I wanted to have a discussion on the state of Windows 2000 support and whether it is worth continuing the limited support we do offer.
Background
Windows 2000 was fully discontinued on July 31, 2010, nearly 3 years ago, when Microsoft ended the extended support phase. No new security patches are issued for it. Windows 2000 shows up with 0.05% of the market according to NetMarketShare (as of 5/31/2013).
Current App Support
Most applications no longer support Windows 2000. All of our major apps dropped support quite some time ago (Firefox, Thunderbird, LibreOffice, GIMP, Pidgin, Opera, Chrome, VLC, etc). Most apps don't list support for Windows 2000 anymore so, even the ones that do support it, we have to discover it ourselves by testing. And, when they drop support, they won't announce it, so we need to test every release of an app that lists support for Windows 2000 to ensure it still works.
Current Platform Support
The PortableApps.com Platform and all our tools still support Windows 2000. Our tools like the PA.c Installer, Launcher, Updater/App Store, Backup client, AppCompactor, etc are all built using NSIS Unicode which continues to support Windows 2000 (for the time being, anyway). The Platform itself is built using Delphi XE2, which is the last version of Delphi to support Windows 2000.
Dropping Windows 2000 Support
Dropping Windows 2000 support would enable us to move the platform to Delphi XE4 which includes some bug fixes and some performance improvements for the current codebase. It would also allow us to explore the use of Delphi's new touch and UI features.
Dropping Windows 2000 would also allow us to delist apps as supporting Windows 2000 on the website and refrain from testing new and existing apps for Windows 2000 support. This will save some time for new and existing releases and remove the current Windows 2000 listings, some of which are inaccurate.
Our tools (AppCompactor, Installer, Launcher) would continue to support Windows 2000. And, any existing base apps that work on Windows 2000 would continue to work on Windows 2000 in their portable form.
We could explore a special option to allow the platform's updater to be able to continue to update apps on Windows 2000 without the menu running but, as most apps no longer support Windows 2000, anyway, this would be a good amount of work for not much benefit.
Feedback
Rather than just dropping support, I wanted to ensure the larger community could chime in with any thoughts you have so we have a complete picture of how people are using the platform today and who might be affected. So, please let us know if this affects you and how.
Visit the Community page
Join our forums
Subscribe to our email newsletter
Subscribe with RSS
Follow us on BlueSky
Follow us on Facebook
Follow us on LinkedIn
Follow us on Mastodon
Follow us on Twitter
I'd personally drop it like it's hot, but keep XP rolling.
I last saw Win 2000 4 years ago in a hospital (disturbing thinking how insecure the OS must be by now), and I can't imagine anyone stuck with such a dated OS could use any of the modern apps we all take for granted anyway.
I test stuff as low as XP, and personally can't wait for XP to bee too old, but 2000 is dead.
I say drop 2000. Would you believe me if I said "All computers in the Elevator Lobbies of the Virginia General Assembly (State Government) are running Win 2K SP2"? Yes, SP2!! This is as of this past February when I was there for a Legislative Session.
I also (grudgingly) maintain a copy of 2000 Pro SP4 inside of a Virtual Machine because I have to support old apps. Sure, "don't fix what isn't broke" but I have to maintain an internal website that must run on IE 5.5.. Let's just say that I'm forced to use FrontPage 2000 (without even the SR-1a update) and have to use Tables for layout instead of CSS - the person I built the site for thinks Netscape 4 is the best browser EVER, to this day. >:(
If there was the idea of creating an ESR type version of the Launcher and the Apps that currently work for any users that still have Win2k that would be good. I agree as a developer. I have long since abandoned my 2k machine. So really have no way to test any apps. As for XP I never think that will go away so would keep that....Sorry if not making much sense Tired maybe I wll edit lol
“Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.” Dr. Seuss
but maybe make a lgeacy suite with the last warking version of the core apps .
"What about Love?" - "Overrated. Biochemically no different than eating large quantities of chocolate." - Al Pacino in The Devils Advocate
The problem is that even the core apps that work on Windows 2000 are long-since outdated and insecure (especially the web browsers), so would we want to be encouraging people to use them at all?
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
havent thought about that. Then just drop it. Making a list with the latest working version (like Winterblood suggested below) would be nice but imho thats too much work.
"What about Love?" - "Overrated. Biochemically no different than eating large quantities of chocolate." - Al Pacino in The Devils Advocate
My thought is that the list could be somewhat like a quieter version of the outdated apps thread - we initially add the apps we know have dropped support for Win2k, and users can post to notify us of any apps we've missed or when a new version of an app drops support/stops working.
I didn't think the list of apps we know to have dropped support for Win2k was that long (yet).
I appreciate the thoughtfulness, I just don't understand the concern. So long as you announce that Win 2000 support is going anyway anyone who wants the version that supports it can download it, load it onto a USB flash drive and simply never update it. If they keep the download file they can refresh the flash drive whenever they want.
You could even keep the Win 2000 download version available for anyone who asks for it otherwise leave it masked.
Ed
It is of some concern for people who want to keep their apps up to date via the platform, since they won't be able to do so any longer. At the same time, as most apps have dropped support, using the updater isn't advisable for Win2K users stuck using a specific outdated version of most apps anyway.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
People who want to keep their apps up-to-date keep their OS's up-to-date. If they are on Win 2K all they want is something that works.
If they are concerned about security they should be more concerned about finding firewalls and antiviruses that run on Win 2k. PortableApps apps is the least of their worries.
Ed
If leaving Win2k behind is going to give you room to improve the Platform in ways you can't by continuing to support it, I say go for it.
While it is nice to try and cater to everyone possible, I think the minority who are on Win2k do realize they are on a dying (already dead?) OS.
In my own development I've never even bothered to test on anything lower than XP. If they work on outdated OSes, great, if they don't I wouldn't spend the time making it work.
I would suggest the possibility of a Win2k support page listing the last supporting version of the Platform and any apps that have dropped support for it, but with a big disclaimer at the top so Win2k users understand that the software listed there is outdated/insecure.
I agree partially with giving up the support.
However it would be nice to have some clear big warning that by updating an app will break the w2k support.
This will enable me to keep the older versions of the software then.
(this is why I do not use any kind of automatic update so far)
So I can still use some for me important programs on w2k as those systems are by design not updatable and have to run the original OS for ever.
BTW: w2k insecure? Not always. *Embeded* w2k system with even no chance to connect to internet is still very much more secure then any full updated w8 machine
Otto Sykora
Basel, Switzerland
The whole reason to drop support is so we don't have to test apps anymore. We honestly don't much now. So, in addition to all our main titles which have dropped Win2K and did a long time ago (Firefox, Thunderbird, GIMP, LibreOffice, Pidgin, GIMP, VLC, etc), a ton of other apps dropped Win2K support at some point but we don't know when and still list them as supporting Win2K on the app pages. The publishers of the base apps don't bother to list Win2K as supported anymore (even when it is) and don't bother to let users know when the app drops support due to a compilation change or similar since they don't test Win2K or even have a Win2K test environment anymore.
So, we'd just be dropping it entirely. We'd have the platform installer warn about when you attempt to update on a Win2K machine (since the installer will be Win2K-compatible but the platform won't) and allow you to set the platform to no longer check for platform/app updates right from the installer.
We won't invest the time in figuring out when an app drops Win2K support and having the app installers or the platform offer you the last known good version as that would be a rather large undertaking for 300+ apps.
Can I ask why you're still running Win2K? Even an 8 year old PC can run WinXP in a minimal configuration. Although WinXP is being dropped in 10 months. And yes, you can run a Win2K machine relatively securely as long as it is entirely disconnected from the internet, it isn't as useful in today's connected world.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
>Can I ask why you're still running Win2K? Even an 8 year old PC can run WinXP in a minimal configuration.
Otto Sykora
Basel, Switzerland
I looked at the site and the May average is .07%, up 40% from the .05% average the month before (and what you saw yesterday). It looks like people are starting to embrace latest and greatest version of Windows NT. But nobody likes those people, so I say we make em suffer and drop support for it.
Ed