Win2k Support Cancellation

You can see the original post at http://status.secondlifegrid.net/2009/02/03/post477/

Back in early December, we blogged to let you know that we were seriously considering whether Linden Lab should continue supporting the Windows 2000 operating system.

As we wrote then, our tracking shows that very few of you (about 1/10 of 1 percent of our current active Residents) are still using Windows 2000 when logging into Second Life.

The vast majority of responses from you confirmed that you agree, it makes sense to free up the Linden engineers from working to support an operating system used by so few Residents, and instead we should let them move on to other work which will benefit a much larger group. The smaller group that had their concerns about their favorite operating system was relieved to know that even though we will discontinue support of Windows 2000, we are not opposed to taking patches that help platforms we do not support.

We wanted to make sure there was plenty of time for the news to spread, and now two months later, it’s time to actually cease support of this relatively little-used OS.

What does it mean to “stop support”? Basically, it means we stop new development for the SDK (software development kit) of that operating system, and also stop doing QA testing on Win2k.

What will you notice? If you are one of the few logging in with Windows 2000, you can still do so today, even though we are officially now not supporting it — and that may be true for some time.

Exactly how long we can’t guarantee, because Linden engineers will no longer be testing to make sure that new releases will work with Windows 2000. So, eventually, there may be a time when some new element will interfere significantly enough to result in folks who will not be able to log in with Win2k on their hardware. At that time such folks may need to upgrade their OS in order to do run SL.

We thank you for your input during that last forum, if you would like to respond to this post please respond to this thread.

Lindens will be reading your comments and responding periodically over the next few days!

I've never known of a Garry with two "r"'s.

Yay for freeing up Linden Egg Heads to work on more, hopefully, important matters.

i'll be lost without it, so bad for the minority of us ..

It's definitely a good thing especially if those same people can now be redirected to doing memory leak fixing and get some stability and compatibility fix work done on the Vista and Mac viewers, which I understand have had chronic problems for quite some time, and in the future start work on a Windows 7 viewer although I'm sure that will be awhile.

This is outrageous that Linden Labs are gonna drop support for a superior, stable, and fast OS that is still used today in the Corporate, Government, and Home actively! Surely us Windows 2000 users may be a small percentage compared to XP or dirty Vista, but that still does not give a valid point that we should toss windows 2000 aside. With the windows 2000 still supported until a few years latter that is when the OSsupport should be put to rest. There are people out there who never discovered Second Life and by continuing support for Windows 2000 it would make it easier for these users to log on.

Would it would be so much asking our friends at Linden Labs to set a few testers aside for Windows 2000? With all the money pouring into this Multi billion dollar company it would cost them very little to do so. Second life should be praised and known as a client that would work on any any platform which opens many doors for many computers. I'm even amazed myself that linden labs is slowly closing it's final chapters on it's Linux/unix support.
There is not many difference from XP and windows 2000 surprisingly since they are a 0.1 difference.
Windows 2000 = Windows NT 5.0
Windows XP = Windows NT 5.1
Server 2003 = Windows NT 5.2
They are built on the same platform so support would not be very difficult for linden labs to support.

Many feel Windows 2000 is old and outdated when it's still alive. Official Sales of OEM Windows 2000 did not end till early 2005, The Service Pack 4 Rollup was provided 3 years ago, Hardware Manufactures today still fully support windows 2000, and updates are still being provided through Microsoft! Don't let the name fool you..

Sure we could go out and buy a copy of Windows XP or Vista for a few hundred of dollars, but at tough times like this most could not afford, nor bother building their new os from the ground up by updating it, installing all their software (if they have it or it's compatible), finding the updated drivers, tweaking, and hoping everything goes smoothly.

Please Liden Labs, you've been great to us and we want you to strike this bad news and continue support for windows 2000 till it's officially no longer supported. We may be a small percentage to you and hopefully will be able to log on our 2k machines in the future, but if there's a major patch/change we are out of luck! You came this long and don't need to stop here!

Myself, I'm a proud user of Windows 2000 and recently purchase a IBM/Lenovo T61 Laptop. It has a Core 2 Duo 2.5Ghz CPU, 4GB of ram, 80GB HD, DVD DL burner, Wireless N card, Bluetooth, and a built in cam that all works under windows 2000. Why? because Lenovo felt the customer should have a choice. There are users out there that still put Windows 2000 since it's a light weight OS and gives you incredible performance. Plus I don't have all those candy looks in XP! Second life on my Thinkpad T61 outperforms many of my SL friends and everything loads nearly instantly.

So wait....

You just bought a new laptop?

And now you are asking LL to continue supporting Windows 2000 because there are people like yourself who can afford to update to XP or get it installed on their newly purchased laptops but choose not to?

Sorry, i do not want any of LL's resources spent wasting time on an operating system used only by "OS Hold outs" or "OS Purists".

We have a PC in my house that has Windows 2000 on it. I run my JVA bot from it. Oh yea, its also 700mhz... So though it may have run SL in 2003, it is impossible now. And i think that most people playing SL on a Windows 2000 machine obviously have the computer power to run SL, therefore they should upgrade or give up SL.

Springdale, Ginger: As one of those "relatively few" Windows 2000 users myself, I share your frustration. However...

As long as the "-channel" switch works, you *can* always force SL to let you log in with versions older than the current "officially supported" ones, so if a future version of the SL viewer breaks under Win2K, just reinstall the previous version, then right-click on the shortcut that launches SL, select "properties", then go to the Target field and add something like -channel "Win2KUser" to the command line, and SHAZAM!, you're in.

(Oh, and just for the record, Linden team: (1) I think this is a damn stupid idea on your part -- though certainly not the only one, by far -- and (2) if you *ever* break "-channel" so that it does *not* let me override and log in with the viewer version that works with the hardware and O/S of *my* choice, that will be the day I terminate my account -- my *paid* account, that is -- and find something else to do with my spare time.)

It would be great if LL was able to know how many users were connecting to SL from a Windows 2000 OS.

XP is a downgrade.

Here ya go: /13/57/295877/1.html .

Linden Labs has provided no information about the costs of supporting Windows 2000. It's not people, it's not even person. Based on my experience with support costs for multiple versions of Windows, if it amounts to more than half a day for one person per release cycle they're probably spending too much time on it... or they're trying to do something crazy like support pre-SP4 Windows 2000. And given the support they've already received from Windows 2000 users they could drop THAT effort without dropping support, since we're already doing QA on it for them.

They'd do better dropping support for pre-SP2 Windows XP.

You do understand you can "turn off" all that fluff in XP? It's not that complex and I found that my machines run FASTER with a defluffed XP install than they did with win 2K. The main issue I've found with win2k is the video drivers/cards that still support win2K are really bad.

I agree, they need to move on and not waste time or code on that old OS.

You can get Windows XP without any part of Windows Media Player 9.1?

Even the "Media Player Free" version they did for EU has all the WMP 9.1 derived DRM crap in the kernel.

As Garry Linden said, the decision was taken primarily for budgetary reasons, why continue to spend money for 10 percent of the population, this "minority" which saw the operating system that they use, may not have the means to invest money in SL and are therefore not qualified customers.

A very small investment for tests could standby enable 10/100 users to continue to connect to the grid with win2k, -even with some problems and bugs-, an investment that will probably remain below 1/100000 of the company profits, but this report investment gain is still too much for the new LL spirit.

As Springdale Wyszniak said, I agree to affirm windows 2k remains the system which includes most all the following qualities, lightness, speed, stability, usability, flexibility and customize freedom, qualities that have done so far nobly endure, just opposite of the LL SLviewer... BUT the operating system should adapt to the viewer and not the opposite...

If LL has decided to stop the little investment that would allow win2k users to continue to connect, -even with some problems and bugs-, LL is therefore perfectly placed to understand that these users can refuse to be forced to afford the investment to change computers -> to change the operating system -> to continue using SL, this investment would be too great under the proposed freedom to undertake that LL provides today for SL, too. But what matter for 10 percent uninteresting customers.

Shuting up, I read the forums talking about VAT out as if by magic hat, Shuting up I read the forums talking about the appalling decision of openspace which is a crime against all the creative people who have created the in-world attractif universe for free, shuting up I read the forums talking about Xstreet acquisition which is an additional setback for freedom of choice and the benefits of fair competition to the health of the market.
But today I would want to thank the former LL team who designed and built this fabulous tool in a democratic spirit of community emulation. But then, this spirit of democracy is now finally dying in favor of a blind economic which nobody doubt anymore. This democratic spirit is totaly missing now from this virtual world, the "live and let live" is just a memory, on the path of increasingly narrow choice.

So, why take the trouble to express my disapproval, why LL Opens forums open to answers, since it never alter the decisions taken by LL ? To use the opportunity of this forum to say farewell to SL before I could no longer connect.

Being a Linux user, I don't really care. However I hope you will put the freed man-hours on much annoying issues, like fixing buoyancy, after nearly one year of hiatus (bugs SVC-1792 and SVC-2013)...

I kind of agree with this, given you claim there's only 1%-2% of us out of 1,000,000 something users, but it still makes me sad.

Last year, I bought a Dell Inspiron 1720 -- I actually dual boot it with Vista and 2k.

Second Life runs better on 2k. There's no ifs or buts. The little OS that could is superior to Vista in every way. Even though it cannot even use up ALL of the 4GB RAM at my disposal, (for that matter, nor can 32 bit Vista though it manages to use more of it,) it runs better. SL is smoother, faster, crashes less, and can actually run at full rez -- 1920x1200 on Windows2k.

Vista cannot do this. Even with Aero turned off, and the eye candy at minimum, my top of the range computer lags when running Second Life at full resolution with Vista.

It's the same comp, the same system, and the same drivers, and the same game, and 2k plays SL way better than Vista. The only thing that Vista can do that 2k cannot is run another copy of SL and manage the resources between them better.

Not only that, around 3 days ago, the client -- of which I haven't changed anything-- keeps crashing when idle on Vista. It never used to, but now I can't leave it an hour without coming back to a closed client. It's happened 3 days in a row, now, all of a sudden. I don't know why it started happening -- I haven't downloaded anything or changed anything-- and I don't know how to fix it. The only thing that works so far is... you guessed it, booting to 2k, and it doesn't have that problem!

People keep saying, 'why would anyone that can run a better OS, run an old unsupported OS anyway?' -- well, generally because it's actually better.

I wouldn't be so bummed about this if the darn thing was stable on Vista. Does this mean I have to downgrade to XP? Urgh. I'd rather be on Vista than XP. It's only one year younger than 2k, with none of the benefits. I'll have to start looking into Linux and hope it's more stable. =\

I was reading the original thread, and I agree with:

That says it best, I think. Keep user-based support open. Make it so that users can patch the client themselves with 2k patches, for as long as they're able,-- instead of using up your resources. Don't give us the 'it's an old OS, move on' spiel. As long as they want it, I say give it to them.

1- I suspect if you did the research you would find that a disproportionate number of W2k users are among the most active residents, especially as builders, scripters, landowners, etc. Because, obviously almost all of them are people who have been playing with computers for some time. I go back to pre-PC days of Unix terminals myself and the first machine I OWNED ran MS DOS 3.2 WITH 4dos (sold and branded as NDOS by Symantech) replacing command.com. Whereas a lot of the people running Vista are doing so because they just bought their first computer recently or they aren't the geeky sort to repair, upgrade, reinstall, clone and or transfer (My heavans! A screwdirver? Which end do you hold?) hard drives. They just buy a new box and get somebody else to transfer the data. OS holdouts are rarely doing so just because they are cheap or stupid. They are people who have tweaked the hell out of the registry, have legacy aps they have learned inside and out, and have dozens of batch files that may or may not work with a new OS. They also tend to be people who try a lot of stuff and keep what they like rather than just say "Here Mr. Salesman, sell me what I need to make this work. I got X bucks to spend. What is the best?" Have I or have I not described some of the most creative sorts you are likely to have?

2- I must concur with some of the W2k partisans above that of all the Windows versions I have run (all but 2003 & Vista) it is by FAR the most satisfactory and the first that didn't cause be to curse GUI at least twice a day. My present system CAME with XP. Beyond saying that I will never again buy an HP (their only solution to the fact they shipped a system with an OS that caused it to crash regularly was to suggest I BUY an upgrade to Vista.) I won't go into its deficiencies. But those experiences leave me very reluctant to buy yet another Windows.

3-Ill considered as it is, it is not that big a deal for me as long as you support Linux. I run a dual boot system anyway. And I would suggest to anyone who isn't so much a W2k loyalist as a Vistaphobe (which is my attitude - after all, after trying all but two of MS's many versions of Windows I only found one that didn't seriously exert negative oral pressure and that wasn't the most recent - so why should I buy from them AGAIN?) to do the same. You probably have an old drive around that would do fine as a Linux boot drive. 10 GB would be fine. Dual boot from your bios (which is easier than using partitions, etc.) using Linux for SL.

Milton Hayek, owner of the Liberty Pub in Sorens

It would have been nice if the earlier notice you say you gave was as attention grabbing as the one I saw at login for the first time TODAY. Maybe it was and I somehow missed it. Oh well.

I don't know where you got your information (Fox news maybe?) but I think it's pretty safe to say that LL is not a multi billion dollar, hell it's only a multi million dollar company (if that) because of all the venture capital money that's been and keeps being tossed into it.

Maybe he meant multi billion L$ ?

I don't think there's much of a risk of that. I think they've only done that once or twice and both were extreme circumstances.


Edit: I had a longer reply for this but kept hitting the $@#$ SQL injection filter error.

It's too messy to use the quote feature, so I'm just gonna point each one out and follow up with my views. I'm thrilled we're getting a posts going on a about the topic of Linden Labs to drop the idea of not supporting Windows 2000. We need to our voice to be heard and support win 2k!!!

Briana Dawson:
"So wait....

You just bought a new laptop?

And now you are asking LL to continue supporting Windows 2000 because there are people like yourself who can afford to update to XP or get it installed on their newly purchased laptops but choose not to?"

YES! I went the extra mile and did myself a favor by getting rid of the horrid Vista and done a clean install of Windows 2k. Gotten a great deal on my thinkpad which I sure took a huge hit on... Works like a champ having dual CPU setup. I could go for XP as we speak, but I need to save money right now and don't feel like blowing a extra 200 bucks. But again, goes back to my point of view that it would be a pain losing all my settings and tons of programs I gotten loaded up. Finally, I did not know Linden labs was gonna leave me out in the cold like this with 2k support since it has a few years left by Mico$oft.

Stephe Ehrler:
"You do understand you can "turn off" all that fluff in XP? It's not that complex and I found that my machines run FASTER with a defluffed XP install than they did with win 2K. The main issue I've found with win2k is the video drivers/cards that still support win2K are really bad.

I agree, they need to move on and not waste time or code on that old OS."

Heheheh Surely I could put the classic 9x theme on XP, but keep in mind the kernel is a tad bloated and console/services running in the background which could case the system to be unstable when turning them off. Plus, with SP3 it is bloated and after all the updates you have nearly more resource taken away.

I could go on with the whole XP vs 2k debate, but it's silly since 2k is proven to be a lighter OS. There are even recent articles that Windows 2000 performs more quicker on Sold Said Driver than it's younger sisters.

And Finally, windows 2k is not entirely old stated in my previous post, plus that would apply to your XP that's shy of couple of years of 2k... NEXT PLEASE! XD


I read in one LL post that Windows 2k will still be able to work, but if there are any bugs we are out of luck
"Exactly how long we can’t guarantee, because Linden engineers will no longer be testing to make sure that new releases will work with Windows 2000."

Again, that it's not going to fly easy.


UUUHHGGGG.. PLEASE LINDEN LAB! Give support for us Windows 2000 users!

That might be true in your case, but I've not seen any evidence that it's true in the majority of "OS holdout" cases, and I doubt there's any good supporting statistics readily available.

Most of the time I have to work with such people, it's because I'm dealing with either poorly-funded or overly-bureaucratic (or both) clients like the military, or people who are simply wary of upgrading anything that already works, even if it's substandard. Almost invariably, the hardware is at least as old as the operating system, often older.



.

Whoops, your right. heheheh Done a small error on my behalf, but the way Linden labs is heading they sure could be in the Billion dollar range with all these deals with huge corps.