Well, it's unfair to have the IE7 only for windowsXP, still windows2000 is a part of microsoft and windowsxp as well.. so we'd like to have it on windows2000 as well, otherwise most of the users will use firefox, opera or any other.

I installed SP2, but it had many problems, specially with the antivirus syncronism, so i uninstalled it. How can i get the IE7 . Many people like me will move to mozilla firefox.

No importa ya me pasé a Firefox por que Internet Explorer me cuelga la pc

progress has always been a controversy issue. what if the neanderthaler from the downtown ghetto wants IE7 to be compatible with his noteblock ? life evolves and with it, some representatives of the human race. why even bother thinking about tinkering with that ? so many people are so confused. people are just people and life, well, life is just inmeasurably bigger. so, back to the ol schoolyard to freshenup on some basic education eh ?

You know what makes me ever more upset? Microsoft does not support Windows 3.1 anymore...GOSH! I mean they made it...why cant they just make everything back compatible to it??? That would solve EVERYTHING!
-Sincerely
-Chris
p.s. - sarcasm strikes

Good. Now they won't waste their time making IE7 compatible with an old OS, so they can focus more on actual functionality/security.

It's boring to say the least.

i dont trust IE and like a friend it takes time to earn my trust back after screwing me over (and letting my secrets out), if i even get to that point to try IE7 it would be on a machine that has just been formatted with nothing else on it. I am comfortable with firefox and many other people are also why should i change?. the win2k issue on the otherhand, why would i even want to put a beta IE on an older OS? bottom line. TRUST, just like MS's lawsuits "ANTITRUST", i dont trust their software

For all of you saying 2k3 > 2000 > XP:

I use Windows 2003 as my primary desktop OS as I develop Web Apps and use it to test them. I have to say that at many times I wish I was using Windows XP SP2.

Windows 2003 tends to be neglected in a lot of ways by MS in terms of consumer updates. The features put out in Service Pack 2 for XP, only this month I was able to get in 2k3 SP1. Couldn't even install Media Player 10, which was released ages ago, until now.

Windows 2003 is really just Windows XP w/ Sever functionality on top. Windows 2003 may seem "less bloated" because most of the services are disabled by default (Audio, CD Burning etc). This is easy to do in Windows XP if you do not want any of these features (Start > Run > "services.msc"). I use Windows XP SP2 on other computers daily and find it to be no less stable than 2003. If you dislike the XP UI, just disable the Themes service or enable Classic. Disabling the themes service makes XP completly bare (Classic looks better), but it does use less resources when disabled.

They are both not a 100% stable, but def. more stable than my Red Hat linux Server. I run linux for my live server, but I really do not find any performance or stability advantage from it.

support for windows 2000 ends june 30th 2005 why would they make ie7 for it? why would you continue to make updates for a product you no longer support? Yes, more people may be using Win 2000 and they are not forcing anyone to upgrade thats on you its just the technology is now considered outdated windows 2000 will at the time be 6 yrs old...and Xp came out in 2001 so of course after Longhorn comes out and has been made available for a few years its going to no longer be supported as well thats the way it is with technology...there are still people running windows 95 and they dont have to upgrade if they dont want to its up to them but as technology moves forward its to be expected...yes people complain about the price right now you can get xp home for 90 dollars full version (thats not going to break the bank if you cannot afford that its not MS fault) Its not MS fault that the OS you bought 5 years ago wont support the newer technology out there. Here's an example when a new game comes out for the PC especially one that requires superb graphics and plenty of speed people spend $500 alone on just a VIDEO CARD they dont have to have this video game but in order to keep up with newer technology its a must. People will forever complain about MS not being secure its a never ending battle...first off if people were more pc savvy and didnt d/l everything from email to other content on their pc to file sharing most of these problems would not exist. Peoples pcs do not just stop working because they are using windows its the user granted there are many ways to exploit windows but then again if you know what you should and shouldnt be downloading this is not an issue I have had no problems with XP except for a minor usb issue which wasnt xp fault it was the manufacturer of the device. People complain about bloatware..if it bothered everyone it wouldnt be in the os but obviousily more people wanted these features hence why they are there...call it bloatware call it whatever but its there because more people want it then dont.
People complain about IE constantly but until websites are made with firefox opera netscape etc etc in mind IE will still be better because firefox and the rest of the browsers out there dont display the content the same way and in some cases cant at all. Everything has issues whether or not its Mac, Linux, Windows, Linspire etcetc and everything has updates. Windows has a much larger user database so its constantly getting harassed but all these other companies still have the same problems its just they are fixed before windows because windows is HUGE so there more probability of something going wrong nothing is fullproof if there was no company would have to release updates. Everything has an expiration date when it comes to technology...look at video tapes they were the big medium for a while for videos and now its dvds are people complaining that they cant watch the newer videos anymore? No, because thats how technology is you want better and faster you upgrade (keep in mind these are just my opinions and that is all...you all have brains make up your own mind)

I have NO problem with it. Every OS has its life span, businesses, corporations and individuals have had a very long time to upgrade. If you don't upgrade, you just keep what you've got.

I've tried other browsers, but when you need a browser for real productivity like we use it at work, Opra, Netscape, Fire Cracker or any of the others cause nothing but problems. I realize that this is because the folks that designed our backend and intranet software didn't make it compatible with the other browsers. I think all this stuff about internet security especially as it impacts individuals is TOTALLY over blown.

Granted the life cycle is coming to an end, you still have millions if not billions of systems with Windows 2000. So companies do not see the reason to upgrade or simply do not want to spend the $$$. In any rate, Microsoft should be supporting IE7 on Windows 2000. It's not like Win2k is 10 years old. But hey, for those who have Win2k and want security, this would give Firefox and others, a boast.

This is very bad, we have lots of workstations with Windows 2000 at the office.
We feel discriminated about it.

I just checked on the calendar. The year is 2005 - not 2000.

Great! Internet explorer will be more secured. You should understand simple thing: the more windows platforms IE (Internet explorer) supports, the more security bugs it has. Maybe later Microsoft will release a new product like IE which will support more windows platforms than Win XP SP2.

Well, Firefox and Opera can take an advantage on this. IE is a poor browser, and the new version expects to be the same way. XP is a bloat, with sp1, 2, 3, 4, etc.. There is an universe of developers out there that can make a better job in lots of aplications that MS try to put in his OS. They must (MS) be work on a fine future OS without any syupids bloats like iexplore, movie maker, stupid asistants, etc, etc, and left this work to more intelligent and practical developers arround the world. They could save money and prestige. I don't hate MS, i think that can do a better job, foccused on some things that can do right, not bloats, like IE.

IE being a poor browser and XP being a bloat (note SP3 and SP4 do not exist on XP, you're thinking win2000 now) is a matter of opinion. You're right that FF and Opera etc. can take advantage, but Mozilla and Opera doesn't have to support WINDOWS 2000 itself only the browser, whereas MS would have to support IE 7 AND Windows 98/Windows 2000/ whatever.

I think it's fine. Microsoft shouldn't be expected to make all new developments work for people too stupid or stubborn to upgrade. If you hate Microsoft, don't use their products.

Well, i have pretty good machine (is Athlon XP 2600+/512/200+250Gb/FX5200+ enough for XP? haha...) but i run Windows 2000 just because it is faster and more stable than XP. I don't need that unuseful interface with tons of stupid dogs and cats trying to "assist" me. I don't need crappy skins and animation. I don't need built-in ability to burn CDs - it will never beat Nero. I don't need "folder tasks" - they only eat the screenspace and are no use against FAR or Windows Commander. I don't need tons of security holes - Windows 2000 is much more secure thanks to that source code leak ;) I don't need that stupid XP "firewall" - it will never beat Outpost, even the free version. I don't need that "security center" - i am always sure that my AV program is updated and patches are installed. I don't need that crappy mediaplayer - it is no use against Winamp and foobar in audio and BSPlayer in video.

So i don't need IE at all. I use Opera and sometimes firefox - and it goes okay.

But WHY that stupid M$ trying to FORCE me to upgrade to that ph***ing XP?! I don't need it! But they're start to develop "xp-only" progs; soon they will force other developers to release "xp-only" software... I DON'T WANT TO UPGRADE TO THAT s***, no matter of speed of the computer i'll have! Sadly, there will be a moment i will do that because of my need to use some programs not running on 2000 :(

yea dude, i get what u mean. ur probably better of going with win2k3 or linux.

or dual boot both, just like i did :D

n e way win2k3 is like win2k but it is faster and has some of the good features built into it that windows xp had but win2k didnt i.e. system restore. and cos its a server OS (unlike xp) it dont come with all the bullsh** that xp comes with

Hey guys!! I use WIN XP SP2, but all I want to say is, this problem is going to be there next year too. When MS releases their new OS (Longhorn). MS please let people live in peace!!

Microsoft are right to do what they are doing.
IE7 won't be out (in final relase form) until 2006.

I use IE6, and i find it very secure. The reason for this is I'm not an idiot who accepts everything that pops up in front of me. I've used firefox and found it lacking. And as for it being secure....what a joke.
People should stop knocking microsoft. They do a good job.

lol

what is win2000? nah serious..lol j/k yeah last time i checked my pc said it was the year 2005..i'm purposely sounding ignorant to bug the people who think find xp a problem...sorry, but a million & 1 reasons to upgrade to XP. When MS releases a new OS..good idea to upgrade.So when longhorn gets released I will upgrade.

I use firefox, but if IE7 can make me convert I will :) I love msnvideo news YES :) cant wait to be able to view all those pages again with IE7

yeah dont u worry, u'll see when longhorn does come out microsft will eventually boycott xp just like the're doing now to win2k

Err of course they will. When XP reaches the end of its shelf life, of course they will. MS are a business - not a charity.

Adaptability supposes blending, but too much blending leads to insecurity. Moreover Windows 2000 lifecycle is near. Microsoft's arguments do seem legitimate.
Now, I must say I don't run on Windows 2000... would I, should I be so comprehensive? I hope so!

what if you do not have the funds to upgrade all the time microsoft should still support all o/s or give users of 95-2000 cheaper upgrades maybe more than $40 cashback on software not all of us have $500,000 sitting in the bank to buy the very best all the time all computer hardware-software prices are mad.

if you can't afford it, sign up for a microsoft class at a tech school, buy it for $10, then drop the class. Or if you really want to know how to make that OS or program work, stay in the class and load up on cheap software. (project $5, visio $5, XP $10, visual studio.NET $20 ***LEGALLY***)

What do I think about the issue? Well for one thing, making users upgrade to WinXP SP2 JUST TO RUN the new Internet Explorer 7 is pointless, it should be made available to Win98+ OS too because some computers out there JUST cant handle running WindowsXP at all no matter how Microsoft looks at it (even with the XP Light Editions as well)

Indeed what about all the people out there who have machines that aren't capable of running windows XP. I mean people just think about it for a minute, with every new release windows gets more resource hungry. Case in point, Longhorn, sure it's made to scale down for older systems but you don't get the full functionality of the OS. So basically this OS wil make it necessary for a lot of people to buy a new computer. Some people can't afford to buy a new computer and/or Os every 4 years. this same scenario applies to some, not all but some win2k users and absolutely applies to win9x and ME users. Also the people that can afford to buy a new computer, with longhorn coming out at the begining of next year, buying windows XP would be a total waste of money. I say this because of what some of the others have said such as "When MS releases a new OS..good idea to upgrade.So when longhorn gets released I will upgrade."

Then you don't have IE7...seriously, how big a loss is that?

My point is that if the OS is still supposedly supported. New versions of things like IE should have support for that OS. MS sits their and claims win2k is still support, yet they are not supporting it.

Still supported? Not for long. EOL is coming fast for 2k. I wouldn't be writing software for it as a developer, why would MS?

Who cares - Firefox works on just about every system out there, and it's awesome NOW. Screw waiting for MS to get their act together.

"When MS releases a new OS..good idea to upgrade.So when longhorn gets released I will upgrade."--Adrian79

"Face it, if you are running Win2000, then it's really time to think about upgrading to XP. You are missing out on a shed load of security fixes that will never be back ported."--Mark Gillespie

Folks, seriously, this is sage advice. As we all know, whatever Microsoft does is squarely focused on the public welfare. Because of this, the mere questioning or second-guessing might lead to negatively impacting their profit margin, and, considering it is already at parity with the value they provide, it's a slim one indeed.

Please, everyone, how could anyone of good conscience do anything to put the slightest dent in the already slim profits of this transparently philanthropic institution? I will have no part in it. That's why I suggest you all do as I have and let them deduct any upgrade fees directly from your bank account. Save yourselves all the lost energy of thinking about such matters when it's clear that they are only doing what's best for you.

what is win2000? nah serious..lol j/k yeah last time i checked my pc said it was the year 2005..i'm purposely sounding ignorant to bug the people who think find xp a problem...sorry, but a million & 1 reasons to upgrade to XP. When MS releases a new OS..good idea to upgrade.So when longhorn gets released I will upgrade.

I use firefox, but if IE7 can make me convert I will :) I love msnvideo news YES :) cant wait to be able to view all those pages again with IE7

There are a 'million & 1 reasons' to ugprade to XP as you say, but only from 9x/ME code. 2000 already has most of the benefits of XP, without the fluff that business don't really need. Given the cost to big business to upgrade all their 2000 boxes to XP, I don't think they'd do it for such a small gain in functionality.

What MS thinks: We have made a decision to save us money...

What MS says: Our customers have requested the following [or lack thereof] features

Why would a customer request no IE7 in Windows 2000? I mean, large corporations can just ignore it, and they don't have to support it. Silly.

XP is bulky and full of junk. I know of many companys still using 2000 for both clients and servers. For Microsoft to cut the new I.E. out of these operating systems will just lead to the non support of them in the near future, for this and all other upcomming products. Then again I am sure the next version of FireFox will work with 2000 still.

"XP is bulky and full of junk."
Agreed - I still use Win2k also.

How to remove IE from Windows 2000:
http://www.vorck.com/remove-ie.html

How to remove IE from all versions of Windows:
http://www.nliteos.com/nlite.html

bla bla bla...man o' man lots have changed since September 11...You want security move to the moon. No OS will ever be 100% secure. And those who are 90% secure today still faces the threat of terrorism anytime, anywhere :-D

I am glad for this heavy hand (in this instance). Win2000 is slow and antiquted compared to XP and Server 2003. My 2000 machines have always had hardware compat issues, funky crashes, etc... I never experience those problems on XP. Let's do what we can to put Win2000 on the same list as the doe doe bird!

"My 2000 machines have always had hardware compat issues, funky crashes, etc... I never experience those problems on XP."
So you haven't had any crashes in XP. Just give it time. I have had XP crash quite a few times. I've had win 95, 98, ME, 2000, XP home and pro. So far MS has failed to make a home OS that I can't find a way to crash.

Heh, installed WinXP on a freshly formatted system. Went in, installed antivirus, rebooted, and the OS was corrupted. I reformatted after that and put Win2k on.

Damn double-posting ba$tard.

Hey..installed Windows XP on on 35 Dell systems. Not a single OS related crash in the 2 years it's been running here.

Plenty of hardware issues, but that's Dell.

Of course, when we were running Win2K, it was pretty mcuh the same.

The ONLY MS OS we've ever had any problems with was Windows ME, and we only had that on New Dells we bought (which got downgraded to 95 until 2k came out...we never actually touched 98, much to my dismay).

You ever stop to think it might be how your using it, or letting your users use it?

Well actually when MS said that XP was supposed to be near uncrashable..... well I couldn't resist. I just had to see if it could be done.

"Heh, installed WinXP on a freshly formatted system. Went in, installed antivirus, rebooted, and the OS was corrupted. I reformatted after that and put Win2k on."

Well you're an idiot. I hope you're not in I.T. :?

What? I don't understand the following:

"Microsoft says the task is too complex due to security features not available in the older operating system"

The fact MS isn't dedicated to making a still supported OS secure is just unbelievable. Basically this is saying 2k isn't as secure as XP. Surely the core features required for a secure OS should be shared code.

Oh well not to matter. Onwards and upwards for Firefox. And then once 2k is dropped from support, roll out BeatrIX. Sorted.

In the end, after all the lies and deception, the only thing Microsoft is dedicated to is their Bottom Line. This little bit of news just gives me and probly many others one more reason to drop the monopolistic Microsoft garbage and crap. Then move to linux. Been trying that out lately, seems to be much more stable and I like the gui better. Linux seems to be coming along very good these days. It maybe something for all these win2k users to think about.

Ummm...sure, whatever you say.

"The fact MS isn't dedicated to making a still supported OS secure is just unbelievable."

I agree with you somewhat. But for reasons of their own, they've chosen to make it available for XP SP2 and above. Probably because IE7 was intended for Longhorn only and 2000 will be out of it's shelf life date by the time LH is realeased.

XP SP2 will contain significant code that isn't contained in 2000. And also, you'd have to decide which SP version of 2000 you were going to support. It would be a nightmare.

Another way to squeeze money from people for MS... (( In my experience, Windows 2000 much more stable that XP... for sure, I won't upgrade... everybody earns his own reputation by his actions - I've never been against MS, but now I see their ugly teeth...

that is good just use Firefox
or Opera
Opera is my favorite!

Lets not kid ourselfs, Firefox (or FireFix as it's starting to become known), has had many vunrabilites already discovered, and you can bet that the next couple of years, as more people move to it, will see even more.

The only thing that Firefix and opera has going for them as far as security goes, is obscurity. Virus and exploit writers have not bothered with them, as so few people use them compared to IE.

Yes and let's not kid ourselves - FFs vulnerabilties are fixed quicker than IEs.

And not only are they fixed faster, they tend to be less severe.

IE6: http://secunia.com/product/11/
FireFox: http://secunia.com/product/4227/

THIS IS NOT AN ARTICE ABOUT FIREFOX!!!!

There...had to be said.

lmao ;)

lol... thought you'd like that...saw you getting dragged into that one.

You guys have to realize this, Internet Explorer is heavyly intergrated with the whole Operating System, it's part of the OS, unlike Firefox which is a standalone program, stop b****ing, just upgrade to Windows Server 2003 or if you have the patience to wait then wait til 2007 for Windows Server Longhorn, if you don't want to spend the money for upgrade then stick with Linux, it's always free.

http://www.duoservers.us
Best Linux Web Hosting Provider With PHP 5 Support

I agree, 2000 is near the end of its cycle and many changes have been made to XP alone with regard to security that the ability to make similar changes to 2000 are ludicrous. It is like asking for support to ME or 98SE. The move was inevitable and we all know the life cycles of the OS's.

AND . . . MS has moved to a stand alone version of a browser(though late in the game). They have seen the need to move from the integrated browser on two levels 1.)security, 2.)competition. Bruce Boughton is just plugging Firefox/Opera as a scare tactic - it didn't work.

As more and more people start using the Firefox/Opera browsers, there will be an increase on the adware/spyware vulnerabilities. They will not be scrutinized as much as IE6 has been. IMO - give it time.

"You guys have to realize this, Internet Explorer is heavyly intergrated with the whole Operating System, it's part of the OS"

It doesn't have to be part of the OS anymore.
How to remove IE from all versions of Windows:
http://www.nliteos.com/nlite.html

Well, winDOS (xp-2k-nt-orwhatever) is not a real os anyway. Its more like a big multimedia player, with a bad attitude.

Wow. Really. You'd be right if you were referring only to the 3x/9x/ME line.

NT, 2K, XP are all based on tech developed by the combined efforts of IBM and MS. They have very little to do with the DOS/3.1/9x/ME line, the branches are completely seperate. Long story...

Seriously, MS bashing is all well and good, but geta clue, eh?

Damn them. My system works perfectly with WinXP Pro SP1 (except for IE6SP1 not being able to parse proplerly). I guess I'll have to install SP2... I hate fixing things that don't need fixing. It usually ends up with it being broken.

People who think that Microsoft is doing a poor job need to realize that computing as we know it today is made possible partially by Microsoft. They have brought the benefits of computing to the masses. Lets face it, UNIX wasn’t going to be able to do it and either was Apple. UNIX was designed by engineers for engineers and our way of doing things, although, very beneficial to our job functions isn’t necessary the best way of doing things from a non engineering stand point. The file and folder hierarchal view of the file system in Windows is an artifact from the UNIX world. I bet we can present a better view of the file system in which users create and retrieve information without any regards to the underlying file system semantics. Applications like RealPlayer and Windows Media Player are good examples of how it should be done. The point is that UNIX couldn’t do it by itself regardless of all the shells it has. I think Steve Jobs is a brilliant man but he was too pig headed and couldn’t get out of his own way and lets not even talk about IBM’s OS2. So that leaves us with Microsoft; I think MS is doing an excellent job considering that its operating systems have to run on a wide variety of hardware. I am not saying that MS is done everything correctly but they are getting there. So we have to pay for the OS and Applications if you are a person who does not want to pay you can download number of open source software projects to satisfy your needs. The way I see it its like broadcast TV and cable TV, if you don’t want to pay for cable then you don’t have to but if you do you get benefits and every once in a while the cable doesn’t work. They have to be doing something right because they have sh** load of users I for one support them.

Linux?

l m a o

Many companies still use 2000. My question is this, if IE7 can't be ported to 2000 because of the new security implementations in XP SP2, then is 2000 not secure??

And why are they not making sure a supported product is secure?? Apparently by their own admission XP SP2 is the only version that has these enhanced security measures. Is XP the only supported OS now?? Or are they just saying that if you use Win 95,98,ME,NT,2000 that you should use firefox or something else because IE isn't supported on those OSs?

Microsoft is shooting themselves in the foot and making themselves look stupid at the same time.

Only XPSP2 and Win2k3 Sp1 have been coded as part of Microsoft security initative. What do you want them to do, go back and spend 3 years doing the same to Win2k and Win98?

Face it, if you are running Win2000, then it's really time to think about upgrading to XP. You are missing out on a shed load of security fixes that will never be back ported.

You have to look at this from a business perspective. Upgrading an OS is NOT an easy task like it is for home users. It is expensive, time consuming, and bound to cause problems with some aspect of their business. Windows XP is a 4 year-old OS, and Windows 2000 is only 1 year older than that.

Why would businesses want to go through all of the hassle and pain of upgrading to an OS that is practically as outdated as the one they have now? Longhorn is only 18 months away, so it makes a lot more sense to only go through the hassle once. The problem, however, is now they are left without the newest security protections that are not being backported, such as IE7.

There is never a correct time to upgrade.

Personally, anyone waiting for Longhorn, and then jumping to longhorn as soon as it's released is pretty foolish. I'm glad they don't run my IT department.

XP is now a very mature/stable/safe OS, and a very good choice for a workstation OS. Microsoft have commited to providing IE7 for Longhorn and XPSP2, which is perfectly acceptable. Again, are people suggesting that Microsoft should be spending years backporting XPSP2 fixes into Windows 2000? Of course not. Things need to move forwards, not backwards.

Please apply some common sense to your arguments...

Agreed. There is never a right time for companies to update. They'll just have to bite the bullet and get on with it. Sure it'll be expensive now, but was expensive then when NT or 2000 was introduced. It's a fact of life and companies are losing out by not upgrading.

I don't agree, if what they have works it would be much less expensive to switch to Firefox or Opera and roll out a desktop security package than it would be to roll out an OS upgrade.

microsoft stated the reason why there will be no IE 7.o for win 2000 is it is to complex of a project to do.. reason it is very complex is win 2000 does not have the security features win xp does in the os.. 2nd IE 7.0 is going to be tied heavily to win xp 2 and win xp 2 service pack is not compatible with win 2000.. and i already heard that when ie 7.0 is released for win xp service pack 2 it will also be uninstallable like win xp service pack 2 is uninstallibe... I'm Glad I bought me a new DEll computer 8300 a year ago this past may it has support for 4 gigs of ram..and has a ati 256k radeon 9800xt card.. 120 gig hard drive combo cd/dvd drive.. has pentium 4 3.2 processor with hyper threading.. and a 30 buck optional a drive I had dell install and an optional intell 56k modem I had dell install which cost 50 bucks.. it also came with a network card.. I"M glad I got it last year so I will be able to upgrade to longhorn without any problems when it is released in october 2006.. do not forget win xp users for those who will not be able to upgrade to longhorn because of machine limitations on older computers.. remember microsoft is going to release avelon and indiego that will be in longhorn they are also going to be ported for w in xp users so you will have your choice to upgrade to longhorn or just stay with win xp

>...

Okay... Here's a thought. You've been using IE6 in your company for how long now? Another year or two REALLY gonna hurt that much? Wait until Longhorn is out and stable. Then bring it in slowly, on new systems. Most business apps that work in XP will work in longhorn without too much trouble. The migration, if taken slowly, should be all but painless.

And how long should MS support an OS meant to be state of the art for 1998? 5yrs? 10yrs? 20yrs? Support it until 2005? 2010? 2015??

Yeah but what you have to realise is that the majority of companies haven't even upgraded to XP now, nevermind Longhorn. What makes you think companies will upgrade to Longhorn when it's released?? They'll only even upgrade to XP when support for NT and 2000 has ceased. Longhorn is way way away for companies. Companies will be asking why don't MS still support Longhorn in 2025. lmao

Something I don't get. They made win 2k so secure. So they decided to base winxp on it because of this. Then why did they decided to go screw the piss out of that security by integrating IE into it. Maybe i'm missing something but IE seems to be the backbone of XPs security troubles. Maybe i'm looking at this wrong.

Erm, IE has been part of the OS, WAY before Win2k was ever planned. Windows Explorer uses almost all of Internet Explorers DLL's, and has been integrated since NT4 (Win2k predecessor). Having IE integrated is not a new thing, it's been around ages, your comments make you look like a newbie..

"Erm, IE [...] has been integrated since NT4 (Win2k predecessor). Having IE integrated is not a new thing, it's been around ages, your comments make you look like a newbie.."

1. IE was not integrated in NT4. All one had to do was to comment out the IE.INF line in SYSSETUP.INF.

2. Windows Explorer does not use "almost all" of the IE dlls. Use Sysinternals Process Explorer to see for yourself. If they shared almost all of their DLLs, you wouldn't be able to remove IE, as detailed at
http://www.vorck.com/remove-ie.html
or
http://www.nliteos.com/nlite.html

3. *His* comments make *him* look like a n00b? Oh, man... Irony is not something that presses clothes.

I knew IE had som elevel of integration way before XP. I was talking about the point at which it became something that the OS can't function without moron.

*flame*

Be nice, kiddies.

XP can finction without IE, as can 2k, 2k3, etc...

Goggle it.

Good for Microsoft! Any fool still using 2000 should just go back to using DOS or just switch to Apple. As for Firefox, can you say HORRID MEMORY LEAK anyone?

Win2K=DOS? OK, that makes sense. Win2K is probably MSFT's best effort to date on a resource/security formula. But then again, oh, why bother....

You mean if someone is using 95, 98, or ME they should go to DOS. 2000 and up is true multi-tasking and (mostly) multi-user. 95, 98, and ME (Not for ME)use DOS underneath. I can't take your statement seriously if it's obvious that you don't know what you're talking about.

um...

No, forget it, it ain't worth it.

IE7 beta? heck as far as i'm concerned IE6 never made it out of beta. Why work on one beta when you haven't finished the first. Glad they announced this before I moved nack to win 2k. I think i'm just gonna make a move to a Linux OS. I'm getting really tired of this bloated piece of malware called Windows XP POS. I think I saw someone comment that Linux does force upgrades on you but microsoft has got one up on linux in the bad department.....MS try their level best to rape your wallet.

And what Broswer would Bruce Boughton have us use instead that is secure? There are none to be had!

That's because true security is unattainable unless you simply never plug the darned thing in.

Microsoft is simply pushing more and more people away from their stuff.

I'm getting quite tired of having to upgrade stuff all the time. If they want to force IE7 only to Windows XP that's fine with me.

I'll be installing Firefox on anyone's computer that I know running Windows 2000 anyway.

Way to corner yourself Microsoft.

You suck!

Xp sucks. Every advancement seems to actually be a step backwards since Windows 2000. Simple file sharing? Who invented that unnetworkable nightmare?

What planet are you on?

simple file sharing is actually easier than the more advanced way... try telling your grandma (or mother) how to set up another user account so someone else can use that to get at shares on her computer.

Or use the "simple" filesharing and leave the guest account enabled.

You can't have security and ease of use at the same time. any time companies try this, only the techy people can figure it out, or it's so stripped of options that no techy person can figure it out.

theres bloatware in xp? hm...this is news to me... if windows media player, messenger and ie are bloatware just dont use them...and mister advanced programmer you can change the interface back to win 2000 mode...microsoft was trying to show that they improved the gui by making what you call "baby like" interface hence the continuing of the interface into longhorn

No, no, silly goose... the bloatware is that "lame" firewall, l0l.

Sorry, I couldn't help but mock the whiners, I promise to stop now.

I agree... Classic Mode works wonders. I used to resist XP as well, and then I decided that the new start menu style was great and cleaned up my desktop and that I could circumvent my hatred of that damned green-button/blue theme by switching to Classic Theme.

They may have been trying to show that they improved the gui. I'm running a winXP machine along side a linux machine. I like the linux gui much better. IMHO if MS could make a gui similar to KDE it would be a much better OS as far as the gui goes.

lmao...KDE... The linux attempt to look more 'Windows'-like.

That's funny. Really.

It's a good thing it doesn't look a whole lot like the windows gui. MS idea of a gui is pathetic. It has changed very little since windows 95. Wow they made it blue silver and green, and the icing on the cake that rediculous green start button. If that's the best they can do to make it look better that gui is in serious trouble.

My choise were Win2k+3. I tried to use Win2k+3 SP1 - but it is uncompatible in some vital points, so i rolld back to Win2k+3. I'll stay with it as long as i can.
About IE 7: I don't need it, because i have my Opera ;)

W2K is my choice and I'm an advanced user (programmer). I refuse to load XP and all the bloatware crap that comes with it. The interface of XP is built for babies and is insulting to real computer users. I know I can't stay on 2000 forever of course but I'll be holding out until a critical app makes me switch. For now I'll just switch to FireFox and flush IE down the toilet. -Have a great day.

Good. Who gives a s*** about IE anyway. Firefox rules! Microsoft sucks!

Why don't you just switch XP to Classic mode if you don't like the new interface? It's what I do...

Exactly! 2000 is YOUR choice. And if you choose to use an outdated soon to be unsupported OS - then that's your choice. And if MS choose not to code IE7 for 2000 - then that's THEIR choice.

And by the way I find it insulting to be called a baby for using XP!!

He didn't call you a baby - he said XP was MADE for babies. Get those toddlers on the computer faster. :P

IE 7 in beta? That's like any other software maker announcing a preliminary Alpha release.
IE 7 in beta? This isn't news, its a warning not to download until its in released version 3 and don't install it on any production machine...

Don't get me wrong... I think Windows 2000 (all flavors) is the best version of Windows ever released save for Server 2003, but the simple fact is that it is entering extended support, so it doesn't exactly make sense that Microsoft would want to back-port all the enhancements. I realize that many disagree, as users, and they have that right... however, the fact remains that as a business decision it doesn't make sense.

Corporations that consciously rely on outdated platforms (regardless of NT4, 2000, or ancient builds of *nix) demonstrate very clearly that they are NOT committed to technological advancement. While I realize that can be due to any number of factors including time and financial reasons, it does't change the fact that they make a choice to rely on older technology, because they are (and rightfully so, in some cases) more focused on other areas of their business.

The simple reality is that no one criticizes other companies from including new features only as part of newer products--- No one has a fit that Symantec Antivirus 2005 and Corporate 10.0 includes Spyware detection and removal and demands that they backport it to 2003 and Corporate 7.6... It would be foolish to think they would. Businesses, like it or not, are in it to make money through value-added enhancements to new products.

If you don't think Windows XP SP2 with IE7 is enough of a reason to justify the upgrade from a fully functional Windows 2000 platform, so be it... but the choice is yours, not Microsoft's. Microsoft, like many other companies including developers of Linux flavors and Apple, are committed to the future. Try demanding that Apple backport MacOSX features to MacOS7... see how far that gets you.

There's a huge difference between System 7 and OS X; it's just not comparable to Windows 2000 and Windows XP, which are very much similar. I'd say it's more like the difference between, say, two revisions of 10.x.

Still, you don't see OS X 10.3 users getting Safari 2.0.

That was my point exactly... Apple doesn't backport and I have never heard of a outcry against them for not.

I agree on the significance of differences, but I would point out that even Windows 2000 and XP have their significant differences... especially where SP2 is concerned.

But how much of a security risk is created by Safari 2.0 not being backported?

At last IE's beta is coming. I can't wait for it.

That's ok by me, I run Mozilla Firefox on my Windows 2000 systems.

It should be no surprise that we do not plan on releasing IE7 for Windows 2000. One reason is where we are in the Windows 2000 lifecycle. Another is that some of the security work in IE7 relies on operating system functionality in XPSP2 that is non-trivial to port back to Windows 2000.

XP is an improvement over 2000 - end of story.

In my opinion it's short sighted of MS not to go that extra mile and code IE7 for 2000. But if they don't then users of 2000 should not complain. No matter how good an OS 2000 is, it won't be supported forever and users should make the change to XP. If you the user persist in using 2000 then change to Firefox or Opera - stop whinging!

Sounds fine to me. Like they said, Win2000 is moving in to Extended Support phase. That means it's being phased out, just like Win98 and WinMe have been phased out. It's time to upgrade your system to XP or 2003. I don't see anyone complaining when IE6.0.29 wasn't released for WinMe.

I see the 12-year-olds got hold of daddy's password again... (chuckle)

Firefox?

Overhyped and overrated.

Opera?

Great product but requires a paid license.

Netscape?

Total CRAP - has been for aobut a decade.

Next...

Apparently the 13 year olds did too. :-P

WTF!!!
i use win2k and its alot better than winxp in many ways. win2k is probably the best windows OS (after win2k3 that is ;p )out.
Bill gates and his crew will neva learn
screw u microsoft!!

Windows in general sucks
LINUX RULEZ!!!
ima migrating to linux (mmmm...SUSE Prof. 9.3) :)

Anyone claiming Win2K is better than XP doesn't know jack about either operating system. The improvements in the driver model alone made XP a better OS.

In essence, XP was a massive and MUCH needed service pack for Win2K.

See comment about people claiming to know something about MS OSs who really DON'T. If you don't know what you're talking about (the timeline comment alone embarasses you), then don't compound the error with additional masses of verbiage.

Smart move man. I use SUSE 9.3 Pro aswell! It's the best!

Bull Pucky... you never mix up time and dates? Chit like that happens every once in a while for everyone. GG I missed April altogether... and totally forgot March.

win xp is by far the crappiest os ever made. it is unreliable and unstable, and not to mention that the users are still bombarded with the "Blue Screen Of Death". xp is so prone to viruses, all u gotta do is shove the cable into a modem and bingo, next thing u know, ur stinking rich with viruses, and what happens?? all the hours u put into reformatting the hard drive, installing OS, etc. have gone 2 waste and u have to start all over.
winxp might have SOME better features and software included with its package than win2k, i.e. "system restore" and "faster boot up time" but that dont mean the entire OS is good. under its shell, it sucks. and u cant use those improvements to say winxp is better. win2k has even won awards for it security, and what has xp got -- F*** all thats what. users want good LONG-TERM enhancements that will make the os stable and secure, not just little incy bitsy improvements that make the os look nice, example= winxp GUI vs win2k GUI

oh, and i almost forgot to mention, winxp takes up more installation space than win2k. most of the crap that winxp comes with is unused by many people who have winxp; why have crap on ur pc when u aint gonna need it or use it, just takes up space, users have to uninstall microsoft java VM themselves cos of security reasons (and get sun java instead), why dont microsoft stop supplying it with their OS's as a whole!?!

Again... Been using XP here on all our PCs (over 35) for over 2 years now. Not a single OS related crash. Yeah...it obviously sucks.

Whatever.

wow....

win xp .. is unreliable and unstable, and not to mention that the users are still bombarded with the "Blue Screen Of Death".

Your users still are "bombarded" by blue screens than you changed stuff around... by default you don't see blue screens, the computer resets instead unless you purposely disable it...

all the hours u put into reformatting the hard drive, installing OS, etc. have gone 2 waste and u have to start all over.

all the hours... how many hours are you talking about? you start a format, and then just stare at it the whole time? amazing...

under its shell, it sucks. and u cant use those improvements to say winxp is better. win2k has even won awards for it security, and what has xp got

something that got an award 5 years ago is by no means top of the line anymore... think about it...

my suggestion would be to learn more about XP and take a little time to think before spouting off...

Ah heck, give it a few weeks after release and some third party will have adapted IE7 to work with Win2k

Yet Again microsoft platently disregards the customer and gives out more inferior products when will they learn that people are sick of pcs crashing silly errors and unsecure browsers no wonder people are moving away to linux and apple.

I myself am considering moving away from microsoft pruducts, I run 5 pcs all with wither windows xp or 2000 and i think these will be moving to linux thanks microsoft and stuff you too

5 pc's, and you crash all the time with 2000 & xp, use some good hardware. I've been trying to justify moving to linux for the past 2 years, and although it is getting much better, and funny,, much more like windows, I can honestly say it's much easier to crash any flavor of linux I've tried over XP by far.

Crap hardware or porrly written applications. NOT MS's fault.

Buy some decent hardware, invest in some well written apps, and see your problems disappear. Windows XP is far more stable than ANY version of Linsux I have ever used.

I know I am going to get flamed for this. So be it. Point remains, for useability and stability for the AVERAGE user, XP by far outshines any other OS on or off the market.

dude, i think first u should try out SUSE Linux 9.3 Prof edtn. then compare it with xp in terms of stability and reliability.

if there is a good MS OS out there then it might be win2k3, then win2k

Been there, done that, and it's not the point.

Again, For the average user, it's not going to work. For you? Sure. For most of the people here? Definately. But we simply do not fall into that catagory.

Of course, we are now seriously off-topic, so I'll stop here.

I have been using Windows since Win 98 and the best and most stable version I have seen is Win 2k. My advice to these MS guys is put all the new version of their products in their ***. There are far too superior products in the market. The only product of MS, I use is the OS!! I hope to switch that too...

Well I'm sorry to say, but XP and Windows 2000 came out at the same time... or at least with-in months of each other and yet Windows XP is built on the 2000 foundation and they can't make IE 7 work for 2000, that's a bunch of rubbish. If that's the case then why don't they let us Trade our Windows 2000 Pro or Server up to the next level? I feel like we are getting ripped off more and more. XP looks like a Fisher Price toy out of the box, Windows 2000 is more stable and has less problems with it than XP.

I don't know folks, but instead of Re-designing the darn Tire again and again... stick with what we have and just make the freakin darn repairs or upgrades to the O/S's that are already on the Market and stop lining their pockets with the consumers money and forcing us to Upgrade to a complete new O/S every 3 to 5 years, this is crazy man crazy..... :o)

And yes there is certainly no need to point this out that I have said pretty much the same thing here as I have in the pass as I have said this time around... before any young puppies point that out.

Um Win2k came out in Feb 1999 and WinXP came out in Oct 2001. Where do you get that they came out at the same time?

That's 2000, not 1999, for Windows 2000--but they are still about 18 months apart.

What's a few months... come on. The point is XP is built on 2000 foundation, in a nutshell IE 7 should still be supported by 2000. When SP2 for XP was made their should have been an update for 2000 that would have allowed for the same upgrades.

You comments are pretty laughable. Are you for feal?

XP and 200 did not come out at the same time as each other. 2 years apart, or if you onlt count XPSP2 (which is what IE7 will only work with), it's actually 5 years apart.

To make IE7 work with something like Win2k written between 5-10 years ago (Win2k development started over 10 years ago), would be a monstorous task, and would certainly require compromises that would make XPSP2 configurations LESS secure. Are you suggesting Microsoft do this? Please get real...

If we use your "It must be compatible, as WinXp is based on Win2k" as a guide, doe thios mean IE7 should also be compatible with NT3.51, or even OS2!!!

Seriously, WinXP SP2 is a entirely different beast to Win2k. They may have been close back in 2001, but in 2005 with postSP2 configurations, they are like chalk and cheese.

I'd prefer the chalk... I don't like cheeze. So no cheeze pleaze.

I love cheese. Plenty here to go around.

I am personally a Firefox user myself, but I do see the functionality that IE can supply that FF can't.

The one that I can think of is ActiveX. I know it's a security risk, but only if your system remains unupgraded and you don't filter your downloads carefully. There is a AX plugin for FF, but it is infrequently updated, seldom works with new FF releases, and does not work on some pages.

True, FF does provide XPI functionality. But XPIs frequently require a browser restart to function, which is a big pain.

Just my $0.02.

The only possible way for ActiveX to be beneficial and secure is when it's limited to an intranet... in which case it does have many useful features.

For instance, providing an intranet interface to Office document interfaces... intranet.company.com/word2003 or outlook web interface. For those sorts of applications, IE is vastly superior because nobody else wants to implement anything so risky.

On the other hand - for day to day internet surfing, IE is by far the weaker product in every possible way. The Trident rendering engine lacks essential standards support, it's outdated and cludgy, and it's highly insecure even with all the available updates.

FIREFOX FIREFOX FIREFOX FIREFOX FIREFOX FIREFOX FIREFOX FIREFOX FIREFOX FIREFOX FIREFOX FIREFOX FIREFOX FIREFOX FIREFOX FIREFOX FIREFOX FIREFOX FIREFOX FIREFOX FIREFOX FIREFOX FIREFOX FIREFOX FIREFOX FIREFOX FIREFOX FIREFOX FIREFOX FIREFOX
-----
OPERA OPERA OPERA OPERA OPERA OPERA OPERA OPERA OPERA OPERA OPERA OPERA OPERA OPERA
----
NETSCAPE (come on guys)
----
**** Internet explorer.

Get rid of it. It's like flu.

It is very ironic that the XP os is based on win 2k technology and that th IE7 will only work on XP. I wonder why.
Well, I think that this has nothing to do with technology, in fact I think it has to do with making people using win 2k to upgrade to lets say win xp or win 2003.
Why do I think this way? well, lets not forget that Microsoft is about the botton line always, its about how much Bill G is going to profit.

Thanks

By the way, I can do witout IE 6 or 7, there is Firefox, and others therefore no need for IE

Smart move. I think its high time that people start coming out of from under their rocks and spending the money to upgrade to XP or Server 03. Yes, it may be costly for some companies, but in the long run it will be worth it. If companies really want to be able to use IE7 they're just going to have to suck it up and go to XP. C'mon people, its 2005, get with the program. (Pun intended)

Interesting move, all this will do is give a big push to those who hoped IE7 would be available to W2K, the motivation to move to an alternate browser. Or it may be the last straw as the business begins to think that using Linux may actually be a viable solution rather than deal with forced upgrades. All in all, I applaud the move as it will force people/business to think what their next move should be.

Not everyone can afford to upgrade. I've been using a completely legitimate copy of win2k since ...dunno when, but if I want to use IE7, it looks like I'll have to pirate XP. :P

Lucky I'm not that big of an IE fan anyway. ;)

Harsh!!!

No argument from me - that's life in the IT world.

MS isn't the only company that does this.

Oh boo hoo! You don't have enough money to upgrade? That's understandable, many businesses demonstrate a lack of interest and committment to technology on a regular basis... so you deal with what you have and petition your business to upgrade your budget for the next fiscal year.

If you're a home user, stop spending money on movies and CD's and cigarattes/beer for a few months and you're good to go. Not trying to accuse you (or anyone else) of squandering money, but if our priorities are on other things and not on technology, then we should be willing to accept the tech that we have. If we want to improve our tech... then we should spend some time and money on our tech then return to our other habits.

I'm so tired of hearing this whole party line over and over. Just because MS does something doesnt mean they are advancing technology. Look back on the history of MS and they ALWAYS do everything they can to stifle technological advances they themselves dont do.. and surprise surprise, they usually succeed because they have the money to waste on all this frivilous sheot injstead of actually working WITH everyone else to advance technology.

and to the readers who say they dont have the money to upgrade,m they guess they will have to pirate? I say "go for it". MS got where it is today by priateing their own OS's and softwares to help further flood the market, and they continue to pirate software. I refer to the source code they pirated from a french company's product just last year. For all MS's hype and big talk about being anti-pirate, they always were and continue to be the biggest pirates of them all, so who cares if you pirate a pirates pirated software.

Yeah, justify your theft.

"They want to make me PAY for an upgrade!"

Absolutely brilliant. Here's a thought... don't upgrade until you can afford it. IE7 will not be the next killer app. You're not going to NEED it to do anything.

Forget about it and move along.

When you have billions of dollars, and the worlds best attorneys to defend your pirating, go right ahead.

Stealing from someone who, in your opinion, stole from others still does not make it right. Your Momma must be so proud of you.

People will use any lame-a$$ excuse to justify their own wrongs, trying to downplay their own misdeeds. What a joke.

lol i agree,

its always nice to have a comedian in the forums

;D
(btw i meant that in a good way)

My reply to Brucie-baby if I were MS:

"If you're willing to foot the bill for the resources to retrofit a near-obsolete OS so that all the security features will work well with a thoroughly integrated browser, functionality the other browsers you cite *can't* supply, then put your money where your mouth is and write me a check.

If not, shut up."

"functionality the other browsers you cite *can't* supply,"...

such as?
Firefox does everything I want/need to in IE and more that IE doesnt support...oh and it's more secure. Pray tell what is this functionality they *can't* supply?

Hi Guys,

Windows 2000 Pro is a bit long in the tooth to be getting into a fret about. XP is significantly better and users of 2000 should be thinking of upgrading to Win XP SP2 where possible.

It is not true that LInux doesn't force an upgrade path. I have to continnuously keep on top of all upgrades and patches for my Slackware and FreeBSD boxes in order to stay current. It's no better than Microsoft in that respect.

At present, I'm running Slackware 10.1 and FreeBSD 5.4. Would run Solaris 10.0 if ZFS and Janus were available. But the same would still apply.

I am personally a Firefox user myself, but I do see the functionality that IE can supply that FF can't.

The one that I can think of is ActiveX. I know it's a security risk, but only if your system remains unupgraded and you don't filter your downloads carefully. There is a AX plugin for FF, but it is infrequently updated, seldom works with new FF releases, and does not work on some pages.

True, FF does provide XPI functionality. But XPIs frequently require a browser restart to function, which is a big pain.

Just my $0.02.

Do you not read?

Full integration with the OS means just that.

Can Firefox become Explorewhich in turn can become a FTP client, as just one example?

No?

Then it doesn't have full OS integration.

End of discussion.

So Firefox has to become Windows explorer to meet your requirements?

Try

file://

and

ftp://

end of discussion :-P

Well ain't that trick nifty... every browser has had that support for ages, big deal.

Try switching your Shell from explorer.exe to firefox.exe and see how productive your system becomes with Firefox or any other browser. Most people, I'm sure, are not willing to give up their Desktops and Start Menu's just yet.

That wouldn't work very well, however you will notice that you still have progman.exe even if you are running XP. What does IE and Explorer integration have to do with anything? Nautilus and Firefox are integrated, but still two seperate applications. Remember, back with Win 95 IE and Explorer were still two seperate applications but were fully integrated then too. If you set Firefox as your default browser, opening links in explorer will start Firefox will it not? I'd say thats integration as well. ;-)

that "full integration with the os" you refer to was ruled against in the supreme court and the courts ordered MS to remove said integration from the os... and as usual, ms ignores court orders, just like they were already under a court order when the latest monopoly sheot hit the fan in the last year or two... they were found guilty of violating the courts order and further ordered to seperate the ms os division from the ms software divisions. have we seen such seperation? no.. why? because when you have a monopoly on computer os's and the expense of removign that os, installing another more secure and robust os, as well as train IT departments to workj with the new os is far greater than the cost of letting a known criminal have his way. Yes, Bill is a criminal. He pirated software, he violated court orders, he is a useless waste of oxygen

firfox does these? you dont need browser integration in the os to do this.

try switching your shjell from explorer.exe to talisman or any number of other windows based shells. firefox is a browser, NOT a shell... what a moron

So for those who feel that XP is so incredibly superior to W2K, have you actually done some tests to support this? First the architecture of both is almost identical so you are simply getting more functionality with XP (i.e system restore) Of course all the extra functionality introduces security flaws which need to be patched. So in essence, XP just provides a larger attack surface than 2000. Also given that much of the new functionality is introduced through additional services that do not exist in 2000 I would really like to know how some of you feel that XP outperforms 2000. (I suggest that you use the performance monitor to establish a baseline and compare results of how each OS performs and the resources it uses - I think all you XP fans are going to be somewhat surprised)

The only thing that it really comes down to is IE being able to load windows properly that Firefox needs some work with and the proprietary rights to work around. I would always stay with firefox if I could due to the ease of use and speed not to mention the security. So how about we get things working properly with Firefox and then you'll pull more people over this way and keep them here.

Not really. Especially if you want to benchmark some of the 'features' in XP that 2k does not support...which will soon include IE7.

I used 2K religiously until XP came out. Had it as a secondary OS for about a month and then dumped 2k. XP was simply the better choice for the things that I do on my PC, and I knew that 2k would fall by the wayside...which has been happening for some time now and is apparently only just now getting noticed due to the IE7 announcement.

Of course it's a bigger target... It's a desktop OS for the masses. 2K never was. It should have been, but that's not the way MS marketed it.

2k is swiftly reaching it's EOL. Unless constrained by budget requirements, it's time to jump ship...either to 2k3 or XP. I won't suggest Linux, because, well... It's linux.

did this many people complain when Microsoft started to phase out Win 3.1 or 95? Probably, but who the hell cares...thats life...get over it..You would do the same exact thing if you were in their position. It is a pointless waste of money to make a software application compatible with an OS that is not only over 5 years old, but also about to be 3 generations behind on certain technologies. Yea i suppose XP has its flaws...but no more than win2000 did at this point in its life cycle...THERE ARE 4 SERVICE PACKS FOR IT! plus they (microsoft) have had more time to work with the OS. Say what you want, but the fact still remains that this isn't the first time a company has stopped support of an operating system, so it really shouldn't be that big of a shock...