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

Aurel Fouroux

Registered User

Join date: 5 Feb 2008

Posts: 1

12-03-2008 21:18

Funny but I have been trying SL on some old 2K machines at work. Most won't even log in and those that do are old video editors with a gig of RAM and good video boards. Still their running full out. With Windows 7 around the corner and everything moving to 64 bit your programmers have more than enough work without worrying about old platforms.

Phantom Ninetails

Registered User

Join date: 20 Dec 2007

Posts: 21

12-03-2008 21:25

From: Mephistopheles McMinnar

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

From: Mephistopheles McMinnar

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.

Actually my point was that Windows 2000 loads slower in most cases and that may falsely lead people to conclude that 2000 is slower altogether.

From: Mephistopheles McMinnar

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

What? I've made it clear already that I know plenty about the OSes themselves. The UI was just one of many things that bother me. Pretending that my main point in this entire thread so far was the logo will not make my other points suddenly disappear.

From: Mephistopheles McMinnar

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.

Not right. Only (of XP versions) Windows XP Professional 64-bit Edition supports x86-64 instructions, and you still aren't understanding that even though the OS supports the instruction set, it won't benefit significantly from it until APPLICATIONS support it too. That means a 64-bit version of Second Life. Such a thing does not exist. Therefore upgrading to Windows XP Professional 64-bit Edition will not make Second Life perform any better.

From: Mephistopheles McMinnar

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.

Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about.

EDIT: More:

From: Mephistopheles McMinnar

Great, you helped with SL on Win2k machines,

No, you appear to be intentionally misunderstanding me. I helped with SL on client and server issues in all platforms. Very few (maybe just one, the issue regarding Quicktime) was Windows 2000 specific. And even with that one, it's a problem Linux has too. (EDIT again: actually I didn't really help on that issue so far.)

Panther Farber

The rainbow colored furry

Join date: 11 Mar 2004

Posts: 119

12-03-2008 21:32

From: Mephistopheles McMinnar

Drop support for Windows 2000 so you have more resources to fix the memory leak problem (one of the most important and never fixed problems)

/me agrees with the above statement, product, or service.

_____________________

Meow

Tom Itano

Registered User

Join date: 6 Jun 2008

Posts: 1

Tom Itano

12-03-2008 21:53

Pull the plug on Windows 2000.

Myra Foil

Registered User

Join date: 10 Nov 2006

Posts: 1

12-03-2008 22:50

I say drop it.
the ammount of people using it is too small.
Indeed better put the effort in XP, Vista, MAC and Linux....

Balp Allen

Registered User

Join date: 26 Mar 2007

Posts: 10

Stay with w2k

12-04-2008 00:48

If LL like to be looked at as a serious player towards the professional market, many many big players stayed on w2k until a vista deployment, a deployment that for reasons in vista many many times been delayed.

My gut feeling is that in about a year, most big companies finally succeeded in moving w2k out... Last Xmas i found out that Nichlaz builds didn't support w2k. This year I'm with a new company and figures out that Inten gfx on laptop isn't SL friendly.

Viktoria Dovgal

…

Join date: 29 Jul 2007

Posts: 3,593

12-04-2008 01:00

From: Katt Linden

Our tracking shows that very few of you, about 1/10th of 1 percent of all of you that have logged in within the past two months, are still using Windows 2000 when logging into Second Life.

And a few months ago, in http://blog.secondlife.com/2008/05/05/working-on-the-right-things-considering-os-x-panther-support/

From: someone

Our tracking shows that very few of you, about 1/4 of 1 percent of all of you, the entire base of Residents, are still using Apple’s Mac OS X 10.3 when logging into Second Life.

SL survived after killing support for the larger Panther base, so killing Win2K shouldn't be a problem.

Moon Metty

Registered User

Join date: 23 May 2008

Posts: 12

w3k

12-04-2008 01:01

Being forced to change the operating system you're used to is terrible, of course.
Spending many hours of LL resources on something relatively few people use isn't very productive, it's a tough dilemma.

But how black/white is "stopping support"? Quality assurance is never 100%, for win2000 it may get lower as time progresses.
I think it would be best to at least have the intention to keep the viewer running under win2000, knowing that at some point something may turn up that's not worth fixing. But keep listening to win2000 users. There are very few (if any) issues on the jira specific to win2000 ...

bo Heartsdale

Heartsdale Rentals

Join date: 15 Aug 2007

Posts: 14

Stop, but keep available..

12-04-2008 01:59

What i miss with many software companies, is a page that keeps older (stable) versions available. LLab does the same at this point.

I dont use 2000 anymore, but i help a lot of people with their comps. And many times i come across OS like 2000 and software is no longer available.

I would suggest make a final version that supports the win2k and shield it of from new developments, but in such a way that people can do minimum things in Second Life.

That way you probably can support those 2000 logins another year (or 2)

But my wish? Make a lighter version too, please! I want to login from my job

Deeso Saeed

Registered User

Join date: 21 Dec 2007

Posts: 9

Drop it

12-04-2008 02:43

A lot of people say that W2K is the most stable operating system from Microsoft to date. But for the home user a properly patched Windows XP SP3 makes few difference with W2K. Even more with Windows XP you get some advantages like faster boot times.

If you want an operating system that consume less resource, just disable the eye candy you don't need and you'll have an operating system that will be supported for some years more.

SL is not the only software thats is thinking or actually droping support for windows 2K. I think is time to do it. Relocating resources for better QA on other more relevant platforms is a step on the right direction.

Andromeda Quonset

Registered User

Join date: 20 May 2006

Posts: 46

12-04-2008 03:40

I think you should continue to maintain Windows 2000. May I suggest that you stop trying to support Windows Vista: Windows Vista is a failed product, like Windows ME was a failed product.

Ardy Lay

Registered User

Join date: 17 Mar 2008

Posts: 4

A comment from one of the 1/10 of 1% using 2000 ...

12-04-2008 05:24

I am one of the Windows 2000 users you may still be counting. I have two computers that I use at different times. My opinion? I can stop using Windows 2000 now as I have no real need for the second (older) computer. Sure, I upgraded it to work OKAY with Second Life, but then, after being disappointed with the performance, I bought a new computer instead of building a new one. I was given the choice of XP or Vista and chose XP. The new machine with XP on it is working well for me. I am always slow to change because I work in an environment where I must prevent down time. (Telco/ISP/CATV) I still have two Windows NT 4 SP6a installations there.

So, make a "final cut" for Windows 2000. Park it. Let me use it if I have to, then move on. I understand a little about being on the trailing-edge of technology and don't mind being there.

wes Wylie

Registered User

Join date: 7 Dec 2007

Posts: 6

12-04-2008 06:05

I honestly dont know how ppl still get away with using win 2000, I have a dual core processor with 1 1/2 gig of memory and I have had to resort to using nicholaz bleeding edge viewer for sl to run smoothly.

If they can still run sl then good luck to them, as to supporting win 2000 I dunno, does it do any harm?

Jack Abraham

Lantern By Day

Join date: 11 Apr 2008

Posts: 113

12-04-2008 06:40

Any reasonable IT organization ended support for Windows 2000 when Microsoft did. Sadly, both Linden Lab and Cisco don't fall into this category. The resources would be much better spent on current operating systems.

(Personally I'd like to see that effort diverted to Mac and Linux support rather than more Windows support; we Mac users have been suffering for some time. But as a Windows admin by day, I understand the business requirement for Windows, Windows, Windows.)

Argent Stonecutter

Emergency Mustelid

Join date: 20 Sep 2005

Posts: 20,263

No no no no no.

12-04-2008 07:09

I'm using Windows 2000, and I have no intention of installing Windows "Fisher Price" edition (let alone Windows "Extreme DRM" edition) unless absolutely forced. Windows 2000 was the last decent edition of Windows that Microsoft shipped (Windows NT 3.51 being the first).

This opinion is not mine alone. A lot of techies... many of whom are also content creators like myself... stick to Windows 2000 for a stable and high performance environment. Windows XP is little more than a "plus pack" for Windows 2000, and Vista... well... the less said the better.

What is the actual cost of continuing to support Windows 2000? How many problems are determined to be due to that operating system? What APIs are you restricted from using because you're supporting the Windows 2000 SDK? Don't forget that Windows 2000 users *can* use APIs like GDI+ if they're running genuine copies, so the SDK should not be that big of a problem.

Incidentally, Second Life runs BETTER on dual core processors on Windows 2000 than on Windows XP. I never had to play with the processor affinity to avoid "dual core" glitches, and I get better performance if I *don't* play those tricks.

_____________________

Argent Stonecutter - http://globalcausalityviolation.blogspot.com/

"And now I'm going to show you something really cool."

Skyhook Station - http://xrl.us/skyhook23
Coonspiracy Store - http://xrl.us/coonstore

Diolma Andel

Registered User

Join date: 2 Jun 2008

Posts: 1

12-04-2008 07:14

If SL stops running on Win2K, I for one, will have to stop using SL, alas. I can't afford to upgrade to another OS in the foreseeable future. I have had to slowly upgrade my PC in tiny bits and pieces as and when I could, and re-installed Win2K every time I needed to.

I know I'm part of a tiny minority, but unless someone wants to give me a couple of thousand UK pounds, my situation is unlikely to change - I'm currently unemployed with little prospect of getting another job.

Sadly yours,
Diolma Andel

miata Yoshikawa

Registered User

Join date: 5 Oct 2007

Posts: 1

Absolutely drop windoze 2k!

12-04-2008 07:15

As others have already said, they have to be crawling along on a machine built by the ancient astronauts if they're using MSW2k. Put your resources to better use, please! It would surely help to fix many of the current bugs. =^.^=

miata Yoshikawa

Registered User

Join date: 5 Oct 2007

Posts: 1

Absolutely drop Windoze 2k!

12-04-2008 07:18

As others have already said, they have to be crawling along on a machine built by the ancient astronauts if they're using MSW2k. Put your resources to better use, please! It would surely help to fix many of the current bugs. =^.^=

Argent Stonecutter

Emergency Mustelid

Join date: 20 Sep 2005

Posts: 20,263

12-04-2008 07:18

From: Viktoria Dovgal

SL survived after killing support for the larger Panther base, so killing Win2K shouldn't be a problem.

Apple's operating system upgrades after Panther are actually UPGRADES. I don't mind being pushed into upgrading my Mac Mini to Leopard. Microsoft's operating system upgrades after Windows 2000 aren't. Being pushed into DOWNGRADING to XP or Vista is a whole different kettle of fish.

_____________________

Argent Stonecutter - http://globalcausalityviolation.blogspot.com/

"And now I'm going to show you something really cool."

Skyhook Station - http://xrl.us/skyhook23
Coonspiracy Store - http://xrl.us/coonstore

Atzel Congrejo

Registered User

Join date: 8 Jun 2007

Posts: 2

Get rid of it...

12-04-2008 07:20

If it's to much ado to keep 2000 supported.. toss it.

I don't think there are many people arround using a state-of-the-art graphics card under W2K.

I think the geeks herein are mostly running WinXP or Vista32/64 or they are on a Mac

Argent Stonecutter

Emergency Mustelid

Join date: 20 Sep 2005

Posts: 20,263

12-04-2008 07:36

From: Soft Linden

I'm a little surprised we're even asking about this. Major components like Quicktime for Windows 2000 have gone a full year without security updates.

Irrelevant, since SL has already resolved that by not supporting versions of Quicktime that can be installed in Windows 2000. And I say "good riddance". Video in SL is of marginal use and a potential information leak.

From: someone

When responding to this thread, remember that all Win2K QA is done at the expense of QA time spent elsewhere. Likewise, being locked into an older Win2K-compatible Windows SDK may well be holding back some stability and performance enhancements in later Microsoft SDKs.

Given that Windows 2000 supports virtually all the libraries XP does (so long as you have a valid license to download them) and Microsoft didn't introduce significant new APIs that won't work on 2000 until Vista (and DX10 won't work on XP either), supporting Windows 2000 on the basis of "if it's reported, we'll fix it" would release those QA resources, without abandoning users who have legitimate issues with XP and Vista.

_____________________

Argent Stonecutter - http://globalcausalityviolation.blogspot.com/

"And now I'm going to show you something really cool."

Skyhook Station - http://xrl.us/skyhook23
Coonspiracy Store - http://xrl.us/coonstore

Argent Stonecutter

Emergency Mustelid

Join date: 20 Sep 2005

Posts: 20,263

12-04-2008 07:37

From: Atzel Congrejo

I think the geeks herein are mostly running WinXP or Vista32/64 or they are on a Mac

You think wrong. Geeks were the FIRST to object to XP and Vista.

_____________________

Argent Stonecutter - http://globalcausalityviolation.blogspot.com/

"And now I'm going to show you something really cool."

Skyhook Station - http://xrl.us/skyhook23
Coonspiracy Store - http://xrl.us/coonstore

Mephistopheles McMinnar

Be, or not to be...

Join date: 14 Sep 2008

Posts: 70

12-04-2008 07:38

From: Diolma Andel

If SL stops running on Win2K, I for one, will have to stop using SL, alas. I can't afford to upgrade to another OS in the foreseeable future.

You heaven't read the full article, have you?
The support stops for Win2k - and only the support. The Viewer will run under Win2k in the future, but if you went in troubles / problems, LL won't help.

By the way, Microsoft stopped to sell Win2k in 2004 and stopped the full support in 2005, so you have had 3 years to invest in a new OS. It's bad to hear that you're unemployed, but why should a company pay for this? More and more new software don't support Win2k, because the differences between Win2k and XP are too big and the Win2k installations are dropping.

_____________________

http://djmm.bbping.eu

The spirit I, which evermore denies! And justly; for whate'er to light is brought deserves again to be reduced to naught; Then better 'twere that naught should be. Thus all the elements which ye destruction, Sin, or briefly, Evil, name,
As my peculiar element I claim. (Mephistopheles from "Faust" J.W.v. Goethe)

USA Skytower

Registered User

Join date: 21 Nov 2008

Posts: 1

Stop W2000

12-04-2008 07:50

MS itself has a mature date after which they no longer support a particular O.S.
why should not LL follow their example?
keep up with the times.
Win Vista is my O.S. and what i'd like to see LL do is to cut down or eliminate "lag" altogether! concentrate on XP,Vista and get ready for Win7 coming 09.oh,yeah,lol,how about a spell checker [ i'm a LOUSY speller,lol ].

but yeah,drop Win2000 and let's not worry about it. your car is no longer functional. what do you do? buy a new [ upgrade ] one,right? well,there you be,W2000 users will get the hint and upgrade if they have a burning desire to get in or stay in Second Life.
purely my oho as a SL user

Berkette Zou

Registered User

Join date: 11 Sep 2006

Posts: 3

Two Thumbs Up

12-04-2008 07:54

It's difficult to understand how anyone can still be using such an old version of windows, and have a positive experience with SL. It would seem that a system that old would only create lag and such for the user. Not to sound mean - but it's seriously time for those folks to upgrade!
Thank you LL for all the hard work & continuing to make SL a better experience each and every day.

Windows 2000: Do you think Second Life Should Stop Support for Windows 2000
Aurel Fouroux Registered User Join date: 5 Feb 2008 Posts: 1	12-03-2008 21:18 Funny but I have been trying SL on some old 2K machines at work. Most won't even log in and those that do are old video editors with a gig of RAM and good video boards. Still their running full out. With Windows 7 around the corner and everything moving to 64 bit your programmers have more than enough work without worrying about old platforms.
Phantom Ninetails Registered User Join date: 20 Dec 2007 Posts: 21	12-03-2008 21:25 From: Mephistopheles McMinnar As first, this is my last response about this topic. From: Mephistopheles McMinnar 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. Actually my point was that Windows 2000 loads slower in most cases and that may falsely lead people to conclude that 2000 is slower altogether. From: Mephistopheles McMinnar Ok, you like/love the UI but you don't understand the OS. Got this point. What? I've made it clear already that I know plenty about the OSes themselves. The UI was just one of many things that bother me. Pretending that my main point in this entire thread so far was the logo will not make my other points suddenly disappear. From: Mephistopheles McMinnar 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. Not right. Only (of XP versions) Windows XP Professional 64-bit Edition supports x86-64 instructions, and you still aren't understanding that even though the OS supports the instruction set, it won't benefit significantly from it until APPLICATIONS support it too. That means a 64-bit version of Second Life. Such a thing does not exist. Therefore upgrading to Windows XP Professional 64-bit Edition will not make Second Life perform any better. From: Mephistopheles McMinnar 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. Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about. EDIT: More: From: Mephistopheles McMinnar Great, you helped with SL on Win2k machines, No, you appear to be intentionally misunderstanding me. I helped with SL on client and server issues in all platforms. Very few (maybe just one, the issue regarding Quicktime) was Windows 2000 specific. And even with that one, it's a problem Linux has too. (EDIT again: actually I didn't really help on that issue so far.)
Panther Farber The rainbow colored furry Join date: 11 Mar 2004 Posts: 119	12-03-2008 21:32 From: Mephistopheles McMinnar Drop support for Windows 2000 so you have more resources to fix the memory leak problem (one of the most important and never fixed problems) /me agrees with the above statement, product, or service. _____________________ Meow
Tom Itano Registered User Join date: 6 Jun 2008 Posts: 1	Tom Itano 12-03-2008 21:53 Pull the plug on Windows 2000.
Myra Foil Registered User Join date: 10 Nov 2006 Posts: 1	12-03-2008 22:50 I say drop it. the ammount of people using it is too small. Indeed better put the effort in XP, Vista, MAC and Linux....
Balp Allen Registered User Join date: 26 Mar 2007 Posts: 10	Stay with w2k 12-04-2008 00:48 If LL like to be looked at as a serious player towards the professional market, many many big players stayed on w2k until a vista deployment, a deployment that for reasons in vista many many times been delayed. My gut feeling is that in about a year, most big companies finally succeeded in moving w2k out... Last Xmas i found out that Nichlaz builds didn't support w2k. This year I'm with a new company and figures out that Inten gfx on laptop isn't SL friendly.
Viktoria Dovgal … Join date: 29 Jul 2007 Posts: 3,593	12-04-2008 01:00 From: Katt Linden Our tracking shows that very few of you, about 1/10th of 1 percent of all of you that have logged in within the past two months, are still using Windows 2000 when logging into Second Life. And a few months ago, in http://blog.secondlife.com/2008/05/05/working-on-the-right-things-considering-os-x-panther-support/ From: someone Our tracking shows that very few of you, about 1/4 of 1 percent of all of you, the entire base of Residents, are still using Apple’s Mac OS X 10.3 when logging into Second Life. SL survived after killing support for the larger Panther base, so killing Win2K shouldn't be a problem.
Moon Metty Registered User Join date: 23 May 2008 Posts: 12	w3k 12-04-2008 01:01 Being forced to change the operating system you're used to is terrible, of course. Spending many hours of LL resources on something relatively few people use isn't very productive, it's a tough dilemma. But how black/white is "stopping support"? Quality assurance is never 100%, for win2000 it may get lower as time progresses. I think it would be best to at least have the intention to keep the viewer running under win2000, knowing that at some point something may turn up that's not worth fixing. But keep listening to win2000 users. There are very few (if any) issues on the jira specific to win2000 ...
bo Heartsdale Heartsdale Rentals Join date: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 14	Stop, but keep available.. 12-04-2008 01:59 What i miss with many software companies, is a page that keeps older (stable) versions available. LLab does the same at this point. I dont use 2000 anymore, but i help a lot of people with their comps. And many times i come across OS like 2000 and software is no longer available. I would suggest make a final version that supports the win2k and shield it of from new developments, but in such a way that people can do minimum things in Second Life. That way you probably can support those 2000 logins another year (or 2) But my wish? Make a lighter version too, please! I want to login from my job
Deeso Saeed Registered User Join date: 21 Dec 2007 Posts: 9	Drop it 12-04-2008 02:43 A lot of people say that W2K is the most stable operating system from Microsoft to date. But for the home user a properly patched Windows XP SP3 makes few difference with W2K. Even more with Windows XP you get some advantages like faster boot times. If you want an operating system that consume less resource, just disable the eye candy you don't need and you'll have an operating system that will be supported for some years more. SL is not the only software thats is thinking or actually droping support for windows 2K. I think is time to do it. Relocating resources for better QA on other more relevant platforms is a step on the right direction.
Andromeda Quonset Registered User Join date: 20 May 2006 Posts: 46	12-04-2008 03:40 I think you should continue to maintain Windows 2000. May I suggest that you stop trying to support Windows Vista: Windows Vista is a failed product, like Windows ME was a failed product.
Ardy Lay Registered User Join date: 17 Mar 2008 Posts: 4	A comment from one of the 1/10 of 1% using 2000 ... 12-04-2008 05:24 I am one of the Windows 2000 users you may still be counting. I have two computers that I use at different times. My opinion? I can stop using Windows 2000 now as I have no real need for the second (older) computer. Sure, I upgraded it to work OKAY with Second Life, but then, after being disappointed with the performance, I bought a new computer instead of building a new one. I was given the choice of XP or Vista and chose XP. The new machine with XP on it is working well for me. I am always slow to change because I work in an environment where I must prevent down time. (Telco/ISP/CATV) I still have two Windows NT 4 SP6a installations there. So, make a "final cut" for Windows 2000. Park it. Let me use it if I have to, then move on. I understand a little about being on the trailing-edge of technology and don't mind being there.
wes Wylie Registered User Join date: 7 Dec 2007 Posts: 6	12-04-2008 06:05 I honestly dont know how ppl still get away with using win 2000, I have a dual core processor with 1 1/2 gig of memory and I have had to resort to using nicholaz bleeding edge viewer for sl to run smoothly. If they can still run sl then good luck to them, as to supporting win 2000 I dunno, does it do any harm?
Jack Abraham Lantern By Day Join date: 11 Apr 2008 Posts: 113	12-04-2008 06:40 Any reasonable IT organization ended support for Windows 2000 when Microsoft did. Sadly, both Linden Lab and Cisco don't fall into this category. The resources would be much better spent on current operating systems. (Personally I'd like to see that effort diverted to Mac and Linux support rather than more Windows support; we Mac users have been suffering for some time. But as a Windows admin by day, I understand the business requirement for Windows, Windows, Windows.)
Argent Stonecutter Emergency Mustelid Join date: 20 Sep 2005 Posts: 20,263	No no no no no. 12-04-2008 07:09 I'm using Windows 2000, and I have no intention of installing Windows "Fisher Price" edition (let alone Windows "Extreme DRM" edition) unless absolutely forced. Windows 2000 was the last decent edition of Windows that Microsoft shipped (Windows NT 3.51 being the first). This opinion is not mine alone. A lot of techies... many of whom are also content creators like myself... stick to Windows 2000 for a stable and high performance environment. Windows XP is little more than a "plus pack" for Windows 2000, and Vista... well... the less said the better. What is the actual cost of continuing to support Windows 2000? How many problems are determined to be due to that operating system? What APIs are you restricted from using because you're supporting the Windows 2000 SDK? Don't forget that Windows 2000 users can use APIs like GDI+ if they're running genuine copies, so the SDK should not be that big of a problem. Incidentally, Second Life runs BETTER on dual core processors on Windows 2000 than on Windows XP. I never had to play with the processor affinity to avoid "dual core" glitches, and I get better performance if I don't play those tricks. _____________________ Argent Stonecutter - http://globalcausalityviolation.blogspot.com/ "And now I'm going to show you something really cool." Skyhook Station - http://xrl.us/skyhook23 Coonspiracy Store - http://xrl.us/coonstore
Diolma Andel Registered User Join date: 2 Jun 2008 Posts: 1	12-04-2008 07:14 If SL stops running on Win2K, I for one, will have to stop using SL, alas. I can't afford to upgrade to another OS in the foreseeable future. I have had to slowly upgrade my PC in tiny bits and pieces as and when I could, and re-installed Win2K every time I needed to. I know I'm part of a tiny minority, but unless someone wants to give me a couple of thousand UK pounds, my situation is unlikely to change - I'm currently unemployed with little prospect of getting another job. Sadly yours, Diolma Andel
miata Yoshikawa Registered User Join date: 5 Oct 2007 Posts: 1	Absolutely drop windoze 2k! 12-04-2008 07:15 As others have already said, they have to be crawling along on a machine built by the ancient astronauts if they're using MSW2k. Put your resources to better use, please! It would surely help to fix many of the current bugs. =^.^=
miata Yoshikawa Registered User Join date: 5 Oct 2007 Posts: 1	Absolutely drop Windoze 2k! 12-04-2008 07:18 As others have already said, they have to be crawling along on a machine built by the ancient astronauts if they're using MSW2k. Put your resources to better use, please! It would surely help to fix many of the current bugs. =^.^=
Argent Stonecutter Emergency Mustelid Join date: 20 Sep 2005 Posts: 20,263	12-04-2008 07:18 From: Viktoria Dovgal SL survived after killing support for the larger Panther base, so killing Win2K shouldn't be a problem. Apple's operating system upgrades after Panther are actually UPGRADES. I don't mind being pushed into upgrading my Mac Mini to Leopard. Microsoft's operating system upgrades after Windows 2000 aren't. Being pushed into DOWNGRADING to XP or Vista is a whole different kettle of fish. _____________________ Argent Stonecutter - http://globalcausalityviolation.blogspot.com/ "And now I'm going to show you something really cool." Skyhook Station - http://xrl.us/skyhook23 Coonspiracy Store - http://xrl.us/coonstore
Atzel Congrejo Registered User Join date: 8 Jun 2007 Posts: 2	Get rid of it... 12-04-2008 07:20 If it's to much ado to keep 2000 supported.. toss it. I don't think there are many people arround using a state-of-the-art graphics card under W2K. I think the geeks herein are mostly running WinXP or Vista32/64 or they are on a Mac
Argent Stonecutter Emergency Mustelid Join date: 20 Sep 2005 Posts: 20,263	12-04-2008 07:36 From: Soft Linden I'm a little surprised we're even asking about this. Major components like Quicktime for Windows 2000 have gone a full year without security updates. Irrelevant, since SL has already resolved that by not supporting versions of Quicktime that can be installed in Windows 2000. And I say "good riddance". Video in SL is of marginal use and a potential information leak. From: someone When responding to this thread, remember that all Win2K QA is done at the expense of QA time spent elsewhere. Likewise, being locked into an older Win2K-compatible Windows SDK may well be holding back some stability and performance enhancements in later Microsoft SDKs. Given that Windows 2000 supports virtually all the libraries XP does (so long as you have a valid license to download them) and Microsoft didn't introduce significant new APIs that won't work on 2000 until Vista (and DX10 won't work on XP either), supporting Windows 2000 on the basis of "if it's reported, we'll fix it" would release those QA resources, without abandoning users who have legitimate issues with XP and Vista. _____________________ Argent Stonecutter - http://globalcausalityviolation.blogspot.com/ "And now I'm going to show you something really cool." Skyhook Station - http://xrl.us/skyhook23 Coonspiracy Store - http://xrl.us/coonstore
Argent Stonecutter Emergency Mustelid Join date: 20 Sep 2005 Posts: 20,263	12-04-2008 07:37 From: Atzel Congrejo I think the geeks herein are mostly running WinXP or Vista32/64 or they are on a Mac You think wrong. Geeks were the FIRST to object to XP and Vista. _____________________ Argent Stonecutter - http://globalcausalityviolation.blogspot.com/ "And now I'm going to show you something really cool." Skyhook Station - http://xrl.us/skyhook23 Coonspiracy Store - http://xrl.us/coonstore
Mephistopheles McMinnar Be, or not to be... Join date: 14 Sep 2008 Posts: 70	12-04-2008 07:38 From: Diolma Andel If SL stops running on Win2K, I for one, will have to stop using SL, alas. I can't afford to upgrade to another OS in the foreseeable future. You heaven't read the full article, have you? The support stops for Win2k - and only the support. The Viewer will run under Win2k in the future, but if you went in troubles / problems, LL won't help. By the way, Microsoft stopped to sell Win2k in 2004 and stopped the full support in 2005, so you have had 3 years to invest in a new OS. It's bad to hear that you're unemployed, but why should a company pay for this? More and more new software don't support Win2k, because the differences between Win2k and XP are too big and the Win2k installations are dropping. _____________________ http://djmm.bbping.eu The spirit I, which evermore denies! And justly; for whate'er to light is brought deserves again to be reduced to naught; Then better 'twere that naught should be. Thus all the elements which ye destruction, Sin, or briefly, Evil, name, As my peculiar element I claim. (Mephistopheles from "Faust" J.W.v. Goethe)
USA Skytower Registered User Join date: 21 Nov 2008 Posts: 1	Stop W2000 12-04-2008 07:50 MS itself has a mature date after which they no longer support a particular O.S. why should not LL follow their example? keep up with the times. Win Vista is my O.S. and what i'd like to see LL do is to cut down or eliminate "lag" altogether! concentrate on XP,Vista and get ready for Win7 coming 09.oh,yeah,lol,how about a spell checker [ i'm a LOUSY speller,lol ]. but yeah,drop Win2000 and let's not worry about it. your car is no longer functional. what do you do? buy a new [ upgrade ] one,right? well,there you be,W2000 users will get the hint and upgrade if they have a burning desire to get in or stay in Second Life. purely my oho as a SL user
Berkette Zou Registered User Join date: 11 Sep 2006 Posts: 3	Two Thumbs Up 12-04-2008 07:54 It's difficult to understand how anyone can still be using such an old version of windows, and have a positive experience with SL. It would seem that a system that old would only create lag and such for the user. Not to sound mean - but it's seriously time for those folks to upgrade! Thank you LL for all the hard work & continuing to make SL a better experience each and every day.

Welcome to the Second Life Forums Archive

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