Posted on 03/28/2007 6:51:38 AM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing
I understand the economics behind this, I don't expect microsoft to continue porting it's IE7 and future IE8 to windows 3.1.
But as is noted, and is a powerful point, MS isn't going to make IE7 for win2k.
Win2k is in alot of ways identical to XP. And win2k is used by a ton of businesses out there. Porting IE7 to XP puts the vast majority of the work in the 'already done' category as far as w2k is concerned. I'm sure that IE7 would inherently work on 2k without any work done to it at all, but knowing microsoft you'll get some error message because it'll be purposely locked you out.
"we have detected that you are running an older version of windows, installation aborted".
^^^^^^^^^^I wish my network was so capable and had so much bandwidth it has to wait for me ...^^^^^^^^^^^^
ROFL.......... well I'm not sure the exact numbers but our up/download speeds can't be any more than 10mb.
It's not like we're crunching 3d environments and scientific numbers, it's simple accounting work; web based. The files we work with are relatively small.
It's not that our internet bandwidth is several gigabit or anything, but our network backbone(the hardware in the server closet) is awesome. But it's more than capable for what we do.
Our network waiting for us is literally because our workstations are *that bad*.
Think about what you'd get if you had that 8mb download pipe on a 486. That may be a bit of an exaggeration, but I think that gives you an idea of what I mean.
^^^^^^^^^No - we're not all leftist liberals.^^^^^^^^^
You and I are both part of that extremely small minority.(within a minority)
^^^^^^^^^^Open Source makes good money sense, for profit minded corporations, and for their profit minded customers.^^^^^^^^^^
I know that. However, there's alot more corporations out there owned and run by liberals than people realize. A bureaucracy is a bureaucracy, and libs are attracted to bureaucracies like flies to sh*t.
NB had a small piece about this. http://newsbusters.org/node/7130
^^^^^^^^^^ It's good old fashioned capitalism, by a different means.
Essentially, it's an intellectual property barter system.^^^^^^^^
I know. I've made that argument myself several times over.
^^^^^^^^^^Just because it is a different economic model doesn't mean its anti-capitalist.^^^^^^^^^^^^
I think you misread my post. I was referring to software leadership, such as stallman. And groups like the FSF.
But now with Vista out Win2K is 4 versions ago, most companies only support 2 or 3 versions back. I doubt highly IE7 would innately work on Win2K without additional work, I've run into enough bugs in apps I work on that exist in W2K but not in XP that I know there's some serious differences, especially since the service packs, SP2 seriously changed XP. Businesses still running 2K have a decision to make, if they really really want IE7 then they need to upgrade, if they don't want to upgrade then IE7 isn't that important to them.
Put about as well as it can be put, but dont expect GE to understand that..
I would not really fault MS for it either there are some concerns about them tweaking their software or sites to make a particular competitors software incompatable. In another post on this thread I mentioned how DOS dies not because ms forced it to but because they eveolved so far beyond it as to make it useless. The post I was addressing was specifically about apple.
Though I think MS should keep selling XP for another year..
^^""So if apple had said screw you and not made 10.5 for PPC models would you all of a sudden be against planned obsolescence?""^^
I am against planeed obsolenscence I just dont see apple doing it. There is a happy point where keeping compatability when the expense warrents it rather than dumping it just to sell more units.
In terms of the business desktop win2k is two versions ago (XP and Vista)
That's 3 versions ago, the current version counts for support number (if your company support 2 versions it's the most current and the one before it). Although given the way MS is treating pre-SP2 XP you can make and argument that it's 4 on the client side. And that I think is the real reason they're cutting off 2K from so much, they're also cutting off non-SPed XP and it makes a pretty wierd support diagram to not support base XP but support 2K, every software business like to have a clean dividing line "we support from this up", makes it a lot easier to explain to customers.
And is still getting free security updates despite your bogus claims they had been cutoff. Till 2010, ten years. Of the ~300 versions of Linux, how many support anything for 10 years? Or even anything from 2000 still? Obviously that's who you should be talking to about your "obsolescence" concerns.
thanks, and yeah I suspected as much ...
My claim was unsupported not it would not get security patches. (1) MS has not ported the new ie nor media player to that box, (2) I consider a box which is receiving security updates and nothing else to be unsupported..
I think I caught your drift, you're one of the few who isn't a radical leftist in the free software movement, so I shouldn't give up on this "share and share alike" philosophy just because I prefer capitalistic competition better than "community" projects. Let me know if I got the wrong impression, thanks.
Still clinging on that lie I see LOL. My favorite was when you said "a hotfix is not an update" once before too.
Disagreement does not equal a lie, you saying that redhat had hundreds of kernel developers, that was a lie..
A typo I admitted, yet you're still here perpetuating the lie that systems receiving security patches are "unsupported" by the vendor.
That's obviously bogus, if you want to claim it's simply your "opinion", once again just shows how absurd your opinions are.
Not to mention your hypocritical complaints about obsolesence right here since you refuse to address how many out of the ~300 versions of Linux support anything for 10 years.
A typo you admitted hours later, actually you did not really admit it you just stopped saying kernel developers it was not until a different thread you tried to pass your lie off as a typo..
Is that all you can mumble? My mistake of using the word "kernel" on a peripheral issue somehow makes up for the lie you continue to perpetrate that Microsoft doesn't support Windows 2000? On a thread talking about obsolecense? LMAO
No you don't, but the only PERFECT SPECIFICATION is working code. You are right in this limited sense: life rarely requires perfect specification.
^^^^^^^^But now with Vista out Win2K is 4 versions ago^^^^^^^^^
No it's not. It's two versions ago. In workstations, there's XP and 2k. Now vista.
In servers, theres 2k and 2003. Now Vista.(yet to be released AFAIK)
^^^^^^^^^^most companies only support 2 or 3 versions back^^^^^^^^^
Ok, so my demands are adequate then.
^^^^^^^^especially since the service packs^^^^^^^^^
Now that I'd buy. XP since SP2 is a very different animal. But MS isn't making that case, that it's specifically about the SPs.
^^^^^^^^^^^Businesses still running 2K have a decision to make, if they really really want IE7 then they need to upgrade, if they don't want to upgrade then IE7 isn't that important to them.^^^^^^^^^^
The point is that it isn't a choice they should be forced to make.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.