Microsoft leaving Windows 2000 users out in the cold

Microsoft never had to quite deal with customer retention issue. There was never real competition to Windows. Until now.

If you're intentionally alienating your customer to force them to upgrade, a portion of them will seek alternatives. MacOS, Linux are real competition.

Microsoft is also facing a lot of users clinging to windows 2000 because it is good enough. No bloat, small enough footprint, runs all business apps. Doesn't run Office 2k7? About Oo.

So what if they are?

This is classic microsoft bashing. People have to be insnae to belive that somehow microsoft should support a close to 9 year old operating system. That's exatcly what they would have to do if the software installed on windows 2000.

Plus, even mentioning osx is funny, since they are *notrious* for forcing you to upgrade.

Many small to medium offices run fine with older software so why upgrade and give M$ more money? (For little to no benefit.)
There is always non microsoft alternatives which WILL work on older hardware without the need to spend countless $1000's on un needed upgrades. (Just because Microsoft says so.!)

Is there something wrong with protecting customers from viruses and other stuff like that? No

Also, it helps to spell notorious correctly when bashing anything, mac or not.

Case in point: some people run win 2k because A) their computer can't run Vista and B) they don't want to upgrade to XP. Now, 2k is not perfect because it also does the same thing to 98 and 95, a lot of apps for those OS-es won't run on anything newer (except maybe ME or XP, but I haven't tried) so yes it is Microsoft bashing, but it is well deserved

If you worked in QA, you'd understand the benefit -- simplify the N-dimensional QA matrix by dumping Win2k. It costs real money to test on each platform with all permutations of service packs and patches.

It's an economic business decision. And yes, a subtle hint to consider upgrading.

I'm one of the people still using Windows 2000 and this really annoys me! Until recently it was extremely rare for me ever to come across a program that wouldn't work, but now every new Windows product excludes 2000.

This isn't needless MS bashing. I don't expect them to support 2000 for ever. If they let you run programs at your won risk it would be fine, but they seem to be deliberately removing support for 2000 without reason.

Two cases in point are Paint.net and Windows Defender. Both supported 2000 all through beta and development and then at the last second barred us. Why? Because they suddenly decided to add something at the last moment that 2000 couldn't support - I think not!!

I used the method in the post above yesterday to change the installer and Defender is running fine on my 2K machine.

And don't think this is just 2000 people's problem. I use Firefox, but how many people will be using IE6 on windows 2000 machines infecting the internet with all sorts of crap because IE7 wasn't an option

This article talks about Paint.net on Win2000:

http://blogs.msdn.com/rickbrew/archive/2004/11/03/251890.aspx

Jesus this complaint is dumb. It's obviously a QA cost issue. Besides, what do you ABM people care? You hate Microsoft and won't upgrade to a new OS you might have to (shudder) pay for, but you still want to run this software. Why? I cannot even imagine going back to Win2K. Fine in its day, inadequate now. Server 2003 and XP are well beyond it in stability and features.

Just use OpenOffice and some crappy Norton program on your imaginary Windows box. No one cares.

Windows 2000 is a server and a workstation OS. Win 2003 was primarily a server one. As such it wasn't a complete replacement of 2000 for people using it on a workstation. Now with Vista there is a sensible replacement.

You can't expect Zune software to be supported on an old, non consumer Windows version.

Defender is not supported, again, because it is a consumer product. There are pro & server anti-virus products, that one can buy, even from Microsoft.

Office 2007 - I suppose it is fair, they decide if they will support it on Win 2K. MS are putting great new OS functionality with every new Windows version, and at some point they have to cut the old ones, in order to take advantage of the new versions.

'Not supported', does not mean, will not work reasonably well. It means 'will not work as well as it should, no tech support'.

And to the 'other OS' guys:
Windows 2000 does not run Zune's software, Defender and Office 2007, and OSX or Linux does?!?

Non-issue. There is zero reason that you can't still use Win2K if that's the OS you like. If you're still using 2K then you obviously don't care about upgrading so everything you've been using on your computer will still work just as it did.

Making a break with backward compatibility is way overdue. Many if not all of the issues with Win OS's come from 2 sources.
1. Leftover code for backward compatibility.
2. Third party software and drivers.

The biggest by far and the only problem I've ever had with a WinOS is #2 but #1 accounts for a lot of bloat. Get rid of it.

It isn't just a lack of willingness to upgrade.

I use Windows 2000 on an old laptop. In theory it should be slow and unusable. In practice the superior hardware and lightness of the 2000 OS means that it's actually much faster than my sister's XPsp2 computer which is only a couple of years old.

An upgrade to XP would make this fully-functioning, relatively fast machine unusable. So soon it'll be Linux for me

Once again, looking at the original blog entry, this isn't about demanding MS support an ageing OS. It's about whether they are actively crippling products that they know will work in 2000 just because they want to kill 2000.

Go to Download.com and see how many programs still support 2000 - and most of the ones that say XP-only just mean that the creator hasn't tested it on a 2000 machine to see if it works.

MS aside, the only program I've ever come across that I wanted and was XP-only was Democracy player - and that actually works fine. I've had no problems with it. The people behind that could have put something into the installer to prevent me using it, but it let me install without a hitch - at my own risk.

If it can work on 2000 then let it work - That's all I'm asking

Stephen I think you've gotten caught up in the Microsoft hatefest that is downloadsquad.com.
I never said you should use XP so that's a complete tangent on your part. There is nothing about this that cripples any software you're currently using. 5 years from now if your computer still works it will be working just as it is now.

What is happening is that MS is making a much needed and overdue break from backward compatibility. This 'blocking' as the post puts it is not just some switch they've turned off just to 'kill off' an old OS. It's removal of old code from new software that makes the software bloated and buggy.

You won't be able to upgrade to Office 2007 for instance but whatever version you're currently running will of course work exactly as it ever has for as long as your hardware functions. And anything you're DLing from Download.com that claims to work with 2K is just as likely to work as ever since MS doesn't have anything to do with those programs.

So I'm still failing to see how this is an issue.

I hate you people. My Zune will not work on my computer. It costs a lot of money to download the Windows XP. I have to change my computer now.

For Sale: new, opened but unused, Zune player. Received as gift and was surprised to find out it doesn't work with Win2k. Want to sell to buy SanDisk MP3 player. Also available is Flight Sim X, Premium Edition, unopened... requires WinXP.

My main beef with this whole ordeal is that if I upgrade to XP, how many years can I use it before they pull the same stunt? 3 years? Win2k has been nothing but awesome for me the last 6 years: extremely stable, simple, and until now could run anything. I don't want Vista, I'm not some faggy Mac wannabe who needs special FX on his computer to make him feel special. Why does an OS need to take up GBs of space?

Frankly, I'm beginning to start to hate computers. It seems the two choices are the furiously stylish over-priced marketing machine at Apple or the totalitarians at Microsoft. Linux is growing and I prefer it for programming, but for multimedia content generation, games, and device support, it is still a distant 3rd. If Linux and Windows could meet halfway, I'd have my perfect OS.

I just installed windows 2000 over xp as it runs better and i think windows 2000 is great it runs games and quite a good rate and does not chew out your processor and ram like vista the only way i would upgrade is if i got a new computer as my current pc has not got enouth ram and hard drive for windows vista.

I've read all the commentary here and I've made some decisions in regards to Vista. First, I'll likely buy it but it won't be for at least 6 months to a year as I prefer to sit back and watch the fireworks, patches, patches on patches until the dust settles. I reviewed a lot of OS and all have the good and bad but made the final decision to buy Xandros Professional 4.01 operating system as it gives a lot. First, it comes with it's own free updatable antivirus, adware and file protecction system. It comes with Open Office, Photomanager, Dvd burner/viewer software. It repartitioned my hard drive which was already loaded with Windows XP, installed in about 35 minutes, saw and installed all my hardware with drivers without asking me for disks. When it completed loading and rebooted, it gave me the choice to boot to Windows or Xandros and both worked as before. The big surprise was it runs Microsoft Office as well as other Microsoft software, no brag or boast, just a fact. Now for the nicest surprise of all, you can load it on as many personal computers as you own, none of this one license per computer. What really gets me about Microsoft is it tells you it implies Vista is a secure OS but if that is true why is it trying to get into our pockets by trying to sell us protection for it ? Xandros Professional will load onto any computer with exception of the very old. It retails for $99 and it comes with a complete manual both hard copy as well as electonic. My machine is based on an Asus M2N32-SLIdeluxe board with an AMD 4400 dual processor, 4 gb memory, two BFG 7900 graphics boards in SLI configuration, Logitech VX mouse with keyboard, two LG DVD burner drives, so needless to say it is more than Vista ready but the truth is I'm not. The reason I've opted for Linux is for all of the reasons mentioned but I also know it's time to start making some kind of transition to another OS as Windows will continue to change and the only people who like it are the Vendors as they get to sell you new hardware and software, so get used to it as this has been happening since Windows 3.11 with the exception of ME but then we all know why they came out with that version .... money. I honestly believe MS is going to lose a lot of market share as China, most of Asia as well as France and others have gone to Linux. I'm a newbie with Linux but I'm not having a lot of issues with it as it's very, very similar to the Windows graphical interface and the Linux forums are very helpful with any problems you might have. Online help from Xandros is free, unlike talking with somebody in India at Microsoft prices. MS is interested in keeping as much of the computer market as they can and they really don't care how they do it, court cases have been settled more than a few times out of court. I believe MS should make profits and continue to make better computer software but for God's sake, stop gouging the consumer at every turn.

I really love my 1980 Datsun 280zx, it rides like a champ, and goes where I tell it to. It doesn't have anti-lock brakes, traction control, airbags, heated seats, and in-dash navigation. I don't complain to Nissan about this. I either buy a newer car, or find third party alternatives. Why do people insist that anybody making software (MS, Apple, or anyone) should make everything work with anything that ever was.

Just to add one more piece of Microsoft-intentional-crippleware to the list - the free MSN Moneycentral Portfolio Manager, which MS likes to tout as the best on the Web, quoting independent sources for that evaluation.

At the end of 2006, MS made some major cosmetic upgrades to the portfolio manager, and it stopped working for thousands of users, both users of such ancient operating systems as Windows 98 and ME and users of Win2000. (I believe some users of XP were also affected.) Microsoft first posted a new SSL certificate for users of 98 and ME, and in response to my complaints - including one addressed to upper management - eventually posted yet another certificate which would also work on Win2000.

A few days ago, I had to reinstall Windows because of a major hardware failure. Once again, the portfolio manager stopped working. The symptoms were identical, but I could no longer find the site certificate. The explanation was simple, MS had actively removed it from the site, apparently for no other purpose than crippling yet another Win2000 application.

The final email from Microsoft support to me on the subject includes the following:

1. "I am sorry you feel this way about Microsoft not having the certificates online, I assure you this was not done intentionally. Since it is no longer helpful for our customers to resolve this specific issue, Microsoft has decided to remove it because there has been changes made and it is no longer receiving updates. By removing it, it will no longer cause confusion to our customer using Operating Systems that are no longer supported."
In other words, last year MS customers were intelligent and knowledgeable enough to find and install the certificate, but this year, having the possibility available to them would confuse them. I was under the impression that most people who knew enough about secure networking to find and install the certificates would be able to do so corrected, but apparently - since last year - that is no longer the case.

2. "We would love to keep you as a Customer and will try to do everything in our hands to keep you using Money."
Except for supplying me with a file containing last year's certificate, which they obviously still have somewhere.

3. 'I will close this case as "Not Resolved".'
This sentence almost makes the whole business worthwhile. 'CLOSING a case as "Not Resolved"' is such a lovely little piece of newspeak.

For anyone else having to make the transition from MS portfolio tracking software to Linux: I have not yet found any other program, free or paid, which displays as much useful information as conveniently as the full edition - only for NEW MS operating systems - as the old MSN Portfolio Manager. However, Moneydance is inexpensive, tolerably usable, and helpful for the Win-to-Linux transition since it has native Windows, Linux, and Mac versions which use the same data files.

Good luck.
H.