Windows 2000 users to miss out on IE 7

Cnet ^ | June 2, 2005 | Ingrid Marson

[Panerai]

Microsoft has drawn some criticism after confirming that it will not make the next version of Internet Explorer available to users of its Windows 2000 operating system.

In a blog posting at the end of last week, a Microsoft employee confirmed that the company would not be releasing IE 7 for Windows 2000, as this would involve a lot of work for an operating system that is in the later stages of its lifecycle.

"It should be no surprise that we do not plan on releasing IE 7 for Windows 2000. One reason is where we are in the Windows 2000 lifecycle. Another is that some of the security work in IE 7 relies on operating system functionality in XP SP2 that is non-trivial to port back to Windows 2000," according to the blog posting.

Although Windows 2000 will be supported until 2010, at the end of June of this year Microsoft will no longer accept requests for design changes or new features for the operating system.

A number of Microsoft blog readers were unhappy to learn that IE 7 would be unavailable on Windows 2000.

[N3WBI3]

how does what you posted mean *a* linux box is not more stable than *a* windows box..

[Golden Eagle]

in my experience 2K will give you really good uptime, not quite as good as a linux box. If you patch all the time it helps because thats usually a reboot..

Sound familiar? It should, but if it doesn't, scroll just a few posts up.

[N3WBI3]

im sorry where did you compare one linux box to one windows box?

[Golden Eagle]

I showed you the uptime of microsoft.com is exceeding that of redhat.com, which seems to have thrown you into some sort of denial.

[Woodman]

At home I've never had to reinstall it (I have much better control of my systems) But It's interesting to note that after-market sales are limited to one install. At work I have done many reinstalls for both OEM and Enterprise installs. There I have never hit the limit. 7 is an awful lot of reinstalls, in fact over two and it seams to me that you have other problems besides ythe OS. Ghost is also probably a better idea for most people. Burn a Ghost Image at initial install and before and after each major change. After all it takes about twenty minuted to re-Ghost a PC and it saves a great deal of frustration.

[N3WBI3]

I showed you the uptime of microsoft.com is exceeding that of redhat.com, which seems to have thrown you into some sort of denial.

Ah how wonderful it must be to be so obtuse... Is microsfot.com or redhat.com one webserver? So again let me ask you what does your post have to do with one Linux server and one Windows server? Maybe you should tell me the weather where you live it would be about as relevant..

[Golden Eagle]

Microsoft.com has better uptime than redhat.com is all I know. You can keep spinning it however you want, but obviously the gig is up.

[N3WBI3]

Everyone who reads this can see you ducking and dodging and hiding from a very simple question, is microsoft.com or redhat.com a singe server? If you dont answer this im done with you..

[Golden Eagle]

LOL, I'm not dodging anything. Those webservers at Red Hat run on Linux and the servers at Microsoft run on Windows, and right now it appears the Windows servers have longer uptime. Almost twice as long as of today, which is in direct conflict with your constant inferrences that Linux servers have greater uptime. Don't blame me if Red Hat can't keep their uptime equal to Microsoft, you're the one that made the claim, not I. Bugger off whenever you're ready, you're obviously not gaining any ground while I'm here.

[N3WBI3]

No answer to a simpe question, it displays whos hiding and I am done with you...

[neb52]

You assumed to much there in your last post. I work part time as a IT tech for small businesses. Were the 7 reinstalls come in is using WinXP Home Upgrade CDs to fix cratering Win98 workstations that I need to save the data on. Its not really so much an issue now, as we have finally gotten most of our clients at least to Win2000.

I was just pointing out the fact that use to the Non-OEM version allowed 7 reinstalls before the phone call. I just recently was upgrading two Dells from Win2000 to XP. One ended up needing XP Professional on it instead of Home. But when I went to load the now extra XP Home on anther PC it would not activate. I wonder if it had something to do with activating after installation, since it was different hardware. Who knows. Its not a problem calling MS, other then the non English speaking employees and the llooonnnggg ID key that you have to give them to in turn get the new activation key.

The other good point as you alluded to. We only sell primarily HP desktops and notebooks. Which come with an OEM XP CD. So on those workstations reinstalling is no problem. As far as Ghost I will start using that on clients that have similar workstations like this one Doctor Office that just bought all new PCs and laptops for their two offices. But we don't have to many clients like that. Most of mismatches of vairous brands and ages. I just got done a few weeks ago replacine a Compaq Deskpro that was a Pent. 133 16MB with Win95. The sad was it was all the customer needed since the user that used this workstation only connected to the Unix Box.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Linux needs to do two things to be ready for prime time- be as easy to install as Windows ( pop in a CD, and follow the prompts ), and be able to work easily with Windows applications. A lot of people- like my wife- bring home tons of stuff from work, and they need to be able to use work with it without jumping through hoops.

They never will, so long as they require you to know your particular hardware settings and addresses. Then having to "mount drives" and determining partition sizes. I could do it, but I don't have time to hassle with it.