when it barely runs 2k. Now, I use the PPro because it can hold 8 hard drives, unlike my new Dell Dimension. So there is reason to using older hardware and software. I think Microsoft should provide software if it is capable of running on older OSs without much tuning, but if its going to require some of the advanced functions that Vista (may) have, ok then. Don't take it away from 2k just because the beta dried up.
Do you think maybe the entire beta, they recieved bug reports mostly from 2k? They might have wanted to at least try it on 2k and then close it out due to bugginess. | |
|
|  DavidNow accepting new patientsPremium,VIP
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL
kudos:70 | Re: About the anti-spyware jazz Well I am glad to see my referenced link was posted. I still think it's a little shafty of MS to think that someone could not have broken that so easily with ORCA. This just means MS is using excuses and cheap tricks to get money. | |
|
| | | said by dmacburry:I don't bother to use anti spyware/virus programs. But I do have a lot of older operating systems. You realize your system is probably eaten alive by Spyware, right? go dl AdAware and run it, I bet you will be surprised
-Drakk ))) | |
|
 TomekPremium
join:2002-01-30
Valley Stream, NY | Preview It is interesting tactic, when you think about it. MS releases software in BETA stage and makes it available to the masses. First it will help work out some generic cross-OS bugs, but also shows user a software or upgrade that he will get used to. Then terminate BETA and take that product away. To get it back, user MUST upgrade. I bet it will have similar effect on MS Office. I wouldn't be surprised it will have lots of nice features that will be XP-only and the best ones, Vista exclusive.
--
Semper Fi | |
|
| | bollocks! One word: superantispyware
It's free. (Pro user purchase for $30)
It's more effective (actually found cookies that Defender ignored)
It's free! (yeah, I repeated)
M$=poopie. | |
|
KylemaulLovin' My FirefoxPremium
join:2001-03-30
North Port, FL | Mmmm This Cheese Is Of A Fine Vintage As a DieHard Win2K user, I'm personally glad to see M$ abandon 2K when it comes to releasing crappy cycle eaters for the clueless surfers. | |
|
|
| |  Microsoft Software
If Microsoft said "Windows 2003 Server" will be supported for 10 years then I would upgrade. But for now I know my Windows 2000 server very well and I'm supporting it myself! | |
|
| | Reminds me of Zone Labs This reminds me of Zone Labs ending support for Windows98SE, their reason was quite literally
"Microsoft is stopping support for Windows 98SE/ME so we are, too"
-Drakk ))) | |
|
|
|
·
Upgrade
