Windows 2000 ie7 on windows 2000

  • Thread starter Thread starter JM
  • Start date Start date
J

JM

Has anyone out there had success making Internet explorer 7 work on
windows 2000? I know Microsoft says it won't work and so far I haven't
been able to make it, but I know there has to be something hidden
probably in the ie setup file that you can change to make it work on 2000.
Thanks,
JM
 
"JM" <1@2.3> wrote in message news:uke1JmssIHA.5096@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Has anyone out there had success making Internet explorer 7 work on
> windows 2000? I know Microsoft says it won't work and so far I haven't
> been able to make it, but I know there has to be something hidden
> probably in the ie setup file that you can change to make it work on 2000.
> Thanks,
> JM


IE7 is not designed to work with Win2k
nor have I heard of any hacks to make it work.

I've tried it on my XP machine
but was not terribly impressed...so went back to IE6
 
philo wrote:
> "JM" <1@2.3> wrote in message news:uke1JmssIHA.5096@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> Has anyone out there had success making Internet explorer 7 work on
>> windows 2000? I know Microsoft says it won't work and so far I haven't
>> been able to make it, but I know there has to be something hidden
>> probably in the ie setup file that you can change to make it work on 2000.
>> Thanks,
>> JM
>
>
> IE7 is not designed to work with Win2k
> nor have I heard of any hacks to make it work.

That's probably because Microsoft doesn't want it to work on 2000. They
want you to spend more money and upgrade to XP or Vista.

>
> I've tried it on my XP machine
> but was not terribly impressed...so went back to IE6
>

The reason I want to get ie7 working on 2000 is because of the tabbed
browsing and phishing filter thing. Also I just like ie7 better than
ie6...even though ie in general is not very impressive. And yes, I know
that you can get tabbed browsing on other browsers, that's why I use
Netscape and firefox, but I still would like to get ie7 to work on 2000.
JM
 
"JM" <1@2.3> wrote in message
news:%23QnX4p3sIHA.1436@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> philo wrote:
> > "JM" <1@2.3> wrote in message
news:uke1JmssIHA.5096@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> >> Has anyone out there had success making Internet explorer 7 work on
> >> windows 2000? I know Microsoft says it won't work and so far I haven't
> >> been able to make it, but I know there has to be something hidden
> >> probably in the ie setup file that you can change to make it work on
2000.
> >> Thanks,
> >> JM
> >
> >
> > IE7 is not designed to work with Win2k
> > nor have I heard of any hacks to make it work.
>
> That's probably because Microsoft doesn't want it to work on 2000. They
> want you to spend more money and upgrade to XP or Vista.
>
> >
> > I've tried it on my XP machine
> > but was not terribly impressed...so went back to IE6
> >
>
> The reason I want to get ie7 working on 2000 is because of the tabbed
> browsing and phishing filter thing. Also I just like ie7 better than
> ie6...even though ie in general is not very impressive. And yes, I know
> that you can get tabbed browsing on other browsers, that's why I use
> Netscape and firefox, but I still would like to get ie7 to work on 2000.
> JM


AFAIK there are no hacks for it...
but if you search on Google...maybe someone came up with one???

If IE7 is that important to you...
then an upgrade to XP may be the only way.

I use both XP and Win2k and have noticed that with sp3 applied to XP...
the performance is improved to the point where XP (if set for best
performance) is almost
as light on resources as Win2k
 
philo wrote:
> "JM" <1@2.3> wrote in message
> news:%23QnX4p3sIHA.1436@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> philo wrote:
>>> "JM" <1@2.3> wrote in message
> news:uke1JmssIHA.5096@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>> Has anyone out there had success making Internet explorer 7 work on
>>>> windows 2000? I know Microsoft says it won't work and so far I haven't
>>>> been able to make it, but I know there has to be something hidden
>>>> probably in the ie setup file that you can change to make it work on
> 2000.
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> JM
>>>
>>> IE7 is not designed to work with Win2k
>>> nor have I heard of any hacks to make it work.
>> That's probably because Microsoft doesn't want it to work on 2000. They
>> want you to spend more money and upgrade to XP or Vista.
>>
>>> I've tried it on my XP machine
>>> but was not terribly impressed...so went back to IE6
>>>
>> The reason I want to get ie7 working on 2000 is because of the tabbed
>> browsing and phishing filter thing. Also I just like ie7 better than
>> ie6...even though ie in general is not very impressive. And yes, I know
>> that you can get tabbed browsing on other browsers, that's why I use
>> Netscape and firefox, but I still would like to get ie7 to work on 2000.
>> JM
>
>
> AFAIK there are no hacks for it...
> but if you search on Google...maybe someone came up with one???

I've done a lot of searches on it and haven't found anything.


>
> If IE7 is that important to you...
> then an upgrade to XP may be the only way.
>
> I use both XP and Win2k and have noticed that with sp3 applied to XP...
> the performance is improved to the point where XP (if set for best
> performance) is almost
> as light on resources as Win2k

I've been running win2k with 256MB of RAM and a 600mhz processor. How do
you think XP would be which that amount of available system resources?
Thanks,
JM
 
"JM" <1@2.3> wrote in message news:O2FTBC5sIHA.2188@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> philo wrote:
> > "JM" <1@2.3> wrote in message
> > news:%23QnX4p3sIHA.1436@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> >> philo wrote:
> >>> "JM" <1@2.3> wrote in message
> > news:uke1JmssIHA.5096@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> >>>> Has anyone out there had success making Internet explorer 7 work on
> >>>> windows 2000? I know Microsoft says it won't work and so far I
haven't
> >>>> been able to make it, but I know there has to be something hidden
> >>>> probably in the ie setup file that you can change to make it work on
> > 2000.
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> JM
> >>>
> >>> IE7 is not designed to work with Win2k
> >>> nor have I heard of any hacks to make it work.
> >> That's probably because Microsoft doesn't want it to work on 2000. They
> >> want you to spend more money and upgrade to XP or Vista.
> >>
> >>> I've tried it on my XP machine
> >>> but was not terribly impressed...so went back to IE6
> >>>
> >> The reason I want to get ie7 working on 2000 is because of the tabbed
> >> browsing and phishing filter thing. Also I just like ie7 better than
> >> ie6...even though ie in general is not very impressive. And yes, I know
> >> that you can get tabbed browsing on other browsers, that's why I use
> >> Netscape and firefox, but I still would like to get ie7 to work on
2000.
> >> JM
> >
> >
> > AFAIK there are no hacks for it...
> > but if you search on Google...maybe someone came up with one???
>
> I've done a lot of searches on it and haven't found anything.
>
>
> >
> > If IE7 is that important to you...
> > then an upgrade to XP may be the only way.
> >
> > I use both XP and Win2k and have noticed that with sp3 applied to XP...
> > the performance is improved to the point where XP (if set for best
> > performance) is almost
> > as light on resources as Win2k
>
> I've been running win2k with 256MB of RAM and a 600mhz processor. How do
> you think XP would be which that amount of available system resources?
> Thanks,
> JM


Truthfully , the machine would be best off with Win2k.

even with sp3 applied and some tweaking...
I doubt Xp would perform as lightly as win2k.

I'd just forget IE7
 
philo wrote:
> "JM" <1@2.3> wrote in message news:O2FTBC5sIHA.2188@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> philo wrote:
>>> "JM" <1@2.3> wrote in message
>>> news:%23QnX4p3sIHA.1436@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>> philo wrote:
>>>>> "JM" <1@2.3> wrote in message
>>> news:uke1JmssIHA.5096@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>>>> Has anyone out there had success making Internet explorer 7 work on
>>>>>> windows 2000? I know Microsoft says it won't work and so far I
> haven't
>>>>>> been able to make it, but I know there has to be something hidden
>>>>>> probably in the ie setup file that you can change to make it work on
>>> 2000.
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> JM
>>>>> IE7 is not designed to work with Win2k
>>>>> nor have I heard of any hacks to make it work.
>>>> That's probably because Microsoft doesn't want it to work on 2000. They
>>>> want you to spend more money and upgrade to XP or Vista.
>>>>
>>>>> I've tried it on my XP machine
>>>>> but was not terribly impressed...so went back to IE6
>>>>>
>>>> The reason I want to get ie7 working on 2000 is because of the tabbed
>>>> browsing and phishing filter thing. Also I just like ie7 better than
>>>> ie6...even though ie in general is not very impressive. And yes, I know
>>>> that you can get tabbed browsing on other browsers, that's why I use
>>>> Netscape and firefox, but I still would like to get ie7 to work on
> 2000.
>>>> JM
>>>
>>> AFAIK there are no hacks for it...
>>> but if you search on Google...maybe someone came up with one???
>> I've done a lot of searches on it and haven't found anything.
>>
>>
>>> If IE7 is that important to you...
>>> then an upgrade to XP may be the only way.
>>>
>>> I use both XP and Win2k and have noticed that with sp3 applied to XP...
>>> the performance is improved to the point where XP (if set for best
>>> performance) is almost
>>> as light on resources as Win2k
>> I've been running win2k with 256MB of RAM and a 600mhz processor. How do
>> you think XP would be which that amount of available system resources?
>> Thanks,
>> JM
>
>
> Truthfully , the machine would be best off with Win2k.
>
> even with sp3 applied and some tweaking...
> I doubt Xp would perform as lightly as win2k.

I kind of thought so. But then, I like 2000 better than XP anyway.

>
> I'd just forget IE7
>

I will find a way to make ie7 work on 2000 eventually. I know that if
Microsoft can make it not work then it's possible to make it work. I'll
let you know if and when I've done it. If you here anything about ie7
working on 2000 then please post it to the newsgroup so that I can see it.
Thanks,
JM
 
JM wrote:

> I will find a way to make ie7 work on 2000 eventually. I know that if
> Microsoft can make it not work then it's possible to make it work. I'll
> let you know if and when I've done it. If you here anything about ie7
> working on 2000 then please post it to the newsgroup so that I can see it.
> Thanks,
> JM

You forget how tightly IE is integrated to the Windows shell. Without a
host of native Windows XP dlls half of IE 7 probably doesn't run and the
other half that manages to run will probably make a fine job of bugging
up of half of the Windows 2000 shell features.

John
 
John John (MVP) wrote:
> JM wrote:
>
>> I will find a way to make ie7 work on 2000 eventually. I know that if
>> Microsoft can make it not work then it's possible to make it work.
>> I'll let you know if and when I've done it. If you here anything about
>> ie7 working on 2000 then please post it to the newsgroup so that I can
>> see it.
>> Thanks,
>> JM
>
> You forget how tightly IE is integrated to the Windows shell. Without a
> host of native Windows XP dlls half of IE 7 probably doesn't run and the
> other half that manages to run will probably make a fine job of bugging
> up of half of the Windows 2000 shell features.
>
> John

I did forget about that. But if Microsoft can make different versions of
ie6 for different versions of windows such as 98 and 2000, then who says
they can't make a version of ie7 for windows 2000? And I never said I
was going to try and make the XP version of ie7 run on 2000.
JM
 
Well they most certainly could but new development for Windows 2000 stopped
long ago.


--

Regards,

Dave Patrick ....Please no email replies - reply in newsgroup.
Microsoft Certified Professional
Microsoft MVP [Windows]
http://www.microsoft.com/protect

"JM" wrote:
> I did forget about that. But if Microsoft can make different versions of
> ie6 for different versions of windows such as 98 and 2000, then who says
> they can't make a version of ie7 for windows 2000? And I never said I was
> going to try and make the XP version of ie7 run on 2000.
> JM
 
JM, I have a 600mhz AMD (550 mhz overclocked mobile CPU in a tower) and
384 MB RAM with XP sp2. It runs better than Win98SE (which I also have
in a multiboot configuration). BUT, with 256 meg RAM I'd say forget it.
XP would work with that little RAM but for any kind of performance you
NEED that 384MB. Also, tried SP3 on this setup forget it! While at
first it seemed all would be OK I found after a week the thing was slow.
IE took 50% longer to open (add security?), CPU use spike higher for
reasons unknown thus dogging the PC ... ended taking it off after 5 or 7
days. I like the performance a LOT better with SP2 for this minimal
setup. Lastly I must add, MS by default adds a LOT of services and other
STUFF on startup you simply will not need. The services here have been
trimmed to a meager 20, from 30 or 35 I think! So if you do install XP
be sure to trim out all the 'stuff' you really don't need. With a memory
upgrade I think you'll like XP.

___
"JM" <1@2.3> wrote in message
news:O2FTBC5sIHA.2188@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> philo wrote:
>> "JM" <1@2.3> wrote in message
>> news:%23QnX4p3sIHA.1436@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>> philo wrote:
>>>> "JM" <1@2.3> wrote in message
>> news:uke1JmssIHA.5096@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>>> Has anyone out there had success making Internet explorer 7 work
>>>>> on
>>>>> windows 2000? I know Microsoft says it won't work and so far I
>>>>> haven't
>>>>> been able to make it, but I know there has to be something hidden
>>>>> probably in the ie setup file that you can change to make it work
>>>>> on
>> 2000.
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> JM
>>>>
>>>> IE7 is not designed to work with Win2k
>>>> nor have I heard of any hacks to make it work.
>>> That's probably because Microsoft doesn't want it to work on 2000.
>>> They
>>> want you to spend more money and upgrade to XP or Vista.
>>>
>>>> I've tried it on my XP machine
>>>> but was not terribly impressed...so went back to IE6
>>>>
>>> The reason I want to get ie7 working on 2000 is because of the
>>> tabbed
>>> browsing and phishing filter thing. Also I just like ie7 better than
>>> ie6...even though ie in general is not very impressive. And yes, I
>>> know
>>> that you can get tabbed browsing on other browsers, that's why I use
>>> Netscape and firefox, but I still would like to get ie7 to work on
>>> 2000.
>>> JM
>>
>>
>> AFAIK there are no hacks for it...
>> but if you search on Google...maybe someone came up with one???
>
> I've done a lot of searches on it and haven't found anything.
>
>
>>
>> If IE7 is that important to you...
>> then an upgrade to XP may be the only way.
>>
>> I use both XP and Win2k and have noticed that with sp3 applied to
>> XP...
>> the performance is improved to the point where XP (if set for best
>> performance) is almost
>> as light on resources as Win2k
>
> I've been running win2k with 256MB of RAM and a 600mhz processor. How
> do you think XP would be which that amount of available system
> resources?
> Thanks,
> JM
 
Dave Patrick wrote:
> Well they most certainly could but new development for Windows 2000
> stopped long ago.
>

That's what really stinks. Windows 2000 is one of only two versions of
windows that are actually good, the other being XP. The way I see it,
Microsoft should stop wasting time with Vista and just have permanent
support and continuing development for 2000 and XP.
JM
 
someone watching wrote:
> JM, I have a 600mhz AMD (550 mhz overclocked mobile CPU in a tower) and
> 384 MB RAM with XP sp2. It runs better than Win98SE (which I also have
> in a multiboot configuration). BUT, with 256 meg RAM I'd say forget it.
> XP would work with that little RAM but for any kind of performance you
> NEED that 384MB. Also, tried SP3 on this setup forget it! While at
> first it seemed all would be OK I found after a week the thing was slow.
> IE took 50% longer to open (add security?), CPU use spike higher for
> reasons unknown thus dogging the PC ... ended taking it off after 5 or 7
> days. I like the performance a LOT better with SP2 for this minimal
> setup. Lastly I must add, MS by default adds a LOT of services and other
> STUFF on startup you simply will not need. The services here have been
> trimmed to a meager 20, from 30 or 35 I think! So if you do install XP
> be sure to trim out all the 'stuff' you really don't need. With a memory
> upgrade I think you'll like XP.
>

I would do a memory upgrade but 256MB of RAM is as far as I know the
maximum amount of RAM that my computer can take. And believe me, I would
have already upgraded to XP if I knew my computer could handle it.
Thanks,
JM
 
JM wrote:
> Dave Patrick wrote:
>> Well they most certainly could but new development for Windows 2000
>> stopped long ago.
>>
>
> That's what really stinks. Windows 2000 is one of only two versions of
> windows that are actually good, the other being XP. The way I see it,
> Microsoft should stop wasting time with Vista and just have permanent
> support and continuing development for 2000 and XP.

.... and yet, when XP was relatively new, I can recall people using the
same sentiments with Win98 and Win2K being the good guys and XP being
the bad guy.

I'm not a MS apologist by any means but what you're suggesting is that
MS adopt a policy of increasing expenditure on support for products they
have already installed while foregoing income from new sales. Hardly a
good business model and hardly likely to happen.
 
Sid Elbow wrote:
> JM wrote:
>> Dave Patrick wrote:
>>> Well they most certainly could but new development for Windows 2000
>>> stopped long ago.
>>>
>>
>> That's what really stinks. Windows 2000 is one of only two versions of
>> windows that are actually good, the other being XP. The way I see it,
>> Microsoft should stop wasting time with Vista and just have permanent
>> support and continuing development for 2000 and XP.
>
> ... and yet, when XP was relatively new, I can recall people using the
> same sentiments with Win98 and Win2K being the good guys and XP being
> the bad guy.
>
> I'm not a MS apologist by any means but what you're suggesting is that
> MS adopt a policy of increasing expenditure on support for products they
> have already installed while foregoing income from new sales. Hardly a
> good business model and hardly likely to happen.

I do agree with what you're saying, but MS could at least continue
support for all their operating systems while working on Vista.
JM
 
JM wrote:

> Sid Elbow wrote:
>
>> JM wrote:
>>
>>> Dave Patrick wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well they most certainly could but new development for Windows 2000
>>>> stopped long ago.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's what really stinks. Windows 2000 is one of only two versions
>>> of windows that are actually good, the other being XP. The way I see
>>> it, Microsoft should stop wasting time with Vista and just have
>>> permanent support and continuing development for 2000 and XP.
>>
>>
>> ... and yet, when XP was relatively new, I can recall people using the
>> same sentiments with Win98 and Win2K being the good guys and XP being
>> the bad guy.
>>
>> I'm not a MS apologist by any means but what you're suggesting is that
>> MS adopt a policy of increasing expenditure on support for products
>> they have already installed while foregoing income from new sales.
>> Hardly a good business model and hardly likely to happen.
>
>
> I do agree with what you're saying, but MS could at least continue
> support for all their operating systems while working on Vista.
> JM

Why "ALL", that would be incredibly stupid on their part? They already
DO maintain the previous ones in accordance with their published policy.
 
On Tue, 13 May 2008 12:45:00 UTC, Bob I <birelan@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>
> JM wrote:
>
> > Sid Elbow wrote:
> >
> >> JM wrote:
> >>
> >>> Dave Patrick wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Well they most certainly could but new development for Windows 2000
> >>>> stopped long ago.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> That's what really stinks. Windows 2000 is one of only two versions
> >>> of windows that are actually good, the other being XP. The way I see
> >>> it, Microsoft should stop wasting time with Vista and just have
> >>> permanent support and continuing development for 2000 and XP.
> >>
> >>
> >> ... and yet, when XP was relatively new, I can recall people using the
> >> same sentiments with Win98 and Win2K being the good guys and XP being
> >> the bad guy.
> >>
> >> I'm not a MS apologist by any means but what you're suggesting is that
> >> MS adopt a policy of increasing expenditure on support for products
> >> they have already installed while foregoing income from new sales.
> >> Hardly a good business model and hardly likely to happen.
> >
> >
> > I do agree with what you're saying, but MS could at least continue
> > support for all their operating systems while working on Vista.
> > JM
>
> Why "ALL", that would be incredibly stupid on their part? They already
> DO maintain the previous ones in accordance with their published policy.
I still use an IBM/PS/2 with WfWG 3.11 in my network. Can I still
get support? :]
--
 
Count Floyd wrote:

> I still use an IBM/PS/2 with WfWG 3.11 in my network. Can I still
> get support? :]

For the IBM PS/2 or for WFW 3.11?
 
Count Floyd wrote:

> On Tue, 13 May 2008 12:45:00 UTC, Bob I <birelan@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>JM wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Sid Elbow wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>JM wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Dave Patrick wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Well they most certainly could but new development for Windows 2000
>>>>>>stopped long ago.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>That's what really stinks. Windows 2000 is one of only two versions
>>>>>of windows that are actually good, the other being XP. The way I see
>>>>>it, Microsoft should stop wasting time with Vista and just have
>>>>>permanent support and continuing development for 2000 and XP.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>... and yet, when XP was relatively new, I can recall people using the
>>>>same sentiments with Win98 and Win2K being the good guys and XP being
>>>>the bad guy.
>>>>
>>>>I'm not a MS apologist by any means but what you're suggesting is that
>>>>MS adopt a policy of increasing expenditure on support for products
>>>>they have already installed while foregoing income from new sales.
>>>>Hardly a good business model and hardly likely to happen.
>>>
>>>
>>>I do agree with what you're saying, but MS could at least continue
>>>support for all their operating systems while working on Vista.
>>>JM
>>
>>Why "ALL", that would be incredibly stupid on their part? They already
>>DO maintain the previous ones in accordance with their published policy.
>
> I still use an IBM/PS/2 with WfWG 3.11 in my network. Can I still
> get support? :]

Only in accordance with their published support policy.
 
JM <1@2.3> wrote :

>>> Has anyone out there had success making Internet explorer 7 work
>>> on windows 2000?

>> IE7 is not designed to work with Win2k
>> nor have I heard of any hacks to make it work.

> The reason I want to get ie7 working on 2000 is because of the
> tabbed browsing and phishing filter thing. Also I just like ie7
> better than ie6...even though ie in general is not very
> impressive. And yes, I know that you can get tabbed browsing on
> other browsers, that's why I use Netscape and firefox, but I still
> would like to get ie7 to work on 2000. JM

In addtion to what the other posters had to say, JM, why would any
one in their right mind want to use Internet Explorer (any version!)
except for Windows Update ? I see you're using thunderbird for email,
and you mentionned your being a Firefox user as well : what could IE7
bring you *if* it was possible to run it on 2k ?

If what you want is tabbed browsing and you're somehow not fully
pleased with Firefox, you've got other choices (Opera for one, and I
think, Maxthon or whatever it's called now if you really want to
stick with the MSIE engine)

Cheers,

--
Steph
 
Back
Top