Re: Windows 2000

[phantom]

As I am not a moderator or administrator, I cannot reply to locked topics, so I'm making a new one, as I feel obliged to defend myself against this personal attack on me:

somebody like you

I know exactly what the reasons are and feel no obligation whatsoever to explain myself in great detail to somebody like you. Look at the source code yourself.

Okay, so why do you come to this forum at all then, if not to discuss this software with members of the community?

Look at the source code yourself.

Please direct me to this source code.

Also,

It would be too complicated to explain it, and even if he did, you probably wouldn't understand. Just keep it at what it is. Some functions they use isn't available on Win2k Host.

So you know how complicated it is (EDIT: I seem to recall you thought it was due to CPU Virtualization, which doesn't seem to be the issue)? Might I challenge that theory you have about me not understanding, and ask you to tell me anyway, since you apparently know these details? I'm genuinely curious.

[stefan.becker]

What have you paid for this great piece of software, so that you think to get support like this?

You are speaking with developers, they give you this software for nothing.

Other people here are working here as a hobby, they get nothing.

So the answer "look in the source" is the best you can expect.

[phantom]

So the answer "look in the source" is the best you can expect.

Okay then. I'll just open up the single source file and scroll down to the section about not supporting Windows 2000.

... Did that sound right to you?

EDIT: I just skimmed through searching for the text "Windows 2000" in all the source code files, everything I found showed SUPPORT for Windows 2000, NOTHING AT ALL THAT I FOUND SAID ANYTHING THAT COULD POSSIBLY HINT IT WOULD NOT WORK ON WINDOWS 2000.

[Sasquatch]

So the answer "look in the source" is the best you can expect.

Okay then. I'll just open up the single source file and scroll down to the section about not supporting Windows 2000.

... Did that sound right to you?

EDIT: I just skimmed through searching for the text "Windows 2000" in all the source code files, everything I found showed SUPPORT for Windows 2000, NOTHING AT ALL THAT I FOUND SAID ANYTHING THAT COULD POSSIBLY HINT IT WOULD NOT WORK ON WINDOWS 2000.

Well, if that is the case, then what holds you to compile it yourself so you get a binary for Windows 2000?

As for answering your question, I'm not a programmer, so I don't understand much about the source code. All I know is what I've learned myself as a system administrator. I picked up a few things about VB because I'm a moderator here and have no insight in what the developers do and exactly why a certain version is no longer supported on a certain Host. Only the general things, that everybody can find. It should be in the changelog of 1.6.0.

[TerryE]

Phantom, you use the word "attack". You were the one who started popping at the developers -- quite unjustly on this occasion IMHO. Sander just responded.

In terms of OS support you have to remember that there are two contexts here: supporting an OS as a host and supporting an OS as guest. The documentation clearly lists which OSs are supported as host OSs. If it's not on the list, then its not supported. Yes W2K is supported as a guest OS.

You want a virtualisation product to be able to support legacy OSs, since the ability to run legacy OSs is a key benefit of virtualisation. However, supporting an old OS as a host is an entirely different matter. The fact is that VBox uses features that have been introduced since 2000 and are not in W2K (such as SATA). It's just not worth creating cut down version for an old OS.

Please take a breather on your hostile stance. It doesn't at value to any debate on the forum.

[phantom]

Phantom, you use the word "attack". You were the one who started popping at the developers -- quite unjustly on this occasion IMHO. Sander just responded.

Please take a breather on your hostile stance. It doesn't at value to any debate on the forum.

This was not my intent. I'm merely trying to find out why my operating system is not supported.. Which is proving to be quite difficult.

In terms of OS support you have to remember that there are two contexts here: supporting an OS as a host and supporting an OS as guest. The documentation clearly lists which OSs are supported as host OSs. If it's not on the list, then its not supported. Yes W2K is supported as a guest OS.

You want a virtualisation product to be able to support legacy OSs, since the ability to run legacy OSs is a key benefit of virtualisation. However, supporting an old OS as a host is an entirely different matter. The fact is that VBox uses features that have been introduced since 2000 and are not in W2K (such as SATA). It's just not worth creating cut down version for an old OS.

such as SATA

Ah, another one's been pointed out. I can also easily debunk this myth, then, as I've been using SATA drives on my computer for a long time without third party drivers. Heck, I installed this very copy of 2000 on a SATA drive.

Well, if that is the case, then what holds you to compile it yourself so you get a binary for Windows 2000?

Well to be honest I don't have much experience with compiling things like this, and from what I understand the open source edition lacks several features that interested me greatly such as USB support.. Oh and it also lacks SATA support. I'll consider giving it a try however, as it's an area I'd like to explore.

legacy OS

I don't like calling it that while it is still within Microsoft's Extended Support phase.

features that have been introduced since 2000 and are not in W2K

I've searched and searched and searched during this whole discussion, through tons of old threads in the forum, and all I could find were responses that could all be likened to "CPU Virtualization and stuff". Just stuff. Nothing specific.

So there's tons of things in the code that are explicitely written to support "Windows 2000" and "Windows 2000 and up", but now there's also some hidden "stuff" that doesn't work on 2000. That I just can't find I guess.

I don't like how people keep saying Windows 2000 doesn't support things that Windows XP does. They are too similar in core functionality to act as though they are this far apart. Windows XP only really brought a PlaySkool GUI, less customizability (users setup is more or less 5 options) and a couple extra utilities like Windows Movie Maker.

[TerryE]

Look, I agree that XP and 2000 both use the same NT 5 kernel, albeit at different dot releases, and that most of the differences between XP and W2K are to do with bundling or support. But doesn't matter what you or I think on this issue. I see that here are four options here, and the first two are down to you or some other community members

1. Do as Sasquatch suggests and get the OSE version to compile and run under W2K
2. "Con" the PEUL version to install and run under W2K. I know from previous posts this has been done for 1.6.X, but not AFAIK 2.0.x
3. Get Sun to change their minds on this. I rather think that this would involve building bridges and getting out your chequebook and/or remortgaging you house, rather than pissing off the team.
4. It a free product. Accept the terms the company offering it lay down if you want to use it.

[mpack]

This was not my intent. I'm merely trying to find out why my operating system is not supported.. Which is proving to be quite difficult.

I expect that the feature in question is COM, and the problem is that the developers have been working to COM documentation that is correct for XP, but that W2K uses an older specification. Now, the developers could go through the source code, checking which COM interfaces are used but not available on W2K, and creating workarounds: but they don't feel that this effort is worthwhile, so they simply dropped support for W2K as a host. Obviously they feel that the number of W2K (host) users does not justify doing more.

If you like, you could do this research on their behalf, and supply them with a list of suggested code changes that they could easily make. IMHO that is the only way you'll get traction on this.

[Sasquatch]

I don't like calling it that while it is still within Microsoft's Extended Support phase.

It is not supported anymore for the regular consumer. You can only get support, if you pay for it. There is a strict limit on the support for consumers, and after that there is a lmited period which is called 'extended support' for which you have to subscribe to. Taken from their Life Support Policy:

11. Who can receive support in the Extended Support phase?

Extended Support will be available to all customers*. Extended Support includes paid support (support that is charged on an hourly basis or per incident), security update support at no additional cost, and paid hotfix support. To receive hotfix support, an Extended Hotfix Support contract must be purchased within the first 90 days following the end of the Mainstream Support phase. Microsoft will not accept requests for warranty support, design changes, or new features during the Extended Support phase.

* Extended Support is not offered for Consumer, Hardware, or Multimedia products.

Source: http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifepolicy

[sandervl]

Phantom, you claim Windows XP is nothing but Windows 2000 with a fancy GUI, but don't bother to back this up.

Here's a pagethat shows some differences at the kernel level. The list for user mode interfaces should be much larger.

We need KeFlushQueuedDpcs for VT-x and AMD-V. Combined with the fact that our USB driver doesn't work on Win2k and there's no network bridging support, we decided to drop support for it.

It's quite possible there's more, but we simply don't care for Win2k backwards compatibility and use any API that's at least available in XP.

Other than the technical reasons mentioned here, there are maintenance and support reasons for dropping Win2k host support. Therefor we refuse to install on Windows 2000 as allowing so would imply support. You can hack the installer to circumvent this check if you wish. Others have posted how to do so in the past. If you do, you are on your own though.

I'd say everything about this subject has now been said and despite your accusations I have given you the answer you so kindly asked for.

[nabamer.]

Too bad you've decided to get rid of Windows 2000 as a host. You could at least abstract required interface to be extended by community in places where Win2000 lacks required functionality. We can perfectly live without USB and network bridging support, and as long as there will be an interface to extend we can try to fill the gaps as time permits.

Can you make installer run on Win2000 without patching? Let it just remind that Win2000 is not supported by Sun and point to a place community can collect related bugs.

[Sasquatch]

Too bad you've decided to get rid of Windows 2000 as a host. You could at least abstract required interface to be extended by community in places where Win2000 lacks required functionality. We can perfectly live without USB and network bridging support, and as long as there will be an interface to extend we can try to fill the gaps as time permits.

Can you make installer run on Win2000 without patching? Let it just remind that Win2000 is not supported by Sun and point to a place community can collect related bugs.

I don't think that they will do that. It will cost additional time to research it, and it's possible that those calls/APIs are already used by the installer.

You are still free to grab the source code, digg through it yourself and modify it to support Windows 2000 with the help of the documentation supplied by MS.

[nabamer.]

You are still free to grab the source code, digg through it yourself and modify it to support Windows 2000 with the help of the documentation supplied by MS.

Thanks for reminder. :-/ It is strange to think I was not aware of this option. What am I trying to emphasize that these changes need community support from Sun, because it is not the job for one person - will it be Sun employee or not.

[phantom]

It is not supported anymore for the regular consumer. You can only get support, if you pay for it. There is a strict limit on the support for

consumers, and after that there is a lmited period which is called 'extended support' for which you have to subscribe to.

I don't have to pay or "subscribe" to anything to get the free security updates.

Obviously they feel that the number of W2K (host) users does not justify doing more.

I see that there are alot of people so far who have asked for Windows 2000 support. I can't imagine anyone who would call this an insignificant amount of

users. This is something that would only make sense to Microsoft. Cut off support for the software early to force them to pay money for the next operating

system.

If you like, you could do this research on their behalf, and supply them with a list of suggested code changes that they could easily make.

IMHO that is the only way you'll get traction on this.

You are still free to grab the source code, digg through it yourself and modify it to support Windows 2000 with the help of the

documentation supplied by MS.

I wasn't aware we were able to get the source code of the version that isn't the Open Source Edition. However even if this is possible (which it needs to be

since sandervl says the USB driver doesn't work on Windows 2000), I don't have a particularly good knowledge of C++.

and it's possible that those calls/APIs are already used by the installer.

I can't imagine an installer that would need to use such obscure code that it itself would work on XP and yet somehow not 2000. That would actually be

hilarious if someone managed to make it like that. But if this is really the case, might I recommend NSIS?

I'd say everything about this subject has now been said and despite your accusations I have given you the answer you so kindly asked

for.

A slightly refreshing change of pace. I bet that list of several things is going to be copied and pasted to the threads that are still being made about this, eh?

From the tons of "not enough people" who are still asking for Windows 2000 support.

I assume VirtualBox's support for Windows XP will be cut off at 14/04/2009? That's when Windows XP goes into extended support. Surely you're all aware

that XP came out only one year after Windows 2000 did. It's only fair that you developers not have to waste time on such an old, obscure operating system,

right? (If any XP user disagrees with this, now you know how I feel.)


Have you seen these? Several have more than one person in each topic asking for Windows 2000 back.
http://forums.virtualbox.org/viewtopic.php?t=11634
http://forums.virtualbox.org/viewtopic.php?t=9931
http://forums.virtualbox.org/viewtopic.php?t=8097
http://forums.virtualbox.org/viewtopic.php?t=9454
http://forums.virtualbox.org/viewtopic.php?t=9217
http://forums.virtualbox.org/viewtopic.php?t=8781
http://forums.virtualbox.org/viewtopic.php?t=7277
http://forums.virtualbox.org/viewtopic. ... c&start=28
http://forums.virtualbox.org/viewtopic.php?t=6759
http://forums.virtualbox.org/viewtopic.php?t=6135
http://www.virtualbox.org/ticket/1904
http://www.virtualbox.org/ticket/1474

[sandervl]

I'm locking the topic as you are unable to communicate without accusing and insulting people. Windows 2000 host support is a closed topic and no matter how loud you scream here, this isn't going to change. Live with it.