Login:
Password:
Lost Password?
Print this article  |  E-mail this article  |  Comment on this article

Microsoft: No IE7 for Windows 2000

By Nate Mook, BetaNews

May 30, 2005, 10:53 AM

With Internet Explorer 7 Beta 1 set to debut next month, Microsoft has quietly closed the door on Windows 2000 users planning to adopt the new Web browser. IE7 will require Windows XP Service Pack 2 due to internal security changes that rely on Microsoft's latest operating system release.

The decision to update Internet Explorer before Longhorn arrives in late 2006 was announced by Bill Gates at the RSA Conference in February. Although Microsoft had said it was focusing on Windows XP SP2 only, the company did leave open the possibility of IE7 supporting Windows 2000.

"We're actively listening to our major Windows 2000 customers about what they want and comparing that to the engineering and logistical complexity of that work," IE team head Dean Hachamovitch wrote in February.

But now, Microsoft says the task is too complex due to security features not available in the older operating system. Company officials also noted that Windows 2000 is moving into the "Extended" support phase of Microsoft's product lifecycle as of June 30, 2005.

"It should be no surprise that we do not plan on releasing IE7 for Windows 2000," IE program manager Christopher Vaughn wrote on the Internet Explorer Web log.

"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."

The decision brought mixed reactions, with some users agreeing that Windows 2000 customers should be making the upgrade to Windows XP or Server 2003. Others, however, noted that large numbers of users remain on Windows 2000, and developers would be forced to continue working around quirks found in IE6.

"I find it quite ironic (moronic?) that Microsoft cannot produce a secure browser for its own OS, whereas other secure browsers can be installed on this platform," commented Bruce Boughton. "Seeing as though IE7 won't be available on 2000, will you be encouraging your 2000 customers to upgrade anyway... to Firefox/Opera?"

Add a Comment (189 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By shamia3

edited Dec 28, 2006 - 11:19 AM

i do not think that the latest technological things should require latest server's because many people don't have the latest servers.

Score: 0

By sunnydhiman

edited Nov 28, 2006 - 2:21 PM

i dont understand microsoft at times. windows 2000 server is the best operating system they have ever designed which at the moment is also the best and better than windows 2003 server. i have worked on both the systems and still find server 2000 more reliable than server 2003. i am sure there is a way of running ie7 on 2000. microsoft is just being lazy. think about it if firefox can work why cannt ie7.....

Score: 0

By rlkittle

edited Dec 20, 2006 - 6:39 AM

You are all missing the point. MS will increase its revenues by encouraging people to move up to XP from w2000. This is good news for the stockholders.

Score: 0

By wicked_Dreamz4u

edited Nov 15, 2006 - 6:48 AM

I haven't supported IE since the many flaws in it. Since Firefox has been released, Insted of formatting my Laptop for a stupid IE error i switched, and which Im glad to say now my system holds only FIREFOX after removing every varient of IE, sadly enough Microsoft integrated IE into their OS, and now we see a lead of Firefox Downloads till this day. Reason being? We don't want a ton of forced plugins, and a browser that can open a ton of porn popups and infect us. GO FIREFOX!

Score: 0

By jackokring

edited May 2, 2006 - 6:39 AM

wouldn't suprise mje if they built a crash engine into ie6 and because you can't downgrade back to 5.5, and you can't upgrade to 7 you get stuck with an xp bill and resultant hardware upgrade. I was sure i didn't buy a time limited licence!

Score: 0

By livewiremaxx

posted Feb 2, 2006 - 11:00 AM

I am really inpressed with IE 7 so far, just a few quirks I dont like. But there are some cool features that are really good.

Score: 0

By sgt_mad_dog32

edited Jul 1, 2005 - 12:09 AM

Bulls***!

Score: 0

By sgt_mad_dog_hound2

edited Jun 22, 2005 - 9:00 PM

i think xp should die!xp is getting all the attention! what about windows me,windows 95,98? what happened those.those where the good times!xp sucks!any windows older than xp has will soon stop being supported!Windows xp is a traitor!making windows me windows 95 98 suffer because they too old!i want to get a metal bat and brake xp! soon i won't be able to use windows update for windows me!xp deserves to die!

Score: 0

By sgt_mad_dog_hound2

edited Jun 22, 2005 - 8:31 PM

so what? xp will lose its lifespan too. it will die anyways. microsoft probably will make
windows sp or something! and then microsoft will ditch supporting xp!see?! microsoft is making us waste money and they'll keep making more new windows system and not supporting the old ones! watch out xp users! you'll have to upgrade to another microsoft system and later on xp won't be supported anymore! and then microsoft tell us upgrade to another darn system! microsoft is not a good company! it will not support old windows anymore! xp is next to not be supported!

Score: 0

By sgt_mad_dog_hound2

edited Jun 22, 2005 - 8:33 PM

I have pay for windows xp home edition thats not fair. i'm just a nineth grader!microsoft should make a way for windows me users to upgrade to xp for free! microsoft is a greedy lousy corporation if you ask me!i don't even have a credit card! having to pay $90 bucks just to upgrade what garbage!

Score: 0

By maitham

edited Jun 3, 2005 - 4:11 AM

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.

Score: 0

By scythemeister

edited May 31, 2005 - 10:08 PM

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.

Score: 0

By Mendocino

edited May 31, 2005 - 2:42 PM

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

Score: 0

By robertguda

posted Jun 3, 2005 - 8:19 AM

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 ?

Score: 0

By chriscollier

edited Jun 2, 2005 - 10:03 PM

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

Score: 0

By wincement

posted Jun 2, 2005 - 8:02 PM

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

Score: 0

By imafurby

posted Jun 2, 2005 - 4:00 PM

It's boring to say the least.

Score: 0

By subs00

posted Jun 2, 2005 - 12:40 PM

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

Score: 0

By netwiz562

posted Jun 2, 2005 - 5:47 AM

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.

Score: 0

By terminalx

posted Jun 2, 2005 - 3:05 AM

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)

Score: 0

By OTACORB

posted Jun 2, 2005 - 1:07 AM

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.

Score: 0

By Chip1035

edited Jun 1, 2005 - 3:25 PM

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.

Score: 0

By sonofnelo

edited Jun 1, 2005 - 1:55 PM

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

Score: 0

By Aires

posted Jun 3, 2005 - 8:10 AM

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

Score: 0

By Raimondas

edited Jun 2, 2005 - 12:46 AM

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.

Score: 0

By emredondo

posted Jun 1, 2005 - 11:28 AM

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.

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

edited Jun 1, 2005 - 11:54 AM

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.

Score: 0

By The_Almeister

posted Jun 1, 2005 - 10:35 AM

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.

Score: 0

By MacroN

edited Jun 1, 2005 - 8:34 AM

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 phucking 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 :(

Score: 0

By nayan003

edited Jun 2, 2005 - 2:18 AM

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!!

Score: 0

By Crimson_Blade

posted Jun 1, 2005 - 11:22 AM

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

Score: 0

By rogueworld

edited Jun 1, 2005 - 8:17 AM

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.

Score: 0

By PhoenixPath

posted Jun 1, 2005 - 9:33 AM

lol

Score: 0

By notary38

posted Jun 1, 2005 - 4:37 AM

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

Score: 0

By Crimson_Blade

posted Jun 1, 2005 - 11:26 AM

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

Score: 0

By Aires

edited Jun 3, 2005 - 8:14 AM

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.

Score: 0

By Zoroaster

posted Jun 1, 2005 - 3:15 AM

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!

Score: 0

By paulmk

posted Jun 1, 2005 - 12:55 AM

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.

Score: 0

By wes_517

posted Jun 1, 2005 - 2:22 PM

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***)

Score: 0

By lilmegz

posted Jun 1, 2005 - 12:01 AM

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)

Score: 0

By crashoverride

posted Jun 1, 2005 - 1:54 AM

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."

Score: 0

By PhoenixPath

posted Jun 1, 2005 - 9:34 AM

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

Score: 0

By crashoverride

posted Jun 1, 2005 - 12:38 PM

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.

Score: 0

By PhoenixPath

posted Jun 2, 2005 - 10:21 AM

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?

Score: 0

By infectbda

posted Jun 1, 2005 - 12:00 AM

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.

Score: 0

By GeorgeSantayana

posted May 31, 2005 - 11:13 PM

"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.

Score: 0

By Adrian79

posted May 31, 2005 - 9:33 PM

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

Score: 0

By Tenoq

posted May 31, 2005 - 10:45 PM

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.

Score: 0

By mjm01010101

posted May 31, 2005 - 6:21 PM

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.

Score: 0

By bigjacobus

edited May 31, 2005 - 2:43 PM

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.

Score: 0

By fdv

posted May 31, 2005 - 6:00 PM

"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

Score: 0

By Morsel

posted May 31, 2005 - 2:13 PM

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

Score: 0

By frankwick

posted May 31, 2005 - 11:01 AM

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!

Score: 0

By crashoverride

posted May 31, 2005 - 10:28 PM

"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.

Score: 0

By Kramy

posted Jun 1, 2005 - 4:26 AM

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.

Score: 0

By Aires

posted Jun 3, 2005 - 8:21 AM

"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. :?

Score: 0

By PhoenixPath

posted Jun 1, 2005 - 9:39 AM

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?

Score: 0

By crashoverride

posted Jun 3, 2005 - 3:19 AM

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.

Score: 0

By PhoenixPath

edited Jun 1, 2005 - 9:40 AM

Damn double-posting ba$tard.

Score: 0

By DiGiTaLFX

edited May 31, 2005 - 10:42 AM

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.

Score: 0

By Aires

edited Jun 3, 2005 - 8:26 AM

"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.

Score: 0

By crashoverride

posted Jun 1, 2005 - 2:01 AM

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.

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

posted Jun 1, 2005 - 11:56 AM

Ummm...sure, whatever you say.

Score: 0

By valrus

edited May 31, 2005 - 9:17 AM

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...

Score: 0

By CyberDoc999

posted May 31, 2005 - 8:14 AM

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

Score: 0

By Mark Gillespie

posted May 31, 2005 - 9:07 AM

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.

Score: 0

By Aires

posted May 31, 2005 - 1:45 PM

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

Score: 0

By fdv

posted May 31, 2005 - 6:03 PM

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/

Score: 0

By PhoenixPath

posted Jun 1, 2005 - 9:42 AM

THIS IS NOT AN ARTICE ABOUT FIREFOX!!!!

There...had to be said.

Score: 0

By Aires

posted Jun 1, 2005 - 5:30 PM

lmao ;)

Score: 0

By PhoenixPath

posted Jun 2, 2005 - 10:21 AM

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

Score: 0

By SupremeServer

edited May 31, 2005 - 4:37 AM

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

Score: 0

By fdv

posted May 31, 2005 - 6:05 PM

"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

Score: 0

By athome

posted May 31, 2005 - 8:21 AM

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.

Score: 0

By vcmsxs

edited May 31, 2005 - 2:49 AM

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

Score: 0

By PhoenixPath

posted Jun 1, 2005 - 9:47 AM

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?

Score: 0

By Portal3

posted May 31, 2005 - 2:34 AM

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.

Score: 0

By wharfrat2005

edited May 31, 2005 - 12:01 AM

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.

Score: 0

By Mystiqq

posted May 31, 2005 - 1:31 AM

Linux?

Score: 0

By PhoenixPath

posted Jun 1, 2005 - 9:51 AM

l m a o

Score: 0

By wicketr

edited May 30, 2005 - 11:53 PM

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.

Score: 0

By Aires

posted Jun 3, 2005 - 8:34 AM

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??

Score: 0

By thunderhawks53

edited Jun 1, 2005 - 8:41 AM

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

Score: 0

By Mark Gillespie

posted May 31, 2005 - 6:28 AM

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.

Score: 0

By nate

posted May 31, 2005 - 8:35 AM

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.

Score: 0

By Mark Gillespie

posted May 31, 2005 - 9:02 AM

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...

Score: 0

By Aires

edited May 31, 2005 - 1:53 PM

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.

Score: 0

By fewt

posted May 31, 2005 - 5:49 PM

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.

Score: 0

By PhoenixPath

posted Jun 1, 2005 - 9:54 AM

>...

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.

Score: 0

By Aires

edited Jun 3, 2005 - 8:48 AM

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

Score: 0

By crashoverride

edited May 30, 2005 - 11:23 PM

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.

Score: 0

By Mark Gillespie

posted May 31, 2005 - 9:04 AM

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..

Score: 0

By crashoverride

posted May 31, 2005 - 8:48 PM

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.

Score: 0

By PhoenixPath

posted Jun 1, 2005 - 9:55 AM

*flame*

Be nice, kiddies.

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

Goggle it.

Score: 0

By fdv

posted May 31, 2005 - 6:14 PM

"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.

Score: 0

By zridling

posted May 30, 2005 - 10:42 PM

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?

Score: 0

By morriscox

posted May 31, 2005 - 1:27 AM

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.

Score: 0

By arossetti

posted May 30, 2005 - 11:12 PM

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....

Score: 0

By PhoenixPath

posted Jun 1, 2005 - 9:56 AM

um...

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

Score: 0

By crashoverride

posted May 30, 2005 - 9:41 PM

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.

Score: 0

By lazarus98

posted May 30, 2005 - 9:34 PM

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

Score: 0

By PhoenixPath

posted Jun 1, 2005 - 9:57 AM

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

Score: 0

By Pipewrench

posted May 30, 2005 - 8:57 PM

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!

Score: 0

By bschuler

edited May 30, 20