Windows 2000 moves into Extended Support after June 30th


There are two important events that will happen to the support policy for Windows 2000 after June 30th of this year.

First, support for both IE 5.01 SP3 and IE 6 SP1 on Windows 2000 SP3 will expire. Users running IE 5.01 or IE 6 SP1 on Windows 2000 should upgrade to Windows 2000 SP4 in order to continue to receive security updates.

Second, Windows 2000 SP4 moves from mainstream to extended support. The key difference between mainstream support and extended support which I think is most relevant to this audience is this quote from the lifecycle site: “Microsoft will not accept requests for warranty support, design changes, or new features during the Extended support phase.” We will of course continue to keep our Windows 2000 SP4 customers secure with security updates through the life of Windows 2000 (through 2010). There are a few other differences between the two support models which you can read about at the lifecycle site. You may also want to read my previous post about Windows’ lifecycle.

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.

Please note that these lifecycle changes are only for IE on Windows 2000. For questions about other versions of IE (IE for PocketPC, IE for Mac), please consult the lifecycle site for the latest expiration dates.

-Christopher

Comments (221)

  1. I’d feel a lot better about this if Longhorn was released BEFORE Windows 2000 went into extended support. You’re going to have a lot of customers currently on Windows 2000 who are going to be very reticent to invest in XP with Longhorn around the corner.

  2. Anonymous says:

    People using Windows 2000 should be in the advanced planning/early rollout stages of their upgrade to get off of Windows 2000 by now, anyway. Therefore, I see this news as irrelevant.

    James

  3. James I find that comment to very ironic given the story you just posted on your blog πŸ˜‰

  4. Anonymous says:

    This is a bad decision.

    You are making a mistake if you think that by having IE7 in common use and not being available on Win2K you will accelerate upgrades to Longhorn.

    Sticking to a ‘lifecycle policy’ is admirable generally, but you must have flexibility otherwise you will get hurt. You are needlessly giving away valuable market share. There are simply too many alternatives now which work on Windows 2000.

    Obviously XP and Longhorn must have developer priority now, but why not backport to 2000 after it is launched?

  5. Anonymous says:

    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.

    Score +1 for non-integrated browsers?

    (Seeing as though IE7 won’t be available on 2000, will you be encouraging your 2000 customers to upgrade anyway… to Firefox/Opera?)

  6. Anonymous says:

    Internet Explorer 7 will not run on Windows 2000: "…IE7 relies on [..] functionality in XPSP2 that is non-trivial to port back…"

  7. Anonymous says:

    James Summerlin: Yeah, we’re in the planning stages of a rollout to Ubuntu desktops. Not that everyone doesn’t already use Firefox, but hey.

  8. Anonymous says:

    This news might convince a lot of corporate entities to uninstall IE, if you know what I mean.

  9. More of a suggestion for the Windows team, really… do they have a blog?

    Make a POSIX-compliant version of Windows (Windows 2010, say.) That way the poor IE team won’t have to cut off all their customers who aren’t running just the right version of the OS.

    In fact, IE would even run on Linux / UNIX / OS X… without any extra development effort on the part of the IE team!

  10. Anonymous says:

    Why not backport some fixes for the most heinous IE6 bugs to Windows 2000? It shouldn’t be excessively difficult to patch IE on these operating systems to treat application/xhtml+xml as text/html and ignore XML prologs that cause the browser to enter quirks-mode for documents with valid HTML 4.01 or XHTML 1.0 DOCTYPES, for instance.

    I’ve never been very comfortable with this "life cycle" concept. It looks more like Microsoft’s attempt to force customers into hemorrhaging more piles cash within the next 5 years for an expensive and mostly pointless operating system upgrade. Given the large number of users still happy with Windows 2000, why else would they upgrade?

  11. Anonymous says:

    Maurits:

    I assume you are referring to my post on "Putting Virtual PC to Work."

    If you will read the post again, I was playing a joke on my wife that nearly got me killed. I wasn’t speaking of downgrading at all and I have always been in favor of moving forward. I fail to see the irony you speak of.

  12. Anonymous says:

    My Windows 2000 works very well and I’m not going to buy another OS. Around 2007-2008 I will move to Linux. Ubuntu looks very promising.

  13. Dave says:

    "I’ve never been very comfortable with this ‘life cycle’ concept."

    Sure, if you look at it from the standpoint of a customer that has no interest in upgrading or changing their setup, I agree. The problem is, how much money should Microsoft spend to support customers who will not be spending one additional dime to support Microsoft? Sure, they bought the product for $200 five years ago. And if their setup is truly potted in epoxy and unchanging, they have ANOTHER five years before they lose support, meaning they spent just $20 annually for their OS.

    And there’s nothing that says a customer has to stop using Win2K in 2010, just that patches won’t be available. They can continue to use it, just as people are using Win95 and NT today. But I sure hope it’s just for internal apps, and behind a good firewall.

  14. Anonymous says:

    Everyone,

    I completely and utterly fail to see why any of you want the full feature set of Service Pack 2 for Windows XP (or just IE7) backported to Windows 2000. As I said earlier, everyone on Win2k should be in the advanced planning/early rollout of XP/Win2k3 by now.

    No one says you have to wait for Longhorn unless you know there is going to be some super killer feature you need that Longhorn has. I have my own network along with almost all my customers on Windows XP/Windows Server 2003. Longhorn will probably be out for at least two years before I talk to any of them about upgrading again.

    Upgrading is something that is supposed to be planned and planned properly. Many of you are under the illusions spun by the open source crowd. Get your head out of the clouds and look at how upgrading can save you money in the long run and how you can do it cost effectively so you get a proper return on investment.

    It shocks me to no end the number of businesses I am aware of who have no future outlook (read: upgrade plan/path) for their organization.

  15. But you fail to see that Windows 2000, unlike Windows 98, is a perfectly useful operating system. There’s very little wrong with it.

    I don’t want all of SP2 backported to Windows 2000. But if Internet Explorer were an application and not part of the operating system, I could install Internet Explorer 5 or 6 or 7 at will, just like I can install Office XP or 2003 on Windows 2000. And if Office 2005/6/7 will not run on Windows 2000, I can still install WordPerfect or OpenOffice.

    But Internet Explorer is the most used web browser, and that alone is not a problem. But even if some of the nastier rendering bugs are fixed in IE7, where does that leave Windows 2000 users?

    Wanting a new web browser or a fancy GUI is not a good reason to upgrade to a new operating system.

    And as a developer, I will probably have Windows 2000 machines around for some time to come (both physical and virtual) for testing purposes. I’m not about to stop developing for Windows 2000. I can see dropping support for 98/ME, and even NT4, but not 2000. Windows XP does not really add enough (it’s 5.1 vs 5.0) to warrant upgrading every machine, even though I prefer using it and install it on my personal machines.

  16. Anonymous says:

    "Wanting a new web browser or a fancy GUI is not a good reason to upgrade to a new operating system."

    Apple does it every 12-18 months (as well, Safari 1.0 required an OS upgrade to move to 1.1 or higher). Of course they get criticized for that, too…

    When looking at browser traffic stats, Win2K makes up a tiny sliver of users, comparable to Win98. I hope no one is shocked that IE7 isn’t being ported to Win98 as well.

    The demarcation is perfectly sensible. XP marked the unification of the Windows client codebase, and practically everyone using a Windows client has migrated to XP. Spending precious development resources catering to a small fraction of users (almost none of whom probably care about getting a browser upgrade) would be a waste.

  17. James –

    The irony lies in the juxtaposition of this statement from your post

    "People using Windows 2000 should be in the advanced planning/early rollout stages of their upgrade to get off of Windows 2000 by now"

    with this statement from your blog

    "The place she works at is just now moving off of Windows NT 4.0"

    … you see?

    Upgrades cost money. There’s got to be a justification stronger than "because we can."

  18. I’ve been telling people to move away from Windows 98 for years, and I was an early adopter of Windows 2000 (beta 3, if I recall). I never went back. I tried Windows ME for a bit, and decided it was a mistake for it to be released at all.

    But Windows 95/98/ME is an operating system that is not even being written anymore. Windows NT, is, and there isn’t too much difference between 5.0 Professional and 5.1 Professional as far as many businesses are concerned. In fact, the first thing I do after installing XP is disable a lot of the new features and make it more like 2000.

  19. Anonymous says:

    > It shouldn’t be excessively difficult to patch IE on these operating systems to treat application/xhtml+xml as text/html

    Please no! We’ve got enough trouble dealing with buggy Internet Explorer lax behaviour, we don’t need more of it!

    Supporting XHTML is much more than simply treating it as HTML. If Internet Explorer does this, in five years time we’ll all be complaining that we are stuck with buggy Internet Explorer screwing up our XHTML.

    XHTML has differences in parsing, differences in CSS, differences in the DOM. Sticking a stupid hack like that into Internet Explorer will only cause problems. If you want to use XHTML, use content negotiation to cope with the (many) user-agents that don’t yet support it.

  20. Anonymous says:

    "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."

    Bullshit. Why most other browsers are crossplatform? You mean you are weak programists or you just want to force people to buy XP?

  21. Anonymous says:

    Knock yourself out guys, but know this – Firefox doesn’t care what OS it installs itself on.

    Back in the mid nineties, Microsoft didn’t have all this bureaucracy about Extended Jeffries tube lifecycle support conduits, or whatever that Star Trekkish legal mumbo jumbo is about. It supported as many Windows and Mac platforms as it could, and won the browser war because it wanted to. it developed sophisticated support for cutting edge web standards like XML, XSL and CSS because it knew Netscape could not keep up.

    Now? Not a hope. Laggard IE’s day is done if you can’t see the mindshare market past the support policy legalese.

  22. Anonymous says:

    Cool, ~20% extra free marketshare for Opera/Netscape/Mozilla/Firefox!

  23. Anonymous says:

    Maurits,

    The reason why the place my wife works at is just now moving off of NT 4.0 is because their IT staff sucks. We are talking about people who never even looked at Windows 2000 when it first came out. Hell, I was playing with Windows 2000 when it was in beta and couldn’t wait to get it going back in 1999. The IT staff where my wife works, on the other hand, sit back in their offices all day playing solitaire not even bothering to keep up with the latest technologies. In fact, I am willing to bet some serious money now that almost all of the NT 4.0 machines that are being upgraded were only on service pack 4.

    I know because I used to work there. How do you think I met my wife?

    James

  24. Anonymous says:

    James, what proportion of IT staff on the planet do you think suck? I would guess it is extremely high if you believe that not upgrading to XP is an indicator. And what proportion of non-sucking IT staff do you believe are willfully keeping themselves ignorant of alternatives to the monopoly?

    Understand this: any incentive to upgrade is also an incentive to migrate.

  25. Anonymous says:

    test

  26. Anonymous says:

    An important point, as I see it, is that Microsoft are committed to provided extended support to Windows 2000 through 2010. I consider that acknowledgement by Microsoft that businesses and consumers will be using Windows 2000 until at least that time, however, come 2010 they will still be using IE 6 SP1 which will surely be obsolete by that time.

  27. Anonymous says:

    IE7 is going to use features that arent in Win2000. Even if IE7 were ‘not integrated’ it still wouldnt work on Win2000. I you want to use IE7 stop whinging and install a supported OS, otherwise pick another browser, or version of IE.

    Sheesh.

  28. Anonymous says:

    It is *criminal* to build a @@#$$@! web browser that *needs* a specific flavor of operating system to run upon.

    Microsoft lost their right to utter the words "design" "abstraction" "clean separation" when they embedded IE into Windows so deep that it can’t be taken out, nor can IE-For-Win2K take automatic advantage of IE-For-XP. Damn it.

  29. Anonymous says:

    What kind of silliness is this – to build a insecure web browser that is so tightly screwed into the nitty gritties of an Operating system that neither can it benefit from the updates made to itself on another flavor of the same OS and nor can it be taken out of the OS.

    Really – who benefited by this lack of design time separation, abstraction, standards and cleanliness?

  30. Anonymous says:

    It’s be expected that when you integrate your browser with your OS, that it eventually won’t work on older versions of the OS… Along with the other issues that the integration brings. Could a version that doesn’t rely on OS be built? Probably.,… But it’d likely be bloated… And it wouldn’t help MS cash flow…

  31. Anonymous says:

    "

    Supporting XHTML is much more than simply treating it as HTML. If Internet Explorer does this, in five years time we’ll all be complaining that we are stuck with buggy Internet Explorer screwing up our XHTML.

    XHTML has differences in parsing, differences in CSS, differences in the DOM. Sticking a stupid hack like that into Internet Explorer will only cause problems. If you want to use XHTML, use content negotiation to cope with the (many) user-agents that don’t yet support it."

    Just one thing to say about htis, really… Like web designers are already complaining about how IE6 has crappy CSS2 compliance at the moment?

    Not like IE hasn’t had a history of bad compliance…

    … And smoething I just noticed in the original posting… IE for mac still has development…? Wow.

  32. Anonymous says:

    Techically, Windows *is* POSIX compliant. As of NT.

  33. Anonymous says:

    looks like Mozzila has better support for Microsoft’s customers than Microsoft does πŸ˜›

  34. Anonymous says:

    "we do not plan on releasing IE7 for Windows 2000"

    That’s indeed great news. I use Firefox, and this will undoubtedly encourage others to do the same.

    Just keep on shooting yourself in the foot, Microsoft!

    And by the time Latehorn is released, I’ll have migrated all my systems to Linux and freeBSD.

    And you want to know what the funny thing is? I’m a Microsoft shareholder!

  35. Anonymous says:

    @Crow

    Windows said it would become POSIX compilant in order to make the suits in government happy, but obviouly they didn’t actually do it.

  36. Anonymous says:

    If you’re still using Windows 2000, the IEBlog reveals you won’t be getting a version of Internet Explorer 7. Win2K is nearing the end of its support life. Plus: It should be no surprise that we do not plan on…

  37. Anonymous says:

    The Great Drive to End Windows 2000 Usage begins

  38. Anonymous says:

    March, 26, 2003 — Microsoft announced an important security problem which affected NT, 2000 and XP. According to the bulletim, the company wouldn’t support NT because of its "architectural limitations":

    "Microsoft has provided patches with this bulletin to correct this vulnerability for Windows 2000 and Windows XP. Although Windows NT 4.0 is affected by this vulnerability, Microsoft is unable to provide a patch for this vulnerability for Windows NT 4.0. The architectural limitations of Windows NT 4.0 do not support the changes that would be required to remove this vulnerability…"

    http://www.gnubis.com.br/bin/view/VESLAC/RPCFlaw

    Two years later, Microsoft is about to release IE7 but claims that it would be "non-trivial to port back to Windows 2000".

    Two yers from now, the security fixes will be too difficult to port XP, and the cycle will never end…

    Meanwhile, in the Free Software world, Linux kernel 2.0, which was released in 1996, is still mantained. (The latest patch was released in 2004)

    Is that important? According to users, yes:

    "I think one always gets one’s environment tuned to fit himself. (At least I do.) I still have some 2.0 machines running, and they’re running fine. They ran fine since Adam, and will still run fine as long as 2.0 is maintained. I can run them without too much administration effort (this is cool, since they’re about 100 miles away…) When I have them administrated, I always get this comfortable feeling, because the most of it is done by large scripts which check input and compute the output by themselves. If I dropped e.g. the old firewalling style, I’d have to change ~60% of my scripts to the new firewalling style. I think this is a good reason not to upgrade to a so-called ‘recent’ kernel on those boxes".

    http://www.gnubis.com.br/bin/view/VESLAC/Kernel20

    Nelson



    Get Firefox

    http://www.getfirefox.com

  39. IM: "IE7 is going to use features that arent in Win2000. Even if IE7 were ‘not integrated’ it still wouldnt work on Win2000. I you want to use IE7 stop whinging and install a supported OS, otherwise pick another browser, or version of IE.

    Sheesh."

    Wow, you completely missed my point, since I wasn’t even talking as a user, but as a web developer.

    No matter what, I’m stuck working around IE6’s problems because a big enough group of people will not be able to upgrade to IE7, and won’t bother to install another browser because they already have one.

    The only way this would work is if enough websites moved on and stopped supporting IE6, forcing people to switch to Mozilla or Netscape. But I dare say 20% will still be using IE6, even when IE7 has been out for a while, and that’s still big enough to worry about.

    I don’t whine about IE6 missing features because *I* use it. I complain because I develop for *all* browsers, and out of the ones currently in wide use, IE deviates from the others the most.

    Sadly, making my site work well in Lynx and Netscape 4 (sans CSS) is actually easier.

    I don’t know because I don’t have the code or any understanding of the overall architecture, but in general supporting Windows XP and Windows 2000 is anything but impossible. It’s not like IE7 is using Avalon.

    I suspect the ideas is to limit the amount of target platforms that need to be tested and maintained (which can be good for overall quality), all the creating yet another reason to upgrade to a newer operating system. Which is fine, because a company is free to make its own decisions about how to design and market its software and how much time and effort to spend supporting old systems. Whether this decision pays off in the long run, however, remains to be seen. I’m not ready to give up on Windows 2000 yet, and I’m surprised to see Microsoft do it so soon.

  40. Anonymous says:

    James,

    What you think "should be" and what are are two different things. Many large Enterprises are just finishing their migration to 2000. I know as I’ve been invovled in several. Why should they now be in the final stages of migrating to XP? Fact is, they shouldn’t unless there is a specific feature they need in the newer stuff and frankly that is rare. I’m talking your big customers such as the big financials and massive internationals.

    The heart of the "upgrade cycle" for businesses (end users) should be focused around stability, security, and required featureset. If WinNT4 or WinNT5 are working just fine for them there is *no* reason to upgrade to anything else. Regardless of OS, upgrading just to "stay current" is busywork. It is IT staff trying to justify their existence.

    There are many companies out there still doing support for NT4, and this is likely to become the case for 2k as well. Granted, a significant portion of the NT4 companies are providing migration to Linux systems where they can (same cost to client, less overhead = more profit; if they have their model set up for it), but ther are still a large portion that are sticking to NT4.

    If a company is running just fine right now on NT4 or NT5, they have no functional need to change it. A change in OS, even among Windows Variants often involves changes in application software and system hardware. This introduces a new set of issues, concerns, and problems to work around. A web browser change should not require a change to everything. For these companies, many will be likely to move to Firefox/Mozilla as opposed to uprooting their entire *working* system. Quite franlly I’m OK with that. I don’t begrude Microsoft one whit for not supporting old software. However, the never-ending "upgrade cycle" is crap; always has been always will be- regardless of OS or application.

    Personally I see the general assertion "you should be upgrading to XP by now" as no different than "you should be migrating/upgrading/whatever to Linux by now" assertion. Absent a compelling specific reason no you should not be. IT can generate more value for the company it serves by not making needless "upgrades" and focusing on making IT service more transparent or leveraging the stability of their environment to develop and deploy more domain specific capabilities. They don’t need to make themselves look "like good IT people" by being in a never-ending upgrade cycle; that is a tremendous waste of time, money, effort, and potential.

    My experience with companies such as Merril Lynch, HP, Price Waterhouse, Toshiba, and several other Fortune 50 and Fortune 500 sized enterprises is that it is not the case that those who are only now moving off of NT4 (or early versions of Redhat or Slackware) for example are "bad" IT staff. Quite the contrary, they’ve been some of the most intelligent and thoughtful people with the most stable systems. Their "customers" also tend to fall into the category of least unhappy.

    With regards to NT Service Packs, surely you are aware that in many cases, Microsoft recommended *against* various service packs unless a specific fix you had to have was there; mostly due to other breaks and changes in behaviour that broke third party apps. Yes, not all NT4 shops run "the last" SP, nor should they. It is the wise administrator/IT staff that knows when to apply and not to apply service packs — and that is true regardless of operating system or application. Truth told the latest is not always the greatest.

    Crow:

    Spoken like someone who merely read the press releases, not someone who has needed the alleged POSIX compliancy. πŸ˜‰ MS added a *subsystem* to deal with *some* POSIX requirements. It is not a POSIX compliant OS. Then again, Linux is not fully compliant. But at least they don’t claim to be. Specifically germane to the OP on PSOIX and IE7, in NT (4 at least) the POSIX subsystem does not have network access. Kinda difficult to write a POSIX based web (network) browser that doesn’t have network access, dontchya think? πŸ˜‰ Also of note, NT’s threads are not POSIX compliant either.

    To me the interesting aspect of the IE7 not for 2k announcement is not being spoken of. What "features" could there possibly be that need backported to the OS? People are asking for security. The fact that other browsers do’t have the issues IE does on Windows is testament to the fact that given W2K’s current state it can be done. Next is (proper) standards support. This is not something that requires OS changes, at least not in a good design. Again, the fact that other browsers accomplish this task w/o XP’s "special features" is testament that it certainly *can* be done and done by people w/o OS code access or inside information. Tabbed browsing? Again, this is something that MS has done in other applications even predating W2k. Clearly tabbed browsing is not something that needs an OS backport.

    Which leaves …. ??

  41. Anonymous says:

    You guys at Microsoft are still working on IE? Crazy. Good luck with that, man. I remember using IE4, it was pretty lightweight and slick for its day. I figured you all just outsourced it to some company with v5, when I switched to Opera. Didn’t even know 6 was out, huh.

  42. PatriotB says:

    As a Windows developer, I can see both sides of the argument regarding Windows 2000 support. But I think that we deserve a bit more of an explanation.

    There was an IE Blog posting on Feb. 22 called "IE Comments Recap," and it had a list of 5 things that were going to be used as a "roadmap" for future postings. One item on this list is "What makes IE7 on Win2K so hard anyway?" Since then, IE7 on Win2K has been mentioned a couple of times, but we still haven’t gotten any explanation.

    I’m still hoping that you guys write about this–what is it that isn’t available on Windows 2000? One thing I speculated on was that it was side-by-side assemblies (WinSxS), that IE7 would in fact run side-by-side with IE6 components. But really, besides the XP SP2 enhancements, there shouldn’t be anything huge that makes IE7 on Win2000 so hard.

  43. Anonymous says:

    I have to say, that the IE bashing that goes on is really getting obnoctious. Without IE, most of the folks in the computer business would be building software for dozens of platforms, and going insane doing so. Sure, IE has had its security issues, and all of us have had spyware or adware at one point eat our IE embedded pc, but at the end of the day, we all know that as computer experts, that if you simply do what you should with your pc, you won’t have problems with viruses, or malware. If you are surfing crack sites looking for serialz and crackz, using your friends ‘free porn credentials’, and or downloading tons of freeware without reading reviews, your simply asking for trouble.

    I remember back in the late 90’s having to create many versions of webpages so that they would look good on the many browsers, that was just tons of fun. While Microsoft has done some nasty things to smaller companies trying to compete with them (back in the day), at the end of the day, having a monster OS is good for the tens of thousands of small companies worldwide trying to create usable software and add-on products or simply creating websites that work consistently on most browsers.

    Also, bashing Microsoft for selling upgrades to an OS that is easy to use, pleasant to look at, with thousands and thousands of software products available, both from MSFT and 3rd party, is called BUSINESS. Why does everyone get so upset by that. Windows 2000 was um, five years ago, and if your still using it, great, what a deal and what a great product. I too used 2000 until just a few months ago, and have to admit I felt pretty good about buying xp pro, the fact that a new version is coming is fine as well, i will probably not get it until a few years from now, meaning per day cost is less than a stick of gum. Come on people, stop being so cheap, and instead of bashing MSFT for creating the tool and toy you use most of your awake life, do something productive like bash me for writing this πŸ™‚

  44. Anonymous says:

    I’ve created an online petition to suggest microsoft to reconsider adding tabbed browsing functionality (and enabling it by default) into IE7.

    The url is here:

    http://www.petitiononline.com/msie7tab/petition.html

    If you care about the quality products that microsoft has been creating so far, not giving into the useless hype of opensource douchebags, please sign the petition. Windows should be controlled by a window manager (explorer.exe), not by each individual app!

  45. Anonymous says:

    People are still using Windows and IE? Wow…

    I’m sitting here typing this on Ubuntu Linux and Firefox. And guess what…

    … They’re both FREE!

  46. Anonymous says:

    Michael: Sure, IE has had its security issues, and all of us have had spyware or adware at one point eat our IE embedded pc, but at the end of the day, we all know that as computer experts, that if you simply do what you should with your pc, you won’t have problems with viruses, or malware. If you are surfing crack sites looking for serialz and crackz, using your friends ‘free porn credentials’, and or downloading tons of freeware without reading reviews, your simply asking for trouble.

    So you used to look from serialz or crackz, or free pr0n? That’s my observation.

  47. Anonymous says:

    Microsoft acaba de anunciar oficialmente (en esta página) que el navegador Internet Explorer 7 cuando sea que esté listo no va a funcionar en Windows 2000.

    Esto le ha caído duro a todos aquellos usuarios (y en especial a grandes empresas) que están per

  48. Anonymous says:

    The problem appears to be that Windows XP is, in the eyes of many professional users, just a bloated rehash of Windows 2000 with some extra eye candy. Corporations, goverments and universities often do not need WinXP. Besides, WinXP is now nearly four years old, just slightly less old than Win2000. Unlike Apple or Linux, who are aggressively improving their OSes, Microsoft has done very little for its users. Longhorn is still far off, and features are dropping left and right.

    I fully expect most Win2000 users to stay with their platform and to fix the IE7 issue by rolling out Firefox.

  49. Anonymous says:

    Laut einer Meldung von IEBlog wird es wohl keinen Internet Explorer 7 fr Windows 2000 geben. Einer der Grnde ist, dass Windows 2000 von der sogenannten ‘Mainstream Support Phase’ in die ‘Extended Support Phase’ rutscht in welcher es keine neuen Feature

  50. Anonymous says:

    This is the problem, you expect users to upgrade but when you release a new OS it isnt exactly earth shatteringly amazing enough for end users/businesses to upgrade.

    As many people stated, Windows 98 and Windows 2000 *is* a perfectly good and working OS and has been for years.

    If there is nothing wrong with their current system and have no interest in latest OS, people will stick with their working system.

    It’s alot cheaper.

  51. Anonymous says:

    Laut einer Meldung von IEBlog wird es wohl keinen Internet Explorer 7 fr Windows 2000 geben. Einer der Grnde ist, dass Windows 2000 von der sogenannten ‘Mainstream Support Phase’ in die ‘Extended Support Phase’ rutscht in welcher es keine neuen Feature

  52. PatriotB: I’d love if it was Side-by-Side causing the back-port problems. But even then, there’s other solutions. I would love to see what APIs used in XP are being used. If it’s just the security stuff in XP, then I think the browser is getting way too close to the OS. What’s next, IE code running in the Kernel?

    But if Side-by-Side is the issue, then why not give the ActiveX components in IE new CLSIDs and just break binary compatability. Any apps that embed IE6 would continue to work, and a better design could be used for IE7. This would give you Side-by-Side (for major versions, not minor updates) for all OSes. With Side-by-Side, they’ll still have to release security fixes for each version in use, so I don’t think it’s an optimal solution.

    Perhaps IE should be ported to Managed C++, and COM dropped. That way, .NET’s Fusion loader could take care of versioning problems.

  53. Anonymous says:

    Laut einer Meldung von IEBlog wird es wohl keinen Internet Explorer 7 fr Windows 2000 geben. Einer der Grnde ist, dass Windows 2000 von der sogenannten ‘Mainstream Support Phase’ in die ‘Extended Support Phase’ rutscht in welcher es keine neuen Feature

  54. Anonymous says:

    This is an interesting debate. I run a couple of Windows 2000 Pro machines in addition to others on our network and would be more concerned about this move by Microsoft if the features that are to be included in IE7 were not available via any other means. As there are a number of good quality, light, free browsers to choose from, my belief is that the way to move forward is just to make the switch. The big losers in all this is likely to be Microsoft with gains being made by open source developers because as a result, IE stands to lose more market share.

    Just my two bits!

  55. Anonymous says:

    um… timecop, why don’t you want tabbed browsing in IE? What’s wrong with tabbed browsing?

    I find it to be much more efficient than having each page opened in its own window, you also don’t have to have a million windows listed in the taskbar. I don’t think I could live without tabbed browsing at this point?

    From my perspective, a browser without tabbed browsing is inferior.

    Of course I don’t care what they do with IE 7. I’ve never used IE as my main browser.

    But I’m just saying that tabbed browsing is a very useful feature to have, and in my case I believe it to be a necessary feature in any browser I use.

  56. Anonymous says:

    It looks like it’s time to wipe the windows partition on my server/tester/junk box and make slackware the primary OS.

  57. Anonymous says:

    As a travelling consultant [ 60+ corporate sites in last 12 months ] . Most clients are government or large corporate.

    Desktops that I see on the ground are 10% 98/NT4,80% W2K,5% XP, 5% Other [ Linux,Mac , whatever ]

    Not a few companies are doing an NT4->2K migration and implementing it at the moment.

    I can think of 1 that is doing an XP migration, but they won’t be there till end of year.

    I can’t see the point in not backporting it to W2K .. all I can think is that it’s just another MSFT-shoots-itself-in-foot.

    Just my 0.05c

  58. Anonymous says:

    Given the comment rate of your blog, I believe this to be on-topic.

    Seriously, the 2010 timeframe for Win2K has given my organization a good breathing period for planning, and the lack of IE7 on Win2K reduces our support burden as well.

    Looking forward to the beta!

  59. Anonymous says:

    Ping Backζ₯θ‡ͺ:www.donews.net

  60. Anonymous says:

    I administer about 20 Win2k workstations and a Win2k DC. We like to spend most of our time doing scientific research and consider OS maintenance to be an annoying, if necessary, thing to waste time on.

    We appear to have three options:

    1) Upgrade our workstations to WinXP and hope that XP does not cause issues with our 2k server.

    2) Upgrade our workstations to WinXP AND our DC to Win2003.

    3) Figure 2k is just fine and make everyone use Firefox.

    Guess which one is cheapest and lets us focus on our core business?

    All this talk about "having to think about an upgrade strategy" puzzles me. Why? What’s the compelling reason for a company to upgrade? So I can get pictures off a digital camera easier? Wireless networking? Who cares? Nobody in the business world, I’m afraid. Pushing out a new OS takes a lot of time, effort and money and businesses won’t want to go through that unless there’s an obvious payoff.

  61. Anonymous says:

    just wanted to know if comments are posted with or without control mechanisms… thanx.

  62. Anonymous says:

    They just force you to be safe and buy LongHorn they always do things that way πŸ˜‰

  63. Anonymous says:

    Microsoft doesn’t plan to support IE7 on Win2K, which is ironic considering the same blog entry says that Microsoft is extending supporting for Win2K beyond June 30, 2005. There are two important events that will happen to the support policy…

  64. Anonymous says:

    No Internet Explorer 7 support in Windows 2000. This only effects Internet Explorer support, but rather strange considering support for Windows 2000 has been extended past the June 30. Lockergnome IEBlog…

  65. Anonymous says:

    Thanks MS, more people on web standards compliant browsers like Firefox is great news.

  66. Anonymous says:

    To the idiot who said most Windows users have already upgraded to XP…. WRONG! According to Netcraft, Windows 2000 is the most widely-used operating system for desktops in the world. I work at Ford, and we are 100% Windows 2000 on the desktop, and mostly Linux and Sun in the cold room. So DON’T tell me that XP is nearly as widely used as 2000. That is a downright lie and I am offended by it… it’s the same reason I use Fedora at home, not Winblows.

  67. Anonymous says:

    "Also, bashing Microsoft for selling upgrades to an OS that is easy to use, pleasant to look at, with thousands and thousands of software products available, both from MSFT and 3rd party, is called BUSINESS"

    if you have a big automobile company, say M$-CAR that also manufacture your tires, and to get a new kind of tires, that, let’s say… don’t put your car on fire, you HAVE to "upgrade" to a new car or "good luck".

    How would you feel ?

    I’m not bashing the upgrade thing, I’m bashing the way it’s being done. Upgrading to XP/LateHorn should happen by it’s own merits, not in a forced manner.

    But in the end, I’m proud for M$. Since win3.0/3.1 they’ve being betting in dumb’fing the normal user – aka mind re-writting. Considering that this user by now is a proud IT professional, M$ strategy will work.

    just a shame…

  68. NewXStar says:

    both IE 5.01 SP3 and IE 6 SP1 on Windows 2000 SP3 will expire. Good

  69. Anonymous says:

    lack of support for windows 2000 is quite a disappointment. it’s a browser, unfortunately, embedded in the OS – having to upgrade the OS just to get a secure browser isnt doable.

    mitigating risk by moving to another browser may be an option.

    planning deployment to say XP is again a lot of work especially if a deployment was done a couple of years ago – all for what – especially since Windows 2000 will be supported for another couple of years? As previous posters have pointed out – Windows 2000 works just fine for a lot of things. Upgrades should be customer driven, not supplier driven.

  70. Anonymous says:

    If IE7 requires some of XPSP2’s functionalities (as Microsoft calls them) or as I like to say bugs, then this means that Longhorn will either:

    a) Require these "functionalities", therefore, be buggier than it could have been;

    b) Have a re-done version of IE7, which means, an even buggier and more unsecure browser than on SP2;

    Or c) (the most likely reason [that doesn’t really follow the first part of the sentence]) IE7 doesn’t require SP2’s functionalities, the only thing that is "required" is more income for Microsoft.

  71. Anonymous says:

    Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition

    General Availability Date 31-Dec-2001

    Mainstream Support Retired 31-Dec-2006

    Extended Support Retired Not Applicable

    from

    http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifewin

    So tons of XP customers are going to be hung out to dry in 18 months too? When SP 4 is released for XP, will it refuse to install on XP Home Edition? How about IE 7 SP1?

  72. Anonymous says:

    Come on – quit complaining everybody. It’s 2005 which means Windows "2000" is old news. Quit complaining and get ready for the awesome power of Longhorn! Move along cattle, CLANG! CLANG! Moooooooooo!

  73. Anonymous says:

    I should be no suprise that we have been banning the use of IE6 on the 2000-odd systems running win2K and win2k3 since the begining of 2004. We expect to do the same on latehorn. That’s if we stick with MS. After reading the Ernie Ball story about how and why they ditched Microsoft across the board the powers that be have been on a MS bashing ride lately.

  74. UnexpectedBill says:

    I for one am very disappointed to hear this news from the IE team…but perhaps not very surprised.

    On nearly all of my computers at home I have moved to Windows 2000 where the hardware could handle it. This hasn’t been cheap to do (even when I qualified to upgrade) and so I don’t look to move on until 2010 or possibly much later if I stick with Windows.

    At my place of work I am the network administrator and there too I have insisted that Windows 2000 be the norm as we migrated from 95, 98 and even NT 4.0. Now I am comfortable with where things are at technology wise. Windows 2000 does all I could ask and is plenty modern enough for anything I’ve thrown at it.

    That said, I also don’t like XP at all. I feel it’s bloated, not as simple to administer and more prone to failures than a Win2k-based computer.

    And yet now I hear from someone on the IE team posting to this blog that there will be no Internet Explorer 7 for Windows 2000. I’ve since gone to Firefox and will probably stay there, but to be relying on an old version of IE without enhanced security features for the places that it is used in the OS and other programs–well, that’s just not acceptable to me…and it’s another cheap shot by Microsoft to "shaft" users of an otherwise very solid and up to date OS that will serve their needs for years to come.

    I would sincerely hope that enough people contact you about this so that you will realize how poor of a stance this really is for all Windows 2000 users in the world today.

  75. Anonymous says:

    On Feb 15,2005 Dean[MSFT] said:

    "I’ve also gotten questions about support for Windows 2000. Right now, we’re focused on XP SP2. 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. That’s all I can say on that topic."

    Hmmmm….Were they really listening, or was it just the MS "uncertainty" principle from the FUD.NET framework? No matter, it surely didn’t help IE market share.

  76. Anonymous says:

    Windows 3.1 which was released in 1992 (followed by 3.11 in 1993) had updates of IE up until version 5.01 which was released in 2000!

    There was a lot more differences between Windows 3.1 and 95 than there is between Windows 2000 and Windows XP. Windows 3.1 is a 16 bit OS while most systems today are 32 bit.

    It’s amazing back in the day Windows 3.1 users could get updates for an 8 year old OS while Windows 2000 customers are stuck with a browser that is almost as old as the OS itself.

    It shows that money is Microsoft’s own concern and I look forward to the day they slip behind in market share.

    Sources:

    IE 5.01 for Windows 3.1 http://classic.tucows.com/preview/4842.html

    Release dates for Windows 3.1/3.11 and IE:

    http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifewin

  77. Anonymous says:

    @Dave

    What’s even more worrying is that on the product lifecycle page they say that mainstream support for Windows 3.1 ended on 31-Dec-2001 which means 3.1 was in mainstream support for over 9 years! Compare that to Windows 2000 whose mainstream support ends tomorrow.

  78. Anonymous says:

    TristanK on the Windows 2000 Support Lifecycle.

  79. Anonymous says:

    Let me get this straight – I’m supposed to upgrade my Windows 2000 network (which consists of over 250 users) to Windows XP now? Doesn’t that mean that in about 2 years (since XP came out in what…2001?) we’ll see the end of THAT support cycle? There’s no fresh choice that guarantees I won’t be in this "predicament" in another few years …(raise pinky to mouth) exactly as planned, eh?

    Microsoft – you now perplex me. You have become a machine that drives itself primarily on re-bleeding your customers. You want me to upgrade Office for extremely MARGINAL perceived changes. You want me to upgrade my servers to 2003 for very little in the way of new functionality, and you want me to upgrade my clients’ OS so I can run your new browser. I know you’re a developer, but your comments illustrate a complete ignorance when it comes to how IT works in the real world. Out here, we don’t view the IT budget as primarily consisting of Microsoft "dues."

    You know what? This is one Microsoft-certified IT professional who is heavily investing time in Linux. …and installing Firefox on corporate workstations.

  80. Anonymous says:

    –>To the idiot

    —-> I work at Ford…

    Can’t call people idiots and expect them to buy your products…

  81. Anonymous says:

    Alex – that’s not *at all* what’s being said.

    Windows 2000 is simply moving from Mainstream to Extended support. It will be in Extended support for the next 5 years.

    Win2K SP4 will still be supported with security patches (and other updates).

    Check http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/ for information on what Extended Support really means.

  82. Anonymous says:

    Sorry, meant to Adam, not Alex.

  83. Anonymous says:

    At least pre XP SP2 users are going to switch to Firefox πŸ™‚

  84. Anonymous says:

    What *I* personally find absolutely *stultifying* is that the users doing the complaining about a lack of IE 7 on Windows 2000 are not only planning to either migrate way from Microsoft operating systems altogether or not upgrade to Windows XP. In short, you’re stalling and want to be rewarded for it? (What’s worse, most of you are still running Windows 2000 Service Pack 3!)

    Pardon me, please! But as someone that has done helpdesk/technical support *and* beta-tested operating systems in both open and closed-source forms (including MS, IBM, and various Linux distributions), the same thing applies in operating systems as does in other forms of IT: Keep up or get run over. It behooves your co-workers, your company, and *yourself* to always have a test setup with a current version of your operating system (or a beta version if you are running the current version within your company) simply to guard against those dreaded compatibility issues that you are so worried about. It takes nothing more than equipping the test machines with a removable boot drive to do so economically. Heck, the machines themselves don’t even have to be the latest and greatest hardware; older machines are perfect candidates for this. So what’s the *real* reason you haven’t even done that?

  85. Anonymous says:

    Yes back in the days of IE5.x, it was no surprise for MS to port it to the windows 3.xx code base as MS was still fighting with Netscape for dominance. Now they own the browser market they could care less.

    If you want an MS OS that is every bit as stable and well behaved as win2k then install server 2003, I’ve had the trial on a rig for a while now and its much better than xp. Pitty there was no WKS version of it.

  86. ieblog says:

    I’d like to address a couple of things people have pointed out here:

    – Windows XP, while it officially is listed as moving into Extended support in 2006, won’t actually move until 2 years after the next OS is released, whichever is later. So, given that Longhorn is targeting 2006, you should expect the lifecycle for Windows XP to be updated when Longhorn ships to stay in Mainstream support through 2 years after that (currently, that would be 2008). Several people correctly pointed that out in my lifecycle blog but I thought it was worth mentioning here

    – Nick mentions that Windows 3.1 appeared to be under mainstream support for 9 years while Windows 2000 was only in mainstream support for 5. The modern support policy (with mainstream & extended phases) was created well after Windows 3.1 was released (indeed, I don’t think our lifecycle policy was really well defined until after 2001), so in all likelihood, it’s an apples to oranges comparison

    – I want to reiterate that point that there’s still 5 more years of security support for Windows 2000 SP4 users. Anyone running SP4 can continue to expect security updates when necessary

    -Christopher [MSFT]

  87. Anonymous says:

    I am working on a Browser using the IE engine: some of the new features MS is offering are implemented in my browser, and it works FINE on Win2k, so why don’t backport IE7 to Win2k?

  88. Anonymous says:

    > What’s worse, most of you are still running Windows 2000 Service Pack 3!

    If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

  89. Anonymous says:

    -Christopher [MSFT] wrote:

    "- I want to reiterate that point that there’s still 5 more years of security support for Windows 2000 SP4 users. Anyone running SP4 can continue to expect security updates when necessary"

    That’s pretty amusing since the biggest security risk in Windows 2000 is IE πŸ˜‰

  90. Anonymous says:

    Not releasing IE7 for Win2K is a mistake.

    Windows XP is perhaps the worst version of Windows ever, and I have no intention of making my machine unclean by installing it.

    There should be no gap between 2K and Longhorn, because many people dislike XP as much as I do, and have not upgraded.

  91. UnexpectedBill says:

    Christopher from MSFT…

    I feel very strongly that all of you on the IE team are going to realize much later on down the road how big of a mistake this really will end up being. I hope you’ll reconsider this stance and backport IE7 to Win2k. It may be a lot of work, but I’m sure it will create some goodwill amongst many of your customers. Isn’t doing that worth showing some goodwill to your customers?

    It’s my feeling that Microsoft could stand to do something that would create goodwill amongst its customers. The simple fact is–whether you guys will acknowledge it or not–that your competition is getting quite good at producing some very capable software for systems where you have decided you will not or cannot offer updated versions. If you won’t–then someone else will and may do a better job at it than you did.

    Nobody can expect you to support everything forever, but Windows 2000 remains a very viable OS, doing almost anything else that can be asked…at a speed and level of stability that I feel is unmatched by any other version of Windows ever released. To leave all of us loyal Windows 2000 users stuck without at least some of the rendering improvements in IE is really a crime and not the right thing to do.

    This is to say nothing that a lot of older versions of Windows were kept updated for a lot longer than Win2k is going to be. Support policy or none, Windows NT 4.0 was given access to new IE versions and other updates to the core OS for what amounted to nearly ten years.

    If you’re as tuned into "what the users think" as this blog suggests you to be, I hope you’ll realize what a big mistake you are making before it is simply too late.

  92. Anonymous says:

    Firefox sucks! IE forever!

  93. Anonymous says:

    I just feel the need to comment on some of the complaints aimed at MS here. People seem to be complaining that Microsoft only provide 10 years of security patches for their OSs and it will encourage people to switch to Linux, etc.

    A few years ago I installed the latest version of Mandrake Linux (the most up to date mainstream Linux distro at the time) yet less than 2 years later the auto updater stopped working and Mandrake stopped providing security updates! Also I found myself unable to install any remotely modern applications (for example updating Mozilla required updating XFree and various other libraries, which due to the lack of support meant either updating everything myself or replacing the whole thing).

    One of the other alternatives that seems to be suggested above is Mac OSX. Apple have a policy of paid updates every 12 months. They actually seem to stop full support as soon as the new version is out so that you don’t have the option of staying on the same version if you want to run anything remotely modern. Each new version of Safari, for example, requires a new version of OSX.

    I don’t pretend that Microsoft is perfect, far from it but in my experience it’s the worst OS around, apart from all the alternatives.

  94. Anonymous says:

    1000101001 10101 101010110 1110101 1010100010 101010 10101 11110 00001 101

  95. Anonymous says:

    I dont know if i will continue under Windows.

  96. Anonymous says:

    Personally, it’s the sensible option. Get a new secure browser platform, based on secure XPSP2 OS.

    Do you expect Microsoft to compromise all the good work done by MS with XpSP2, and compromise it by backporting stuff in IE7 for Win2k? Of course not..

    As for the corporate customers not using XP, why on earth not, it’s now very stable, the claim that longhorn is only 18 month away is only true if you plan to deploy it across your organisation on day 1 of release. I’m glad your not my IT manager….

    Stop whining, deploy XP now, (but it’s late in the day, you should have been doing this 6 month ago), deploy Longhorn in 2-3 years when the hardware is ready, and the software has settled down.

    Are these people really running IT departments? If so, how??

  97. Anonymous says:

    -Christopher [MSFT] wrote:

    > The modern support policy (with mainstream & extended phases) was created well after Windows 3.1 was released

    > (indeed, I don’t think our lifecycle policy was really well defined until after 2001), so in all likelihood,

    > it’s an apples to oranges comparison

    It’s a shame you never replied to my comment which was the one Nick replied to. I wasn’t mentioning the lifecycle policy but was mentioning the timescales.

    I believe the only reason that you made IE versions for Win 3.1 was because you wanted to make sure you had all the bases covered, you wanted to support Win3.1 for longer than Netscape did in order to ensure these users didn’t have to resort to Netscape. You even used to produce a version for the popular commercial Unix systems Solaris and IRIX but ignored linux at the time (first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win – can’t remember who said that but seems to be playing out true at the moment).

    This time you’re taking a different approach, you’re stopping supporting a very popular business OS while your rivals are still releasing products for this and even older releases. The only reason I can see this happening is you want to ‘encourage’ people to upgrade for the added security and features. Personally I think this will backfire.

  98. Anonymous says:

    Mark G wrote:

    "As for the corporate customers not using XP, why on earth not"

    Because there is no compelling "Business" reason to. Do you spend $1 million* on an ad campaign for your new product or roll out XP across your organization? Which has the best bang for the limited budgeted buck.

    Doh!

    * That’s cost does not include licensing, since this fictional corporation(like many win2k shops) has been paying software assurance all along.

  99. Anonymous says:

    Hey guess what Billy boys…

    Deer Park Alpha 1 works on 2000. It has SVG and <canvas> built in too, with lots of CSS 3 candidate recommendations in the mix. And it’s FAST!

    20% of my site visitors (non-technical) use 2000. This will probably get down to about 15% by the time Latehorn ships.

    At least 10% is going straight to Mozilla! With what they already have that makes them a ~20% market share player instead of a ~10% player. Have you Billy boys in your ivory tower heard of ‘network effects’ or virtuous circles?

    Whichever PHB made the choice not to support 2000 needs to get back to MBA school.

    And by the way someone (dude called Dean) said a while back that you were going to blog about ‘What makes IE7 on Win2K so hard anyway’.

    Tell me, if you were a CIO and were told, in less than one sentence: ‘operating system functionality that is difficult to backport’ would you be content with this answer?

    The tabbed browsing post was substantive. The PNG post was substantive. This post is rubbish. Please answer the question ‘What makes IE7 on Win2K so hard anyway?’ as you promised you would, or explain why you can’t.

    Not that it matters. Mozilla and Opera have shown that they are far better at shipping their software, and far faster at fixing their critical bugs, than you can ever be.

    BTW why haven’t you fixed the Eeye bugs for 3 months? Billy boy brags about ‘the fastest security response team in the industry’. What a load of rubbish.

    I feel sorry for all the non-manager folks on this team who are going to have IE stuck on their CV.

  100. Anonymous says:

    Because of this decision, I’m going to have to continue hacking my CSS to get IE6 with its buggy-as-hell rendering working OK.

    How about showing you care at least a little about webmasters? Make IE7 in strict mode reasonable.

    – will you support :hover on all elements?

    – will you fix position:fixed?

    – will you fix z-index bugs?

    – will you fix your box model?

    – will you fix your float bugs?

    – will you pass Acid2?

    You get the idea. Please implement 2.1 fully and as much of 3 as you can.

    I fully expect that webmasters will be ignored, as ever )-:

  101. PatriotB says:

    I was surprised to discover that the .NET Framework 2.0 (currently in beta) is available not only for Windows 2000, but also for Windows 98 and Me as well! I would think that an updated .NET framework is at least as complex to support downlevel as IE…

  102. Anonymous says:

    <i>"We will of course continue to keep our Windows 2000 SP4 customers secure with security updates through the life of Windows 2000 (through 2010). "</i>

    Nice to see you’re keeping 2000 users secure.

    <i>"It should be no surprise that we do not plan on releasing IE7 for Windows 2000."</i>

    …and leaving us with IE6 SP1 which has a hugely inferior security model and you’ll be patching any IE6 holes uncovered in the future seperately anyway?

    2000 users aren’t going to kept as secure as XP SP2+IE7 users or going to get tabs. Fine, I can accept that.

    Can’t you port back the rendering capabilities and fixes to IE6? All we are asking for is a bug-free CSS 2.1 implementation or, atleast, the dozen most horrible bugs fixed. Maybe give us some fresh IE6 icons, tweak the defaults settings and call it IE6 SP2, IE6.1 or IE6.5. It would be better than nothing.

    I think all people want is for the team to reconsider giving Win2K and IE6 users a bonus before you leave us high and dry. Even if you wait until the release of the Windows 2000 SP5 equivalent roll-up..(which was still going ahead last time I checked?) it’d be appreciated.

    It doesn’t take much to improve the user experience, just eliminating a dozen engine bugs, and making it feel a bit smoother could do wonders.

  103. Anonymous says:

    I sure hope the tabs in IE 7.0 will have a little "X" in the corner to close them like the extension "TabX" for Firefox.

  104. Anonymous says:

    Also, for the people claiming they’re still on NT, what type of hardware are you also running? Pentium 300MHz machine’s? Geesh. Even a pc that was top of the line in 2000 must be only a P4 350Mhz. Get with the times.

    I know of the type that want to live back in the days of the late 90’s with NT. And they’re a joke.

  105. UnexpectedBill says:

    Bob, regarding your comments on NT and who is still running it on what…well, I’ve got a Dell PowerEdge 2500 server here that is still running NT 4.0 Server with SP6a. This is a dual 1.2GHz P4 system…more than enough computer for many people. This computer does its job and I don’t ask Microsoft to support it any longer. NT doesn’t support a lot of modern hardware and the computing landscape has changed a lot since its release and development. Security isn’t a real problem since it resides on a pretty safe network with users I can trust.

    Until recently I ran WinNT 4.0 Workstation on an NCR P4 @ 1.5GHz. I made preparations to move up to Win2k on this system and slowly worked toward doing so. I made the jump just as WinNT faded from Microsoft’s view and all was well.

    There was a reason for this upgrade though. I had hardware I couldn’t use and wanted the improvements available with a new OS. This isn’t the case with an OS like XP as compared to 2000. I don’t see any advantage to upgrading to that now.

    I have even older computers (think 486DX2 systems with Win 3.11 and 95 or even DOS) still running strong today. These are much the same thing as the NT server…the jobs they were put in place to do are still being done well and it doesn’t matter if the OS is no longer supported.

    This isn’t the case with Windows 2000. Since it was released there hasn’t been a lot of radical change in the computing world. It still supports even the most modern hardware and can use it to capability. So why should it be considered outmoded and obsolete at this time? Why shouldn’t a version of IE7 be backported, especially given the number of people still actively using Win2000?

    Those are the questions I’d like to see someone at Microsoft answer with more than a so-called "support lifecycle".

  106. Anonymous says:

    I don’t want to support the broken IE6 CSS for all time, so:

    I second the call by Andrew for rendering changes to be backported.

    Everyone who agrees please leave your comment below too, and spread word on your blogs to do the same. Maybe then these people will get the message.

  107. Anonymous says:

    I don’t want to support the broken IE6 CSS for all time, so:

    I second the call by Andrew for rendering changes to be backported.

    Everyone who agrees please leave your comment below too, and spread word on your blogs to do the same. Maybe then these people will get the message.

  108. Anonymous says:

    Well, with respect Windows 2000 is its own worst enemy.. a great platform,, relaible and steady subceeded by Windows XP and then retirement for Win 2000 looms and there is uproar.We all need to move on, and imo Windows XP is far more stable and to the degreee of ever increasing attacks on IE , in both versions, clearly a move to the more stable Win XP platform is the thing to do.

    Mike

    http://www.business-printing-services.co.uk

  109. Anonymous says:

    Let’s see ??? Microsoft is creating a product (IE 7) which they will only support for 1 version of an operating system (XP – SP2). They don’t support their own product line (ie, 95,98,2000,XP). Then you have a product like FF 1.x, Netscape 7.x and Mozilla which can run on multiple O/S (Windows, Linux, Apple) which they didn’t create? I remember the day in which M$ would support other formats from other products back in last century. I wish large companies (GM, Exxon, Electronics Arts, Honda,…) would show you guys the door. Get a clue, FF 1.1 is the just the start of ‘good’ things from a real browser.

  110. Anonymous says:

    This really is becoming a joke. In the time it takes you to blow your own horn in these posts, firefox and opera have put out new browsers, worked on beta’s, released those as finals, and now are working on new beta’s, and still microcrap haven’t put out beta 7, and yet, you know when they do, firefox and opera will have out a better version within weeks, while it seems to take you people the better part of half a year, despite the fact the IE 7 is already in the longhorn alpha’s. What exactly do you people do, perhaps it is time Gates fired you and got people in there, from firefox and opera that seem to be able to do the job in 1/8 the time it takes you.

  111. Anonymous says:

    I’ve seen the name ‘E-eye’ pop up a few times on this blog. I didn’t know who they were, but after Googling, I found that they have discovered 4 remote exploits for IE!!

    Why are you hiding this? I’m all for responsible disclosure but it requires a responsible response on your end!!

    This means

    1) getting patches out fast

    2) providing workarounds in the interim

    Please do the right thing.

  112. Anonymous says:

    My Fi:

    Why bother supporting the poor IE6 CSS? After the launch of IE 7 give people a few months to upgrade and then drop support for IE6. If the pages don’t work in IE6 put up a notice saying that IE users will need to update to IE7 and if IE7 is not available for their platform they can try Opera or Firefox which will render their pages.

    Why should webmasters support MS’s decision not to backport IE7 they can just direct them elsewhere?

    Opera and Firefox are both relatively small downloads and so it’s easier to update to these browsers than to update to IE7 even if you already use XP.

  113. Anonymous says:

    LINUX, LINUX, LINUX, LINUX, is the future!

  114. NewXStar says:

    Users running IE 5.01 or IE 6 SP1 on Windows 2000 :: Fine

  115. Anonymous says:

    Dave, you may be in the fortunate position of being able to ignore 15% of your users. I am not πŸ™

  116. Anonymous says:

    good luck.

  117. Anonymous says:

    I don’t see why this is such a big deal. Windows XP has been out for almost 4 full years now – let me repeat that, FOUR YEARS. It’s time to upgrade either to XP, or wait until Longhorn comes out and upgrade to it instead. Besides, if the browser is such a concern (I’m assuming for security reasons) there are "other" browsers besides IE. This could also be viewed as either a plan to get people to upgrade to XP or Longhorn, or for MS to keep slipping further and further behind in the browser percentages like that have been recently…

  118. Anonymous says:

    Buy a Mac . Im a switcher I have 4 pc’s . NOTHING BEATS A MAC

    OSX TIGER #1

  119. Anonymous says:

    ============================

    IE 7 option for Windows 2000

    ============================

    Many users will continue with Windows 2000 until a year or more after Longhorn releases, especially in corporate environments — where there were was never a compelling reasons to upgrade to XP nor 2003 (and significant reasons not to).

    My suggestion is for the IE team to release an IE 6.0 SP2 or IE 6.01 that updates *only* the rendering engine ("Trident"). No updates to the IE browser shell, no tabbed browsing, no security enhancements.

    That way IE 7 and IE 6 SP2 have identical page rendering, with the same fixes/updates to CSS support, PNG support, etc.

    I’m fairly certain this could be accomplished only by updating mshtml.dll and perhaps a few other libraries.

  120. Anonymous says:

    Many users will continue with Windows 2000 until a year or more after Longhorn releases, especially in corporate environments — where there were was never a compelling reasons to upgrade to XP nor 2003 (and significant reasons not to).

    My suggestion is for the IE team to release an IE 6.0 SP2 or IE 6.01 that updates *only* the rendering engine ("Trident"). No updates to the IE browser shell, no tabbed browsing, no security enhancements.

    That way IE 7 and IE 6 SP2 have identical page rendering, with the same fixes/updates to CSS support, PNG support, etc.

    I’m fairly certain this could be accomplished only by updating mshtml.dll and perhaps a few other libraries.

  121. Anonymous says:

    I hope longhorn will good alternative for windows 2k, ’cause i don’t like xp, but i need support and updates after 2010.
    Make it good please

  122. Anonymous says:

    Chris. Is putting IE7 on Windows 2000 impossible or is it just because you guys are lazy and don’t want to?

  123. Anonymous says:

    Adam, if you think it’s just a matter of tweaking mshtml.dll, you obviously haven’t read the recent blog posts on how much work had to go into implementing tabs. The browser shell depends heavily on the internal structures in Trident. Yeah, that’s bad design in the first place, but hindsight’s a great thing isn’t it?

    As for why IE7 on 2000 is so hard, Bruce Morgan gave some ideas on Channel 9 (see http://channel9.msdn.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=72612)

    I think MSFT are doing the right thing here, it’s not the ideal situation but the world isn’t ideal. Comparing the situation to Window 3 is ridiculous, the internet is a much nastier place than it was back then.

  124. Anonymous says:

    The decision by Microsoft marketing strategist’s to not backward port IE7 to W2K will cause them to lose from about 20 to 25%

    market share by current users choosing other

    browsers that are evolving as more robust, user

    friendly, and secure. Their timing is bad in that many businesses have held off hardware upgrades, after the business cycle downturn

    that was underway already before 911 until when

    they will absolutely have to, which is right

    about now thru – 2008. It’s a buyers market and

    easier to migrate to other available business and enterprise software

  125. Anonymous says:

    Andy, you obviously didn’t read my post. *No tabbed browsing*, just a 6.0 SP2 update that gives it the same rendering engine (i.e. same CSS/PNG fixes/updates) that IE 7.0 has.

    In fact, here is a page that explains how to the Internet Explorer shell with the 5.01, 5.5 and 6.0 rendering engines side-by-side (with some caveats).

    http://labs.insert-title.com/labs/article795.aspx

  126. Anonymous says:

    The repeated claims that XP is nearly 4 years old is hitting the point exactly and missing the conclusion.

    Windows XP is nearly 4 years old. Windows 2000 is just over 5 years old.

    If XP wasn’t a compelling upgrade to Win2K four years ago, it has gotten only less compelling since then.

    Why spend money replacing a 5 year old OS with a 4 year old OS, when Longhorn being touted by Microsoft Marketing as the big kahoona next must-have upgrade? No IT manager in their right mind is going to invest in a Win2K->XP upgrade cycle now.

    That said, Windows 2000 and Internet Explorer 6.0 are both good stable products that shouldn’t need any new features.

    IMHO new featurures in IE 7.0 (e.g. tabs) should not be backported to IE 6.0 — but fixes/updates that may be included in 7.0 should be backported if possible.

    One very simple example, is the updated PNG support back-portable to IE 6.0?

  127. Anonymous says:

    So as I stated a month ago the Alpha PNG problem is still not really solved because we all know that Windows 2000 is going to be around for a long time because it works and works well ( Good job on that one ). In fact Windows 2000 will be around until MS stops releasing patches and worms destroy the remaining machines.

    Maybe all web developers like myself should just start using Alpha PNG and place a link to get firefox if this site looks ugly…

    What do you think?

  128. Anonymous says:

    It appears in this case that tight integration between browser and OS is a bad thing. This is contrary to the messages Microsoft has been Sending in the past.

    Other OSes sem to deliver a good user experience without having this tight integration.

    Is Microsoft changing its position on the value of browser / OS integration?

  129. Bruce Morgan [MSFT] says:

    I deleted the post that copied my comments from the Channel9 thread. If you want to ask the same question, do it over there. I’m not a fan of cross posting like that.

  130. Anonymous says:

    How typical and bureaucratic of Microsoft. You wont answer questions about Internet Explorer on IE Blog? I checked the comments posting policy linked on the left and what I said is definately OK.

    I don’t visit Channel 9, why should I? I just followed the link in another post. And to make post there I have to hassle myself making an account.

    And Dean said you would talk about What makes IE7 on Win2K so hard anyway on IEBlog, not Channel 9. And IEBlog is way more visible than Channel9. But OK, here the questions again without the qoutation.

    Why are you deliberately leaving hundreds of buffer overruns and integer overflows in 2000? You are committed to providing security fixes for years according to this post. Or do you not fix a vulnerability until it becomes an exploit?

    And why can’t you port back rendering fixes?

    Reference: http://channel9.msdn.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=72612

  131. Anonymous says:

    I know this is off topic, but since you can’t post general comments to the blog, I’m putting it here.

    Questions:

    will IE7 have E4X support?

    will IE7 support the canvas element?

    will IE7 support SVG?

    These are essential to next generation web application design. If IE7 implements none of these features one can only assume that Microsoft plans to let the web stagnate until their home brewed replacement(!) is ready.

  132. Anonymous says:

    I have no plans to move off of Win2000 at least until Longhorn has reached sp1 so i wont be able to develop sites for IE7, this will just push me more towards using firefox and opera. Microsoft’s policy of trying to force upgrades onto it’s users is wrong, I work with a lot of charities, were a lot of their computers are donated to them, there not the best of machines and definitely show their age, but for most of them they do exactly what the organisation require, in these kind of environments it’s not uncommon to find Win95/98 still in use and I even came across one place that still had some machines using 3.11, Microsoft need to rethink, otherwise they’re just going to contribute to the mountain of waste as people are required to upgrade old hardware, and why is a web browser so dependent upon the OS ?

  133. Anonymous says:

    Hehehe, nice to Firefox.

    I just use iE in sUx’s websites with errors in html code.

    Firefox is real browser, others just kidding.

  134. Anonymous says:

    > Bob said:

    > Also, for the people claiming they’re still on NT,

    > what type of hardware are you also running? Pentium

    > 300MHz machine’s? Geesh. Even a pc that was top of the

    > line in 2000 must be only a P4 350Mhz. Get with the times.

    WTF man, you should lay off the crack pipes, P4/350MHz never existed in the first place, and mid to low end machines were already 600MHz by 2000, top end machines were probably around or above 1GHz for both AMD and Intel by the end of y2k…

    > John said:

    > I don’t see why this is such a big deal. > Windows XP has been out for almost 4 full years now

    > – let me repeat that, FOUR YEARS.

    The issue here is that WXP may have been out for 3 or 4 years, but it still hasn’t brought anywhere enough things over W2k. Eye candy? sure. Speed? nope. Efficiency? nope. Resources management? barely, and not on a mono-processor workstation anyway.

    WXP has nothing over W2k but SP2’s content, and you don’t even have to consider SP2 if you’re running (anything but IE) and have your own firewall already.

    See, the issue is that there is no point in upgrading from W2k Pro to WXP Pro. W2k servers to W2k3? sure, probably, I guess. But W2k pro to WXP pro? yeah, right. Heck, even the version numbers tell you so, W2k is NT5 and WXP is NT5.1.

    > Mike said:

    > Maybe all web developers like myself should just

    > start using Alpha PNG and place a link to get firefox

    > if this site looks ugly…

    >

    > What do you think?

    I think that i’ll do it Malarkey style (http://www.stuffandnonsense.co.uk/) by using conditional comments: if IE use style 1 and tell them to use any other browser out there, else use style 2.

    (being the nice guy he is, Malarkey merely used IE’s lack of support for CSS selectors to feed different styles, no hard coding and if a flavour of IE ever gets CSS 2.1 right they’ll have the colorful page)

    Now the thing I wanted to know, like, really know, was: why the heck is there a post about Windows 2000 and it’s support policy in the IE blog? If you had wanted to tell us that IE7 won’t be avaible in W2k, drop it as a side note at the end of a post, but at least give us some informations that may interrest us, as in standard supports or implementations problems.

    Why can’t you just do what Dave Hyatt did when he started working on Acid2? Just post something every day or every pair of days to tell us where you are, where IE stands, wether you need input or interactions about a choice or a feature.

    A blog is interactive, use it to interact, not to *try to* feed us with PR crap.

    Pretty please?

  135. Bruce Morgan [MSFT] says:

    Frog, there’s nothing bureaucratic about it. I posted on Channel 9 to an existing thread, and you yanked my one comment out of that context and added it here. That’s not OK by my policy.

    Re: BO & IO fixes, IE6 on XPSP2 enjoys the benefits of being part of a large SP level release, with much code from all over Windows outside what IE itself ships. There is an awful lot of code in that release – a couple of hundred megs, IIRC. Just like the /GS flag changes, etc., Win2K just doesn’t have everything that XPSP2 has.

    Re: porting rendering fixes, well, a hybrid "browser feature set of IE6, browser platform of IE6, rendering engine of IE7" seems like it appeals to no one. You wouldn’t get end user adoption because that’s not driven by HTML rendering abilities. You wouldn’t get much corporate adoption because such a hybrid would risk breaking existing apps for (again) little end user goodness.

  136. Anonymous says:

    One thing I’d like to see addressed in IE 7.0 (and fixes backported to an IE 6.0 patch if possible) are memory leaks with regards to DHMTL/Behaviors/XMLHTTP/AJAX applications.

    I’ve a DHTML application that regularly bloats to nearly 100MB of memory usage while I am developing (granted it is better for end-users who are not continually doing F5 refresh). Memory is never recovered until all IE windows are closed.

    BTW, I’ve just found a very cool tool that detects IE memory leaks in DHTML pages.

    http://jgwebber.blogspot.com/2005/05/drip-ie-leak-detector.html

  137. Anonymous says:

    > Re: porting rendering fixes, well, a

    > hybrid "browser feature set of IE6, browser

    > platform of IE6, rendering engine of IE7"

    > seems like it appeals to no one.

    Should appeal to corporate web developers, who are going to need to support complicated intranet applications for both XP IE 7.0 and Win2K IE 6.0 for fair number of years.

    > You wouldn’t get end user adoption because

    > that’s not driven by HTML rendering

    > abilities.

    End user adoption if an IE 6.0 service pack or patch is driven by Windows Update service and little else. IT staff and end-users are gotten used to monthly Windows Updates or else leaving their machine open to botnet trojan infections.

    > You wouldn’t get much corporate adoption

    > because such a hybrid would risk breaking

    > existing apps for (again) little end user

    > goodness.

    Web developers are going to need to code to handle any behavioral changes in IE 7.0 anyway. If any update were made to IE 6 that changed behavior it ought to get a version number change (e.g. IE 6.01) to allow for such version checks.

    However, that isn’t to say an IE 6 update should exclude behavior changes and only include fixes and updates.

  138. Anonymous says:

    > W2k servers to W2k3? sure, probably, I

    > guess.

    No, probably not.

    Windows 2003 broke or complicated the install of so many third-party server application, very few have upgraded, and many have gone back after trying.

    For a running as a pure webserver, Windows 2003 is compelling (given the IIS/ASP.NET performance improvements), but for anything other than a pure webserver, everyone I know is still running Windows 2000 Server, and will be until Longhorn.

  139. Anonymous says:

    No IE7 for win2k? I guess i will have to move all the machines at my enterprise to firefox.

  140. Anonymous says:

    Looks like Microsoft will not support IE7 on Windows 2000. It should be no surprise that we do not plan on releasing IE7 for Windows 2000… Some of the security work in IE7 relies on operating system functionality in XPSP2…

  141. Anonymous says:

    Never mind. Found a much better paradigm with Linux (Kurumin). And firefox? Rocks! Well, good luck to all folks grasping with W2K and this whole bunch of malware: viruses, worms, spyware, whatever. You name it. IE7 could have helped you but sorry it won’t. Think about it.

  142. Anonymous says:

    Making an application reliant upon an operating system to function breaks encapsulation and produces a less secure and robust product. It’s a web browser, not a device driver.

  143. Anonymous says:

    we webdevs are why the internet exists. by saying that we’ll have to support your pointless, broken, redundant CSS featured in IE6 in order to do business with those viewing our pages through IE, means that we’ll either stop developing for IE or tell others to switch to firefox, as they should. support the developers, not the users, and not your gluttonous company.

  144. Anonymous says:

    I find this a very poor decision, there is still a large user base that is using Windows 2000. Who don’t want the addons that XP forces upon the consumer.

    The idea to squash the service pack was silly enough, now to not bring out IE7 for windows 2000 because you dropped the service pack 5, very stupid.

    This OS is not going to die nore is there going to be a hurry to upgrade to the bloated and unreasonable specs OS called Longhorn.

    You people still havent grabbed a clue have you.

  145. Anonymous says:

    So, you’ll "support" 2k for umpteen years without IE7.

    This is two steps -backwards- in getting more web apps deployed.

    The short list of browsers I must support is:

    IE7

    IE6

    IE5

    The funny thing is I’d make the exact same decision your managers agreed to if I were in your position. But you just can’t see how much it drives developers away from IE.

    I just tell my clients to use firefox. It’s free, problems sovled.

  146. Anonymous says:

    Wow. So basically you care nothing about Windows 2000 users or website designers in general?

    "some of the security work in IE7 relies on operating system functionality in XPSP2 that is non-trivial to port back to Windows 2000."

    Wow, programming is hard sometimes. You’ve got a couple bucks lying around, why don’t you hire some more developers if it’s that difficult with your existing staff?

  147. Anonymous says:

    People currently on Win2k should already have plans in place to get people onto WinXPSP2 with applications that cannot transition over moved onto WIn2k terminal servers. No one should be thinking about delaying a WinXP migration because "Longhorn is around the corner". If you didn’t make the move to WinXP when it came around the corner in the first place, you’re deceiving yourself about moving to Longhorn when it arrives. Do you really want to be an early adopter for that pooch, anyway?

  148. Anonymous says:

    Get over it. The reason the are not backporting it is not that it’s too difficult. Mozzila still supports 2000 and it has far more features than IE, it has tabs, it also has a better security record than IE (see secunia.org for stats). Obviously if a 3rd party application can support a Microsoft OS than a microsoft application should be able to as well. Expecially considering the amount of money MS has.

    The reason they are not backporting has nothing to do with ‘non-trivial functionality’ and everything to do with marketing. Microsoft is a cheifly a marketing company not a software company. This is what you should expect when using their products. There’s nothing to see here, move along.

  149. Anonymous says:

    I believe that support for Windows 2000 should continue because my school computer lab uses win2k almost exclusively and it would be too costly for them to switch over.

  150. Anonymous says:

    I think that fixing IE’s busted css support would greatly benefit the end user as web developers could focus on pleasing the users instead of spending time working around nastly css bugs. I feel that it is a real disservice to the community that IE will remain in its broken state and think MS just doens’t have the motivation ($$$) to fix what keeps the market divided.

  151. Anonymous says:

    Please support win2k beyond your lifecycle period. IE6 is a widely deployed reality. If I have to support it I must keep a win2k machine on-line. If I have to keep a win2k machine up then you should support it, even if that means doing the non-trivial. The Internet depends on your co-operation.

    Thank you for your time,

    Jeremy.

  152. Anonymous says:

    So as a web developer, I am forced to buy Longhorn, simply so that I can test in IE7… sorry, but that is utter rubbish. You can be sure that I will be recommending firefox to each and every one of my customers.

  153. Anonymous says:

    Update your browser guys. Commme onnn. It’s ruining every web developers life.

  154. Anonymous says:

    I’m disappointed that IE7 will not be offered on Win2k. I’m very happy with this OS and Win XP does not seem to offer any significant reason to upgrade, other than these end-of-life issues. I know a lot of Win2k users feel the same way. Abandoning Win2k IE development like this leaves web developpers in a very awkward position, as they have to consider that a very large portion of their users will view their pages with an essentially broken rendering engine. Either this creates a lot more work for developpers, or they cut their losses and leave the users to deal with it (most likely by seeking out another browser).

  155. Anonymous says:

    Everyone QUIT whining. This is how things work — Companies put money into researching new features thus you PAY for the new features they implement in their software (upgrading). If you want new software and enhanced security — then pay for something thats more up to date. Jesus… How long do you think free Linux distributions would last without people paying for improvements? Yeah exactly — the world isnt free. Just upgrade and quit whining and tossing little threats about switching around. Its not getting you anywhere.

  156. Anonymous says:

    I use W2000 sp4 uptodate, I don’t plan anyway to switch to XP(sp2).

    XP is really an an ugly, *heavy*, and unfriendly system.

    Shame that IE7 wont be ported…

    I read here few weeks ago that at first stage it wont and maybe in the future it will : it was a lie. thank you.

    FireFox 1.1 is around the corner…

    I will never switch my 60 corporate PC to XP, I’m smoothly installing FFx on some of them, one by one…

    You were supposed to listen your customer ? to listen devs ?

    no, it was not true, you just wanted to make buz, because you are so affraid for your XAML technology (XAML is a framework of your new future market to sel pay per view application) you are just doing marketing !

  157. Anonymous says:

    IE6 does not comply to web standards and is a PITA for developers and end users alike because of this. include IE7 in windows 2000 support or the web will suffer for years because of the poor, short sighted choices you are making NOW.

  158. Anonymous says:

    This will probably be the last argument I need to convince my boss that disallowing IE from our corporate web apps is the best course of action for us, and for our customers.

    Firefox will fit nicely on the CD of ssl client keys I have to burn for them anyway. It will be non-trivial, but somehow we’ll figure out how to do it.

    Thanks so much for helping me put Firefox on a few thousand more desktops!

  159. Anonymous says:

    Dumb move.

  160. Anonymous says:

    That’s very sad news.&nbsp; I’m a web developer using Windows 2000 as my main operating system.&nbsp; I haven’t upgraded to Windows XP for various reasons, such as "the looks" (even with the Windows Classic skin it’s not the same) and the functionality (too many things going on behind my back).&nbsp; My sites are standards compliant and I’m going through heaps getting MSIE6 supported, sometimes with the aid of Dean Edwards’ IE7 script.&nbsp; By not providing MSIE7 for the Windows 2000 crowd, I can no longer ensure full compliance with "modern" MSIE browser versions.

    The saddest part, perhaps, is the comment about how "non-trivial" it may be to port back a browser which relies on certain functionality found only on Windows XP SP2.&nbsp; While that could be true, you can still release some "light" version of the browser which sole purpose is to surf the Internet while benefitting from the improved rendering engine.&nbsp; The "Windows core" would still run on MSIE6.

    I could personally care less about the security-related fixes that are difficult to merge with Windows 2000.&nbsp; I’ve seen MSIE6 in action on Windows XP with SP2, and what I’ve learned is that it’s blocking all content that MAY be a security hazard, including "Flash animations".&nbsp; That’s overkill.&nbsp; Speaking as a regular Internet surfer, the security problems and the "lack of features" is what drew me away from MSIE, while the way things are handled in MSIE6 on Windows XP with SP2 are keeping me from coming back (aside from not being standards compliant enough).&nbsp; In my opinion, security fixes are supposed to "plug the holes" while still letting the user benefit from perfectly safe content.&nbsp; Two other companies have already been able to pull this off.

    Anyway… If you can’t release a full-blown MSIE7 for Windows 2000, then at least come up with a "developer version".&nbsp; Thank you.

  161. Anonymous says:

    I am glad that Microsoft has decided to give the Open Source revolution a significant boost with this new announcement.

    FireFox thanks you!

  162. Anonymous says:

    > Re: porting rendering fixes, well, a hybrid "browser feature set of IE6, browser platform of IE6, rendering engine of IE7" seems like it appeals to no one.

    Here’s a hint:

    "Developers! Developers! Developers!"

    BTW, Konqueror passed the Acid2 test the other day. Opera is close behind. Who’s going to be last… you or Firefox?

  163. Anonymous says:

    Here are some suggestions for IE7, in order of importance:

    – CSS 2.1 compliance

    – ECMAScript compliance

    – Correct handling of XHTML mimetypes

    – Ability to easily switch away from MSN search

    – Fix print/print-preview

    – Infinite zoom, both text-only and whole page

    – <canvas>

    – SVG

    – MNG

    – Find as you type

    – Live bookmarks

    – Inline textarea resizing

    But of course you’ve heard about all that before and are probably ignoring it all, because you know best. And you can’t release as often as other browsers even though you have less features and more developers. And the guy who decided not to support Win2K needs his head read.

  164. Anonymous says:

    We’re back from a very enjoyable vacation (more on that in a later post.) With the exception of about two hours, we were without phone and internet service most of the trip so I’ve got some catching up to do πŸ™‚ From reading the comments here and a quick skim of my email, it looks like a lot of interesting things have happened in the last week. First, on the Mars front, Opportunity has driven free of the sand dune that’s had her trapped for some time. You can read the good news over at Steve Squyres’ weblog. In addition to the great news about the MER, it’s also come down from NASA that the 2007 Mars Pheonix Lander has been green-lighted. I mentioned this project back in January (also mentioned in my NASA briefings coverage here, here, and here.) This is an interesting project because it’s built from components and ideas originally designed for earlier missions. The lander will arrive at Mars in mid-2008. On the Firefox front, Deer Park Alpha 1 was released (Chofmann, Chase, Marcia, Tracy, Sarah and Jay, you guys ROCK!) Also, Firefox is PC World’s Best Product of 2005, Brendan’s got some updates for the Roadmap, and the 70,000 employees of the US Health Department now have access to Firefox and support via Novell. In general news of interest to me, and maybe you, C|Net has added an Open Source category to its C|NET Networks UK Technology Awards, XYZ Computing says that the browser wars are back, Google announced the Summer of Code, and Yahoo is beta’ing a new kind of search. Oh, and I shouldn’t forget to mention that Microsoft announced that IE 7 will not be available for Win2K. This comes as no surprise to me. For the 200+ million users of pre-XP systems: Microsoft has abandoned you. It’s time to Get Firefox! Tomorrow I return to work and more regular blogging….

  165. Anonymous says:

    Maurits et al,

    I fail to see why so many of you are willing to jump up and down so fast about upgrading from Windows 2000 or any other Microsoft software because IE7 will not be on Win2k.

    Have any of you checked out the lifecycle support policy of any other major software maker? I assure you, MS’s is most generous compared to theirs. Some of them drop support for the previous version as soon as the new one comes out.

    My original position stands – everyone should have an upgrade plan.

    http://jamesatuncw.com/blog/archive/2005/05/30/1888.aspx

  166. Anonymous says:

    > Have any of you checked out the lifecycle support policy of any other major software maker? I assure you, MS’s is most generous compared to theirs.

    The Linux 2.2.x Kernel is still supported. 2.0.x is too. More importantly, it doesn’t cripple itself on a timed cycle to extort money from users. Firefox 1.1 runs on it, for example.

  167. Anonymous says:

    Microsoft please add support for CSS properties display: table-cell/table-row/table and min-width/max-width/width/min-height/max-height/height and HTML <ABBR> element (IE already supports <ACRONYM>, so it’s easy to add ABBR support).

  168. Anonymous says:

    According to a CNET article, tabbed browing is now available in IE 6.0 via the MSN Search Toolbar.

    http://news.com.com/Microsoft+offers+tabbed+browsing–in+IE+6/2100-1032_3-5738037.html?tag=nefd.top

    I think my point stands that developers would like to see rendering engine fixes and updates backported to an IE6 SP2 or IE 6.01 if at all possible.

    It was stated that new "security features" required XPSP2 functionality, but nothing has ever been stated about the difficulty or ease of backporting rendering updates.

  169. Anonymous says:

    Can I just ask a simple question? If Mozilla, which has never received any money, can meet my Y2K needs for free, then why can’t Microsoft, with whom we bought the Licensing 6.0 kool-aid?

    Why is it "non-trivial" that they, who have no money from me, can meet my needs as a customer?

  170. Anonymous says:

    "The problem appears to be that Windows XP is, in the eyes of many professional users, just a bloated rehash of Windows 2000 with some extra eye candy"

    HOORAY! someone else in the world knows what NT5.1 really is.

    "everyone on Win2k should be in the advanced planning/early rollout of XP/Win2k3 by now"

    You’re dreaming.

    Just imagine if Microsoft had called NT 5.1 what it actually is – Windows 2000 Second Edition. The hype of ‘XP’ and the promise of some sort of improved user experience is so false; People don’t even realise – because of the marketing – and are led to believe it to be a whole new thing. Dropping support for NT 5.0 is a kick in the guts though, what’s that, you don’t want me using a Windows OS? Fine…

  171. Anonymous says:

    Indeed Windows XP was essentially Windows 2000 Home Edition, an upgrade to Windows 95/98/Millenium. It contained mostly consumer related items that got feature-cut from Windows 2000.

    Windows XP = Windows 2000 Home Edition

    Windows 2003 = Windows 2000 Service Release 2

    It was Microsoft’s mistake to try to market these products as full product updates and not what they really were.

    News.com just ran another article about the debacle.

    http://news.com.com/The+slow+road+to+Windows+XP/2100-1016_3-5746046.html?tag=nefd.lede

    "Windows XP use surged to 38 percent by the first quarter of this year, up from 6.6 percent in the third quarter of 2003. However, the popularity of Windows 2000 has remained high, with the venerable operating system still in use in 48 percent of business PCs during the first quarter of 2005, down just four percentage points from the third quarter of 2003.

    Windows XP is really just a bulked-up version of Windows 2000.

    ‘It’s an SUV versus a minivan,’ he said. ‘They both can get you there. It’s the same type of vehicle. You still understand how to drive it.’"

  172. Anonymous says:

    http://vorck.com/remove-ie

    ^^ The solution to your problems.

  173. Anonymous says:

    This lifecycle is a bad idea. Win2k is a wonderful operating system, in fact, it’s what I use.

    To boil this all down to an issue of cost is not entirely a good idea. Of course, if you pay $200 for an operating system, over five years it’s only $40 a year. You have utterly failed to see the point. It’s a hassle to upgrade. One must backup, install, re-install. It’s a pain. It takes time and costs money- not just the $40 a year- but the money lost in business because you have to get used to this new software, takes time and training (more money for books as well). A small business can’t afford this upgrade. In fact, Windows 2000 is a fairly new system.

    I have had the same Debian linux distribution on one of my boxes for 7 years now. Has only taken a bit of time to update every now and then. This is my first suggestion over any Microsoft operating system.

    The MS theory is that you have to -buy- a new operating system every five or so years (I still feel sorry for the folks sapped into buying ME) It’s > $200 dollars for something that works more like a running beta than anything else… and to top it all off there’s the newer, funnier licensing agreement.

    As for IE7- Mozilla conforms better to the W3C standards. Microsoft has only now caught up to the idea of tabbed browsing. It’s downright laughable. Hell, even Netscape uses Gecko now- so it too is better than IE.

    I refuse to buy Longhorn until they get some very fundamental issues straight- like how to treat customers, price their products, and write a fair license. Many of my peers agree strongly on this matter.

  174. Anonymous says:

    I would upgrade to Windows XP because of the following features:

    Remote Desktop

    Remote Assistance

  175. Anonymous says:

    Do you think the Windows XP upgrade should be less expensive?

  176. Anonymous says:

    Christopher over at the MS IE weblog points out thatIEBlog : Windows 2000 moves into Extended Support after June 30th. As one commenter noticed, most small business users I work with are already switched off off the Windows 2000 desktop…

  177. IEBlog says:

    Hey everyone, Christopher here with another in a string of Windows Lifecycle reminders.

    Windows 98,…

  178. Hi everyone, you have to try this out.

  179. Hi everyone, you have to try this out.

Skip to main content