Microsoft Turns Up The Heat On Windows 2000 Users

With the recent release of Microsoft's newest potential cash cows, Windows Vista and Office 2007, the company is expecting a wave of upgrades from users seeking the latest functionality. But what if you're not looking for new bells and whistles? What if you want to keep your old operating systems, such as Windows 2000, running as long as possible? Microsoft isn't making it easy for you. Office 2007 and the software for the company's much-hyped Zune music player won't install on Windows 2000. As other new products emerge from Microsoft in 2007 and beyond, more and more of them are likely to leave Windows 2000 out of the party.

Which of these installation restrictions are caused by a real lack of capabilities in Windows 2000, however? Are any of them merely a "squeeze play" by Microsoft to convince buyers that it's necessary to immediately upgrade all PCs to Vista and all servers to Server 2003 or the forthcoming Longhorn Server?

One example of this conundrum is Microsoft's Windows Defender program. This antispyware program can be downloaded for free, but it will only install on Windows XP, Server 2003, and higher. The application won't install on Windows 2000, according to Microsoft's own product documentation. Users have reported, however, that this is simply an artificial rule built into the Installshield package that copies Defender files to disk.

View: Full Article @ InformationWeek

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Sources: eBay to Close Chinese Site

Next Story

Open-Source Group Razzes Microsoft With 'BadVista.org'

37 Comments

View more comments

And yet Windows XP prior to SP2 shared many of the same features that Windows 2000 had, yet XP will still be supported for the time being.

Quote - stifler6478 said @ #1
Uhh...ok, it's Windows 2000. I know it's a great OS and all, but seriously, it's just about 2007. I think you've held out long enough. You're almost guaranteed not to get just a 'bells and whistles' upgrade.

-Spenser

So what? While Zune may not be used much in the workplace, and Office 2007 probably won't install on the PC running 2000 anyway, removing the choice to better security with Defender is heinous. Businesses don't just up and upgrade whenever something new comes out, and I shouldn't have to make that happen in my company when the beta ran fine on 2000.

if they release it for Win2k they also have to support it for win2k, wich is a lot of extra and unecessary work and resources.

You're right, but this is a case where programs won't install on Win2k simply because Microsoft put in a check to prevent software from installing on Win2k. Removing that check makes the software work anyway. The best example of this is Windows Defender. They aren't leaving out Win2k because of expense and development issues, they are leaving it out to push people to buy Vista.

So, which is it? Does Microsoft force people to upgrade? I am told they don't. I guess "encouraged" is a better euphemism for this, isn't it?

They encourage you by forcing you Nah...

Anyway, I'm sure that it's meant to push you upgrade, or inconvenience you more. But to be honest, it is nearly 2007.

Windows 2000 w/ SP4 is a mature and solid operating system. I have moved on to XP and 2003 x64 versions for my modern workstations but still use my 2000 licenses on old PIII systems serving as print and file servers in my small business and home environment. Technically, 2000's kernel operates much like XP so there should be little reason why software designed for XP/2003 should not be backwards compatible to 2000... I don't care if it was seven years ago... I paid $250 for an 2000 Professional license which had no time limitations on it when I bought it. I don't think Microsoft should be forcing users to upgrade with these false requirements.

Just so there's no confusion... Although there is no "time limit" on 2000, all Microsoft products are subject to a product lifecycle which means Microsoft will eventually stop supporting it.

Also, Microsoft isn't forcing anyone to do anything. If you're happy with 2000 then surely you are happy with Office 2000, XP, 2003? No one is compelling you to upgrade your Office suite are they??

Quote - Budious said @ #9
I don't care if it was seven years ago... I paid $250 for an 2000 Professional license which had no time limitations on it when I bought it.

You do have a good point there, but the same could be said for a lot of things: "I don't care if Windows 95 is 12 years old, I paid for it with no limitations when I bought it". Or maybe that's stretching it a little bit :P

Oh geez, here we go...AGAIN.

Ok, so you have people who don't want to upgrade from Windows 2000. That's fine. But don't expect to be able to use the latest and greatest if you choose not to upgrade. No one is forcing anyone to do anything. You want the latest and greatest then get Vista. If you don't want to upgrade then don't... but don't whine that you can't get your Zune working because you won't upgrade to Vista.

It's all about choices. If you actually think Microsoft should develop all their new technologies to work on legacy systems then we'd have Office 2007 working on Windows 95 and Windows 3 and that just doens't make logical or business sense.

Upgrade or don't. It's your choice. But stop whining.

LOL

Windows Defender, Zune and Office 2007?

Only newbs get spyware, and there are free scanners. Why would someone who is using Win2K care about some crappy mp3 player, and there are plenty of other mp3 players with full compatibility. And why would a Win2K user install Office 2007? That would be like putting a rear spoiler on a Hyundai Excel.

Quote - AfroTrance said @ #11
LOL
And why would a Win2K user install Office 2007? That would be like putting a rear spoiler on a Hyundai Excel.

Yeah, but some people still put rear spoilers on their Excels!

And others want to run Office '07 on Win2K (I can't see the point, as Office 2003 is a great program and would be as slow as '07 on an older machine.

Well I think seven years is long enough. Even Apple doesn't support stuff from that long ago (Think, Mac OS 9 was still the main OS back then! Wow we have come a long way!)

Cal

so this show one more time microsoft commitment to its customers, its sad forcing people to upgrade the same its happening with vista already with DX10 and halo2 many things could be done in 2000 but they dont want to do it, in the end switching to linux get better support and more worthy investment.

Quote - eilegz said @ #12
so this show one more time microsoft commitment to its customers, its sad forcing people to upgrade the same its happening with vista already with DX10 and halo2 many things could be done in 2000 but they dont want to do it, in the end switching to linux get better support and more worthy investment.

Such insightful commentary.

Seriously, does anyone actually understand business, or are there really so few of us enlightened with that knowledge? You cannot economically support software that is many years old and no longer actively worked on. This is not because MS is evil - it's because they HAVE to do it. Shareholders would be angry, some large corporations would be annoyed (e.g. PC builders), etc, etc. And it's not like MS is the only one. Is every Linux release ever supported? I somewhat doubt it.

Whoops, I built a Windows 2000 machine for my uncle a couple years ago and it runs fast! Better tell him its not goign to be supported

Next time I'll get him a machine with Freespire.

Office 2007 and the software for the company's much-hyped Zune music player

Who care about Office 2007 when we have OpenOffice and best of all it free.
Zune music player who care there are other option.

C_Guy it all about carp in new OS that min us don't like

1: Does not support DirectSound 3D Hardware Acceleration which mean no EAX through DirectX so only few mustly newer games already have OpenAL support will work so your SOL with older games that build around EAX.

2: Vista is a major memory hog with Vista Ultimate what I'm seeing 450MB on clean install and that was with out enable MCE, I wonder what Vista Home Basic is going to be like on clean install to bad MS didn't give us an option to try the diff ver of Vista.

3: Problem with XP and Vista is that MS owns you, THAT RIGTH OWN YOUR SORRY A@@ haha with the WPA (Windows Product Activation) & WGA (Windows Genuine Advantage) with that phones home carp, What you all think going happing when MS turn off validation process for XP which is most likely going happing in a few years which mean you being force to move some other OS.

4: Reinstall XP or Vista on a new assembled system becuases your old system die mean you going re-do the validation process which is not going to match old system hash so now you have CALL MS and think XP bad just wait in tell you get load of Vista, Read this http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11..._eula_worries/

5: You all should be worries about MS planning annual rental fee meaning you be force each and every year to paid in order to keep using windows, office and etc.


Quote - SHS said @ #14

Who care about Office 2007 when we have OpenOffice and best of all it free.
Zune music player who care there are other option.

C_Guy it all about carp in new OS that min us don't like

1: Does not support DirectSound 3D Hardware Acceleration which mean no EAX through DirectX so only few mustly newer games already have OpenAL support will work so your SOL with older games that build around EAX.

2: Vista is a major memory hog with Vista Ultimate what I'm seeing 450MB on clean install and that was with out enable MCE, I wonder what Vista Home Basic is going to be like on clean install to bad MS didn't give us an option to try the diff ver of Vista.

3: Problem with XP and Vista is that MS owns you, THAT RIGTH OWN YOUR SORRY A@@ haha with the WPA (Windows Product Activation) & WGA (Windows Genuine Advantage) with that phones home carp, What you all think going happing when MS turn off validation process for XP which is most likely going happing in a few years which mean you being force to move some other OS.

4: Reinstall XP or Vista on a new assembled system becuases your old system die mean you going re-do the validation process which is not going to match old system hash so now you have CALL MS and think XP bad just wait in tell you get load of Vista, Read this http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11..._eula_worries/

5: You all should be worries about MS planning annual rental fee meaning you be force each and every year to paid in order to keep using windows, office and etc.

can you provide proof for number 5 please.. because if that true, this give cracker more reason to crack windows and more reason for me to pirate it.

What is your source for #5? MS has already stated that at the end of its lifecycle (2010 or somthing), validation and activation in XP will be disabled so that users do not need to do it.

Quote - strekship said @ #14.2
What is your source for #5? MS has already stated that at the end of its lifecycle (2010 or somthing), validation and activation in XP will be disabled so that users do not need to do it.

That going be little hard to do when it build in to OS when it going want to check activation so now you end up with messaage saying We sorry your copy of XP didn't pass validation check becuases MS disabled it, so no more Windows Update no more install IE7 or WMP11, etc even if you own a genuine copy of XP and they user are sure in hell not going want install a crack, etc becuase 95% of thoses crack most have embeded virus, carp spyware, etc, etc and some of then are even attempt to do Relay Spam to make them some $$$ and some them cuases more harm then good so you better stop and think before you go download cracks, keygens and etc from websites, ftp, irc and newsgroup you just can not trust those hackers and crackers now days.

Microsoft preventing apps from running on 2000 when technically they will run fine is disgusting. They are scumbags for these sorts of tactics and deserve everything thrown at them via anti-trust.

What about Apple cutting compatability is Mac OS? They cut it faster than MS does. Most stuff these days won't work unless you are running 10.3 or higher.

This is so ridiculous! Windows 2000 is actually more reliable than XP and goes well with older machines (those with less than a 650 MHz P3 and/or 256 MB of RAM), so Microsoft has done a big mistake on this one. The capacity of such older machines should not be underestimated and I know people who have kept their computers for ten years or more and it still goes pretty good for most of the everyday functions. The only reason why one may "need" a cutting-edge PC with Windows Vista is if that person intends to use it for hard core gaming.

And also, I couldn't believe that even the download site for Windows Live Messenger 8 says you need Windows XP or Server 2003. (can't use it on Windows 2000)

Since it takes MS over 5 years to release a scaled back/crippled version of their OS, they should support older versions for another 5 years as compensation to consumers. That would be the honorable thing to do.

Commenting is disabled on this article.