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

stop supporting a stoneage OS i use linux and thats really stable, but please fix the voice problem -.-

Personally, I think 2000 was the most stable and clean MSOS ever developed. I used it up until a few months ago. The only reason I stopped had nothing to do with SL, it had to do with Microsoft doing what they do best, not giving a crap about their customers. SecondLife actually ran faster for me while using 2000, under XP pro, it runs much slower, and I have a higher incidence of lag.

Instead of wasting time with questions like this, maybe Linden Labs should be directing their energy in fixing the bugs found in the viewer. These are the same bugs that have been affecting users for the past two years; but, the only real 'bug' fixes we get are graphical changes to the UI (yippie) or very minor changes in the way the camera is handled. Let's get that memory leak fixed, so my SL experience in XP is as smooth as it was in 2000.

This isn't up to me though, it's up to the users who are using 2K. Remember, you dis-satisfy one group of users, you end up dis-satisfying their friends. It's an old adage in the restaurant business:
You lose one customer, you actually lose nine; because that customer will tell at least nine of their friends or family members about the poor service they received. (and those nine will tell nine more)

Yes, end support for 2000. Since so few people use it in this way, additional code to keep it viable doesn't make sense.

There isn't anyone logging on using Win98SE is there?

You are way off on this Deeso. I used 2K up until 3 or 4 months ago. I had to install XP because certain MS software I needed for graphics work would not run under 2K. I have all the eye-candy of XP turned off, and trying to run it with minimal resources, and it's STILL slower than it ever was under 2000. HELL, my computer has crashed more times since I installed XP (4 months) than it ever did while I ran 2000 (8 years) So you can't say that XP with SP-3 is just as stable and fast, when it isn't.

My opinion, Microsoft F**ked up when they decided not to build off 2K. Now we have XP-pro which STILL has bugs, and Vista, that hogs up all your system resources.

Virtually all the software that "doesn't support" Windows 2000, only "doesn't support" it because it checks explicitly for the version in the installer, and works fine when that's bypassed. Most differences between Windows 2000 (if you have a legal copy and so can update your libraries) and XP are minor at best... and the ones that aren't are almost all in Windows 2000's favor.

Actually, you're more likely to have a good experience in SL on a dual-core system with Windows 2000 than Windows XP. I don't know what Microsoft did in XP, but I don't want to start playing games with the processor affinity to avoid graphics slowdowns on my dual-core system if I'm forced to downgrade from Windows 2000 to Windows XP.

They did not say that they have to include extra code to support Windows 2000.

They did build XP on top of Windows 2000. The problem is that most of what they added was bloat and copy protection*... both of which inherently reduce stability.

* They introduced strong DRM into the kernel with Windows Media Player 9.1 and Windows XP.

If supporting Windows 2000 is significantly holding back viewer development for the other 99.9% of SL users, then it's time to let it go.

Allow logins with current viewers as long as possible, but it's really not fair to hold back development for practically the entire SL community for an extremely small number of users.

There are alternatives for Windows 2000 users. They can turn to a third party viewer, as OS X 10.3.9 users have, or dual boot into XP or Linux. Or, maybe just upgrade to XP or Vista.

As with OS X 10.3.9, LL appears to have supported Windows 2000 longer than most everyone else.

They haven't said that.
That's a downgrade. Microsoft does not provide any product that is actually an upgrade from Windows 2000.
Unlike Microsoft, Apple actually provides valuable new functionality in their OS upgrades.

That's why I said "if". They suggested it might, but I didn't see a definitive statement or examples.

Whether or not Windows XP or Vista are technically better themselves than Windows 2000 is a moot point if software and hardware don't support it.

If you want to run current software or hardware, Windows 2000 is no longer a viable option.

I've got an AMD64 dual core motherboard less than a year old and Windows 2000 works fine. Better than my theoretically faster work laptop running XP (and WAY better than when it came with Vista installed). I expect I will have to downgrade in the long run, but "in the long run, we're all dead".

More details on how much work it is for LL to support Win2k and a guess on when it's likely to stop working would be good.

/me has no sense about how often the LL devs have to work win2k-specific problems in the code. Is it like once a year or like 23 times a week?

Anybody know how long a viewer test cycle lasts? I also have no sense of what it would buy them to lose win2k from their checklists..

Yeah, but runs what? Most current software I see requires at least XP SP2.

ATI & Nvidia no longer update Windows 2000 drivers. It's been almost three years since the last ATI Windows 2000 driver was released.

Like I said earlier, "If". If it has no impact on my SL experience, I don't care what LL develops & supports viewers for.

I'd like to hear a definitive statement from LL about what continued Windows 2000 support means for the other 99.9% of users.

Nvidia and ATI/AMD drivers for Win2k are both older Versions than the XP version, thats right.
But there is no problem with installing the xp drivers on a 2k platform.

Last week i´ve installed the latest XP-drivers without any problem on win2k and it runs fine.

The only application that I have tried to install recently that kicked me back because I was running Windows 2000 was Google Lively. Several others have required newer DLLs but I have always been able to get them from Microsoft, because they're still supporting Windows 2000.
Well, it means I keep updating Cyberflight and the Flight Feather.
That's because Microsoft didn't make any fundamental changes in kernel APIs from the NT 5.0 kernel until the NT 6.0 kernel. A minor update is an updated that doesn't break compatibility, and that's what NT 5.1 is, even post SP2.

I would be sad to see support for Windows 2000 to stop. I'm using it as my operating system and I'm happy with it. It might not be the fanciest or the most modern system, but it works well and that's the most important thing to me.

In order to upgrade to XP, I would have to jump through some hoops, since XP isn't really sold anymore. Either I would have to find a small computer store that happens to have one in their stock (either installed or in shrink-wrap) or buy Vista and use downgrade rights. And since my computer can't possibly run Vista (it does run Second Life though), upgrading to Vista isn't an option.

Buying a new computer and new operating system just for the Second Life would be silly. I really like Second Life and the friends that I meet there, but that's just too much money to spend in order to continue using Second Life with full support.

Saying "Even if Linden Lab will stop supporting Windows 2000, the client will still run though" doesn't sound right. Sooner or later a change will be included that prevents client from running in Windows 2000 and if it's a mandatory client update, then people using Windows 2000 are in a tight spot. Open source community will help some, but it's always nice to have official support too.

In the end, it's your grid, your product and your resources. I just wish that you'll consider keeping Windows 2000 supported if possible.

Then you shouldn't have any problems regardless of LL's actions.

There's a difference between depending on them not accidentally breaking something like Lively, and something I do.

The only application I run on Windows that I *care about* is Second Life.

Hello Folks,

Thank you for your thoughts and comments. We do appreciate your feedback, so keep them coming

I believe that the resources should be put towards other OS issues, like Mac and Linux, these are the ones that have little support on. There have been issues with Mac OS in SL for far longer than issues dealing with ANY Windows version. I would to see the resources taken from Windows 2000 and put into Mac.

XP was supposed to replace Win98, it was a cutdown version of Win2000 which was supossed to bridge the gap between Win NT and Win98. ME (Many Excuses) was a waste of space.

Now we have Vista.. biggest disaster of a OS if there ever was one. Again, pandering to the corps with all its anal security layers, which do little to serve the public users, and is HollyWood driven. The public users outnumber the corp users, but we don't buy the big support licenses, so are not really important. Given the development time of Vista, why were so many manufacturers late in delivering their drivers?

Windows 7 is around the corner

I say, scrap the bespoke OS client all together and concentrate efforts on developing a browser pluggin.

That wouldn't save anything. Just about everything complex that the client does would still have to be done using the same native calls in a browser plugin.

Windows is an excellent program. It would be good to keep supporting it.

Windows 7 will be coming out from what I understand.

Windows is much easier, smoother and more pleasant to use than MAC.

Supporting Windows is a great idea.

Some may not have any other system--and it may be the only way to get into the best program ever,----Second Life !

Thank you for keeping Windows going endlessly.

Drop it. Don't waste your time, these machines are ancient....

plus everyone knows Mac is the future anyhow