 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Windows Forum / Windows 98 / General Topics / October 2006IE 7 not being provided for Win-2000 ???
Technically this is OT, but since I don't follow any 2k groups I still think this is of mild interest here. I was following some MS links for IE7 and when it came to the download page, select your OS drop-down menu, I could only see XP and 2003 in the list. No 2k. Is that for real? Has it been announced that IE7 is not being provided for 2k? From: "98 Guy" <98@Guy.com> | Technically this is OT, but since I don't follow any 2k groups I still | think this is of mild interest here. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] | Is that for real? Has it been announced that IE7 is not being | provided for 2k? Yes. It is NOT offered foe Win2K becuase Win2K is reaching its EoL.  SignatureDave http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm > | Is that for real? Has it been announced that IE7 is not being > | provided for 2k? > > Yes. It is NOT offered foe Win2K becuase Win2K is reaching its EoL. As if XP is that much "younger" (or different). Does IE7 not run on 2k? If so - how'd they do that? From: "98 Guy" <98@Guy.com> | As if XP is that much "younger" (or different). | | Does IE7 not run on 2k? If so - how'd they do that? The installer does version checking and denies installation. WinXP came out in 2002/2003. Win2K came out in 1999/2000. SignatureDave http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm > From: "98 Guy" <98@Guy.com> > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > The installer does version checking and denies installation. Beyond that, is there any structural reason why IE7 won't run on 2k? > WinXP came out in 2002/2003. October 2001. > Win2K came out in 1999/2000. Feb 2000. Basically, 20 months difference. At this point in time, XP has been around for 75% of the total duration or age of Win-2K. From: "98 Guy" <98@Guy.com> >> From: "98 Guy" <98@Guy.com> >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] | At this point in time, XP has been around for 75% of the total | duration or age of Win-2K. Numbers, numbers, numbers... Oh boy :-) The only real fact is the ACTUAL release date, not the pre-relaese or Beta date, and the life cycle of 7 years. As for IE7 being reversed engineered and installed on Win2K, I doubt it. I think it relies on DLL files and constructs only available to WinXP and Win2003 Server and were not available in Win2K. SignatureDave http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm > >> WinXP came out in 2002/2003. > | [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Numbers, numbers, numbers... Oh boy :-) :) > The only real fact is the ACTUAL release date, not the pre-relaese > or Beta date, I believe the dates I mentioned above are the actual consumer release date, not the release of any beta version. Release to manufacturers might bave been a little earlier for XP. > As for IE7 being reversed engineered and installed on Win2K, I > doubt it. I see that it was known for quite some time (May 2005) that 2K would "miss out" on IE7: --------- Although Windows 2000 will be supported until 2010, users won't get access to IE 7's improved security and standards support http://news.com.com/Windows+2000+users+to+miss+out+on+IE+7/2100-1032_3-5729544.html Published: June 2, 2005 --------- > and the life cycle of 7 years. "Although Windows 2000 will be supported until 2010 ..." 10 year life cycle? Interesting that MS would make such a decision about IE7 and 2K at only the half-way point in 2K's life cycle. Seems that at the time, IE7 was probably scheduled for fall 2005 release? "IE 7, which will be available in beta this summer ..." See also: http://www.betanews.com/article/Microsoft_No_IE7_for_Windows_2000/1117464807 From: "98 Guy" <98@Guy.com> >>>> WinXP came out in 2002/2003. |>> [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] | | http://www.betanews.com/article/Microsoft_No_IE7_for_Windows_2000/1117464807 That's interesting. We are required to pull ALL Win2K PCs off our MAN prior to Dec 31, '06 because of Win2K going to its EoL ! Hmmmmmmm SignatureDave http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm OMG, that sounds really "non-trivial"! SignatureGary S. Terhune MS-MVP Shell/User http://grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm http://grystmill.com/articles/security.htm > | See also: > | [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > prior to Dec 31, '06 > because of Win2K going to its EoL ! Hmmmmmmm From: "Gary S. Terhune" <grystnews@mvps.org> | OMG, that sounds really "non-trivial"! Yeppper ! Notebooks and desktops. SignatureDave http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm Guess I should be glad that none of my clients (so far) run Win2K. Of course the flip side is that everything that rolls in the near furure will have Vista on it. That is *not* a system I look forward to servicing in a business setting. SignatureGary S. Terhune MS-MVP Shell/User http://grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm http://grystmill.com/articles/security.htm > From: "Gary S. Terhune" <grystnews@mvps.org> > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Notebooks and desktops. > everything that rolls in the near furure will have Vista on it. Are any vendors (compaq/hp, dell, etc) giving people a choice between Vista and XP? Any announcements along those lines by anyone? > That is *not* a system I look forward to servicing in a > business setting. Running The Numbers On Vista Sep 29, 2006 http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2006/09/running_the_num.html "Microsoft released new total-cost-of-ownership figures--the overall price tag of installing, running, and supporting its upcoming operating system--that show the best-managed IT shops could save as much as $340 per PC each year they run Vista, compared with today's Windows XP system." Very interesting reading that 70% of 500 companies in MS's early adopter Vista beta test program use "sneakernet" to manually manage their PC's. So much for all crap about remote-this, remote-that management services and easy deployment. "So here's the math: Typical IT shops--the 28% that are neither great nor lousy--running Windows XP with Service Pack 2 incur IT labor costs of $542 per PC per year to manage Windows. That includes the cost of PC management, help desks, and installing Microsoft's monthly security patches. By moving to a "rationalized" IT environment--the 2% making widespread use of automation tools- -and running Vista, companies can incur a cost of about $200 per PC each year for a net savings of $342 per machine." Geeze, what's my cost per every Win-98 system per year? Probably about $100 max (4 hours a year). "the results of an InformationWeek research survey this month of 672 business technology managers. Of the companies that answered our Web survey, 39% plan to upgrade to Vista within the first year of availability, as my colleague John Foley reports. The No. 1 reason to upgrade? Not surprisingly, security. We'll publish a full report on the survey findings Oct. 9." The emperor has no clothes. We've been told for years that XP is the most secure windows OS yet. AFAIK, the only thing Dell is saying is that their some of their current PCs are Vista Capable or Vista Capable Premium Ready. SignatureRegards Ron Badour, MS MVP for W98 Tips: http://home.satx.rr.com/badour Knowledge Base Info: http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=kbinfo >> everything that rolls in the near furure will have Vista on it. > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > We've been told for years that XP is the most secure windows OS yet. From: "Ron Badour" <Sorry@NoAddress.com> | AFAIK, the only thing Dell is saying is that their some of their current PCs | are Vista Capable or Vista Capable Premium Ready. But Dell is STILL shipping computers with a vulnerable version of Sun Java ! SignatureDave http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm From: "Gary S. Terhune" <grystnews@mvps.org> | Guess I should be glad that none of my clients (so far) run Win2K. Of course | the flip side is that everything that rolls in the near furure will have | Vista on it. That is *not* a system I look forward to servicing in a | business setting. I can't see using Vista until AFTER Vista SP1 is released ! SignatureDave http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm Sounds about right! SignatureGary S. Terhune MS-MVP Shell/User http://grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm http://grystmill.com/articles/security.htm > From: "Gary S. Terhune" <grystnews@mvps.org> > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I can't see using Vista until AFTER Vista SP1 is released ! > Sounds about right! [] [] >> I can't see using Vista until AFTER Vista SP1 is released ! [] Naw, think I'll wait until the _next_ OS is released ... Yeah, after Vista there is likely to be a high demand for a "stripped down" OS that eschews all the eye-candy and "do it all for you" wizards, etc. SignatureGary S. Terhune MS-MVP Shell/User http://grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm http://grystmill.com/articles/security.htm >> Sounds about right! > [] > [] >>> I can't see using Vista until AFTER Vista SP1 is released ! > [] > Naw, think I'll wait until the _next_ OS is released ... In news:ugmk9XI%23GHA.3952@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl, Gary S. Terhune typed: > Yeah, after Vista there is likely to be a high demand for a "stripped down" > OS that eschews all the eye-candy and "do it all for you" wizards, etc. Ah, I wish, but can't quite believe it will happen! Oh well... Just means more work for those of us who can actually learn how to manually tweak the damned thing without going totally nuts, <g>. (I mean paid work, of course!) SignatureGary S. Terhune MS-MVP Shell/User http://grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm http://grystmill.com/articles/security.htm > In news:ugmk9XI%23GHA.3952@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl, Gary S. Terhune typed: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Ah, I wish, but can't quite believe it will happen! >Technically this is OT, but since I don't follow any 2k groups I still >think this is of mild interest here. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Is that for real? Has it been announced that IE7 is not being >provided for 2k? This is where I saw it too, it must be real: IE7 System requirements: Operating System: Windows XP Service Pack 2 (SP2) Windows XP Professional x64 Edition Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 1 (SP1) http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/ie7/about/sysreqs/default.mspx Regards, Bill Watt Win98 Computer Help & Other Information http://home.ptd.net/~bwatt/ Hello! > IE7 > System requirements: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 1 (SP1) > http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/ie7/about/sysreqs/default.mspx BTW, the final version (build 1592)of Windows Defender is also only for Windows 5.1 or greater (XP.SP2, Windows 2003, ...) http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/spyware/software/about/faq.mspx [quote] Q. Why doesn't Windows Defender support Windows 2000 anymore? A. Windows Defender is primarily a consumer antispyware solution. Windows 2000 was not a popular consumer operating system and mainstream support ended on June 30, 2005. Due to these reasons, we decided to focus more on Windows XP and Windows Server 2003. Both of these operating systems with the latest service packs have significantly better security protection overall, which will also help to prevent spyware on those computers that run those operating systems. [/quote] Roman So answer me this. Milkro$haft has decided not to do the work necessary to make IE7 compatible with Windows 2000. Windows XP has been sufficiently re-designed or re-patched with SP2 to be sooooo different from what it was with XP-gold to make it wayyyy different to Win-2k, hence the reason why IE7 works on XP-sp2 and not Win-2k. (which means that IE7 should not function on XP-gold or XP-SP1 which should be testable?). Ok, so what's the alternative. The alternative is that Meekro$haft must now keep both IE forks patched - IE 6 AND IE 7. Why? Because Macro$haft is still supporting Win-2K until 2010, and that MUST mean that IE6 must continue to be patched because support for IE6 = support for Win-2k. So Micro$lap is saying that making IE7 compatible with Win-2k (or making win-2k compatible with IE7) is harder or requires more resources vs supporting both IE6 and IE7? From: "98 Guy" <98@Guy.com> | So answer me this. | [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] | making win-2k compatible with IE7) is harder or requires more | resources vs supporting both IE6 and IE7? Mozilla FireFox and Opera are two alternatives. SignatureDave http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm > | So Micro$lap is saying that making IE7 compatible with Win-2k > |(or making win-2k compatible with IE7) is harder or requires > | more resources vs supporting both IE6 and IE7? > > Mozilla FireFox and Opera are two alternatives. A totally irrelavent followup there Dave. Totally misses the point. Actually, I suspect he meant: 'Quitchur bellyaching--there isn't anything to be done about it anyway!' Joe > > | So Micro$lap is saying that making IE7 compatible with Win-2k > > |(or making win-2k compatible with IE7) is harder or requires [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Totally misses the point. Hello! > So answer me this. > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > making win-2k compatible with IE7) is harder or requires more > resources vs supporting both IE6 and IE7? Isn't the IE in Windows 2000 version 5.01? So they have to support IE 5.01 SP4 till 2010, too ... http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/Bulletin/MS06-042.mspx BTW, IE 5.01 was the last version of IE for Windows 3.x: http://classic.tucows.com/preview/4842.html Cheers, Roman No, not true. IE Updates are considered Critical Updates. What's supported until EOL for Win2K is IE6SP1+Updates (*possibly* even including an SP2). SignatureGary S. Terhune MS-MVP Shell/User http://grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm http://grystmill.com/articles/security.htm > Hello! > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Cheers, Roman Hello! > No, not true. IE Updates are considered Critical Updates. What's supported until EOL for Win2K is IE6SP1+Updates (*possibly* even > including an SP2). Hmm, but according to this http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifesupsps/ and this http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?p1=3071 both IE 5.01 SP4 on W2K SP4 and IE 6 SP1 on W2K SP4 will be supported (security updates) until 2010-JUL-13. Regards, Roman "Support ends either 12 months after the next service pack releases or at the end of the product's support lifecycle, whichever comes first. Visit the Lifecycle page to find the support timelines for your particular product" I'm fairly certain the "Product" being referred to is IE 5.01, not Win2K. SignatureGary S. Terhune MS-MVP Shell/User http://grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm http://grystmill.com/articles/security.htm > Hello! > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Regards, Roman |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.