Windows 2000: Do you think Second Life Should Stop Support for Windows 2000

Kick that pig.

While it is true that Windows 2000 was only released a year before Windows XP, currently our resident base is showing that a little over 25% of our total users are running XP. When we are deciding where to direct our support a big factor will be how many residents are currently running these operating systems and the active residents using Win2k is less that a percent.

How many of those do you think are content creators? I can assume that alot of people who still use Windows 2000 have a good knowledge of computers, since there's a reason I stay on Windows 2000 -- it performs faster and has been more stable in my experience (not to mention the UI is so clean and nice looking). It's not absurd to think that many are contributing to the community and Second Life as a whole.

I happen to be creating several devices, one of which is a sim-radar which I was going to put up for sale in the near future. I also spend alot of time in the Linden sandboxes (Sandbox Goguen, Sandbox Cordova specifically), cleaning physics spam (and creating tools to do so) helping keep the sandboxes clean and useable.

XP ist kernel version 5.1
2K is version 5.0

Since now there is NO reason for me and many other people i know to change to XP.
Win2k is already as good as XP - the missing things can be "fixed" with some tools (mostly better than the MS-owned ones)

I do NOT plan to change to XP neither Vista!
I like my Win2k Platform and i would be very upset if Secondlife will refuse to work.

I dont think its too much work to support 2k as much as XP because the differences are minimal. And i know there are many users out there using still 2k.

I read allot a good points on why it should remain and why it should go. The paid developers yeah should work more on the majority and work to keep up with the new. In many ways It wont be much a choose to Secondlife as it grows certain updates maybe needed for it to even do anything. i think SL Got to a point where if you got a computer with Windows 2000, i don't see how it can be even tolerant to even play. hardware must be just as old. and as one person said Windows XP and 2000 are like sisters. only in some places. 2000 was a good Stable platform of its time. but like everything when it gets old it drops. but the OS is real fast being dropped. And So if you cant afford to upgrade to a new computer or get a new version of windows which i know either can be costly. You can Get A Free Supported Linux OS Such as Ubuntu, Which i think Runs Secondlife nice and smooth. i was amazed how watching Videos within SL was allot better in Ubuntu then windows. yeah i cant afford a nice Video card. but in windows the frame rate tanks badly below 5 FPS when watching Videos.


But in Ubuntu, after i install GStreamer for video support. I play video and my frame rate didn't tank what so ever. stay going 40FPS. I been looking into Different software i can use to replace only windows software i use if they don't Work under "Wine". Some things i cant replace such as my Red Alert 3, Bio Shock, and other games. I may just install them on a striped down Version of Windows XP. IF i plan to do most of my things on Linux no need having Vista take up allot of hard drive space.

So no money, but wanna still play sl after support ends look for someone that's putting there free time in fixes or try a Linux OS.

It simply makes sense to allocate resources where they will benefit the most. I feel for those people who are still running 2k, as upgrading an OS can be a costly endeavor. My advice? shope for the great deals running right now on new systems that alreay have a newer OS loaded.

I'd be interested (and have asked before) for a breakdown of the OS' used. That only 25% use XP is a bit of a surprise. More details on who runs what?


I understand but if you guys are going to continune claiming the user numbers that you do, telling 1% of your user base that you're no longer going to support their machines is a pretty big deal. There's a fair amount of talk here in these forums that LL should be putting more effort into supporting a wider range of systems, not a smaller range.

edit: and tho I may not agree with you guys on this issue, it's nice to see Lindens here and talking to residents. TY!

What? SL isn't supposed to be running on Win98? Uh oh...

What will all the schools do?

Seriously though yes drop support for obsolete operating systems as well as obsolete video cards. The optimal minimal system today looks to be quad core 64 bit OS with nVida 8000 gpu or better and 4GB ram. If people want to play roller coaster tycoon they should play roller coaster tycoon.

Or alternatively you can create and maintain a light viewer that has no windlight at all. That would be one heck of a lot less polygons to worry about just in sky and water alone.

Why do people keep saying this? This is wrong. Completely wrong. Windows 2000 can be installed on modern hardware, and I did just that, and it works just fine. Did you miss my post where I said this?

Second Life runs great on my machine.

I said i read allot not all. there too many to wast my time on. and yeah it may work on newer hardware. but way i said it and more likely other said majority is old hardware.

LL quit supporting Windows 2000 the day they required the updated Quicktime, so it's already a moot point. The up-to-date Quicktime needed for the SL viewer is not available on Windows 2000. Kill any support for Win2k as if your life depended on it.

Whilst it is true you can get extended support for Win2K, you have to pay for it. Don't give Linden ideas

You can't compare Win2K to XP just because the build numbers are close. XP was based on the NT codebase and picked up its versioning, as opposed to the 9x/Me source. XP post-SP2 is a world away from Win2K. (And SP2 is required for XP to be supported.)

[Update]
Re: Phantom's comment further down the thread. It was late when I wrote this and I wasn't very clear I was just reiterating that they share the same build numbers but just because they are close - 5.0 and 5.1 - doesn't mean that XP is a minor upgrade to Win2K. It certainly isn't post SP2.

I don't use Win2k. Also, I'm fine with support for it being dropped.



That was my only question.

The resources would be better utilized addressing other issues.

Quicktime is not required for Second Life to run.




Extended support's security updates are free.




Are you trying to imply that Windows 2000 was based on Windows 98 or ME? Because that is not true. 2000 was based on NT as well. In fact XP was based on 2000; it's really just 2000 with a Playskool UI and a few extra included programs and services (heh Windows Messenger).

I figured that much... And, frankly, I spent 4 years in Win2k. Those are 4 years of my life that I wish I could have taken back. (>_<

The most content creators i know are using XP or Vista, because they use Software who won't run in the same good performance as under win2k (as example maya, 3dsmax, adobe photoshop etc). You sound like a person, who tried XP / Vista for 5 minutes and you think you know everything of this OS.

After SP2 XP isn't longer based on a win2k kernel (and it was never based on a win2k kernel in this way you think). You can also have the same win2k look&feel under XP and - oh whow - you can also have it under Vista, how strange.

The big point is, that newer CPUs are 64bit and you slow down the machine, if you use a 32bit OS - thats a simple fact.

But there is another point you don't understand.
New viewers will run under win2k, but they are not tested on win2k - and LL won't answer questions about win2k problems. But there is a big community who compiles own viewers on the same codebase and fix things there (i.e. KirstenLee Viewer) so there will be a chance to get good working viewers for win2k.

But you have to understand LL too, it needs time and money to support a outdated OS, time and money they should spend in more recent OS and server development. Maybe it's a good idea to see the whole thing and not your small part only. You are one of less then 1 percent (1/10th), thats not a big loss for a company.

And you sound like a person who has never tried 2000 at all, or has looked at the start up screen and thought "hurr this is taking longer than XP to start up so it must be slower overall, I'm done testing".

EDIT: Oh, I have used XP, and Vista a little. Feedback on Vista from other people speaks for itself though.



They are closer than you think. Oh and sure, I can change the theme, that'll get rid of SOME of the bloat. Sure. But it can't look completely like 2000, there's still the awful new Windows logo.. I liked how it looked originally, before they changed it in XP and then again in Vista..




Didn't I speak of this before? I'll elaborate a little more. You won't get any advantage from using a 64 bit operating system aside from RAM until you have programs COMPILED in 64 bit, and actually making real use of it. Some programs have 64-bit versions just so they can say they have it, they don't actually make use of it, sometimes just because there isn't a need to.



This is still going to stop me from being able to contribute to JIRA discussions involving the client. Oh, I didn't mention that, I've helped with reporting and troubleshooting several bugs in the JIRA.




I suppose you have a point. But again, it's not JUST me, and I'm trying to defend people who aren't aware of this topic too.

You don't need to support win-2k if you don't want to, I can see that, it is 8 years old. But SL runs so much faster on my 5 year old computer with win-2k than it does on my new Vista. After all, Vista sucks the life out of any powerful computer. When I get down to 5 fps, I log out & fire up the windows 2000 computer so I can walk without running into things. It's a good OS, don't kick it to the curb.
Thanx.

Drop Win2K support, since Microsoft doesn't support it now. It's too long in the tooth and folks should of been upgraded to XP already or switched to a Linux distro for better support. Plus, Windows 7 is in development with a preview release already out to the press -- it's buggy in areas and LL needs to jump on that platform ASAP to prevent another Vista problem.

Thanks so much for all your thoughtful responses on this. I appreciate the chance to ask you all what you think, and to share what we're considering.

personally i am torn

windows 2k IS dead, and most everyone has stopped supporting it

but windows 2k is in extended support till like 2010 or something

there is no real difference tween 2k and xp on the software devel level

and since you over glorified air compressors dont provide support to a single damn thing on SL, i dont even see why you care

when are the forums going to get fixed already? or did you stop supporting the internet too

I use Windows 2000 as part of my daily work, and work in SL. I would be put out by the cessation of development in that OS. THe WIn XP machine is far less stable in SL due ti it's use of an ATI graphics card. As such I am using a Win2K machine with a nice Nvidia card and have had few problems with SL.

Karl Reisman THI

Why not a comprimise by maiking it aviliable by wireless?

As first, this is my last response about this topic.

I'm not really sure how old you are, but i still remember times where computers haven't had a graphical interface. I know Win2k very well and i worked a long time with it - till 2005. You got one point, Win2k starts fast, but have to load each single driver afterwards and never remove it from the memory - still a fact.

Ok, you like/love the UI but you don't understand the OS. Got this point.

Not right. Win2k is designed for 32bit CPUs and the instruction sets for 32bit CPUs. Windowx XP is designed for 32bit AND 64bit CPUs and supports both instruction sets. Not a big difference? It is. Test it, if you want, with two identical machines, one with a basic installation Win2k and one with basic installation XP. Work with both and see whats happend.

Great, you helped with SL on Win2k machines, but one more time, it's only 1/10th of 1% who use Win2k. It seems, your time is over, time for new ppl who helps with XP, Vista, Mac and Linux. Positive result: you have more time to enjoy your first life.

Conclusion:
You like/love the old UI from Win2k and you're JIRA addicted and don't really understand the difference between 32/64bit CPUs (not software). None of the other worlds supports Win2k, why LL should do? Even openlifegrid don't support Win2k either. The time is over for Win2k.