ie7 on windows 2000

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

philo
Sat May 10 15:10:16 PDT 2008


"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

JM
Sun May 11 08:16:59 PDT 2008

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

philo
Sun May 11 10:07:25 PDT 2008


"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

JM
Sun May 11 10:54:36 PDT 2008

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

philo
Sun May 11 11:09:03 PDT 2008


"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

JM
Sun May 11 12:34:48 PDT 2008

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

John
Sun May 11 13:12:38 PDT 2008

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

JM
Sun May 11 13:52:34 PDT 2008

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

Dave
Sun May 11 14:18:29 PDT 2008

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

someone
Sun May 11 15:05:37 PDT 2008

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

JM
Mon May 12 06:30:49 PDT 2008

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

JM
Mon May 12 06:35:19 PDT 2008

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

Sid
Mon May 12 07:48:21 PDT 2008

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.

JM
Mon May 12 14:21:08 PDT 2008

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

Bob
Tue May 13 05:45:00 PDT 2008



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.

Count
Tue May 13 17:04:17 PDT 2008

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? :]
--

John
Tue May 13 17:58:19 PDT 2008

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?

Bob
Wed May 14 05:18:38 PDT 2008



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.

Steph
Sat May 17 03:42:35 PDT 2008

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

JM
Sun May 18 16:41:18 PDT 2008

Steph wrote:
> 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)
>

How did you find out I was using Thunderbird for email?

I don't really use Internet Explorer, I just like to experiment. IE7 on
win2000 couldn't really bring me anything but a chance to tell Microsoft
that they are wrong in saying that ie7 doesn't work on win2000.

I am fully pleased with firefox except for the amount of memory it can
take up. I didn't really like Opera, I still use Netscape, and the
Safari browser from Apple runs on 2000, even though they say it only
works on xp or vista.
Thanks,
JM

Bob
Mon May 19 06:04:19 PDT 2008



JM wrote:

> Steph wrote:
>
>> 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)
>>
>
> How did you find out I was using Thunderbird for email?
>
> I don't really use Internet Explorer, I just like to experiment. IE7 on
> win2000 couldn't really bring me anything but a chance to tell Microsoft
> that they are wrong in saying that ie7 doesn't work on win2000.
>

So what if you sorta make it open, it's NOT supported, and they don't
care, and you impress no one.



> I am fully pleased with firefox except for the amount of memory it can
> take up. I didn't really like Opera, I still use Netscape, and the
> Safari browser from Apple runs on 2000, even though they say it only
> works on xp or vista.
> Thanks,
> JM

JM
Mon May 19 06:21:55 PDT 2008

Bob I wrote:
>
>
> JM wrote:
>
>> Steph wrote:
>>
>>> 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)
>>>
>>
>> How did you find out I was using Thunderbird for email?
>>
>> I don't really use Internet Explorer, I just like to experiment. IE7
>> on win2000 couldn't really bring me anything but a chance to tell
>> Microsoft that they are wrong in saying that ie7 doesn't work on win2000.
>>
>
> So what if you sorta make it open, it's NOT supported, and they don't
> care, and you impress no one.


Whether Microsoft supports what I do or not doesn't matter to me and if
they don't care then they have an attitude problem. And you're wrong in
saying I would impress no one because I know people who would be impressed.
JM

Sid
Mon May 19 06:43:49 PDT 2008

JM wrote:

> How did you find out I was using Thunderbird for email?

I suspect he meant you were using Thunderbird as a newsreader (that's
contained in your message header).

Either that or he assumed that if you were using it as a newsreader you
would automatically be using it as an email client too. Not a very good
assumption - I don't.

Bob
Mon May 19 07:20:41 PDT 2008



JM wrote:

> Bob I wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> JM wrote:
>>
>>> Steph wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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)
>>>>
>>>
>>> How did you find out I was using Thunderbird for email?
>>>
>>> I don't really use Internet Explorer, I just like to experiment. IE7
>>> on win2000 couldn't really bring me anything but a chance to tell
>>> Microsoft that they are wrong in saying that ie7 doesn't work on
>>> win2000.
>>>
>>
>> So what if you sorta make it open, it's NOT supported, and they don't
>> care, and you impress no one.
>
>
>
> Whether Microsoft supports what I do or not doesn't matter to me and if
> they don't care then they have an attitude problem. And you're wrong in
> saying I would impress no one because I know people who would be impressed.
> JM

Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back.

JM
Mon May 19 08:14:05 PDT 2008

Bob I wrote:
>
>
> JM wrote:
>
>> Bob I wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> JM wrote:
>>>
>>>> Steph wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How did you find out I was using Thunderbird for email?
>>>>
>>>> I don't really use Internet Explorer, I just like to experiment. IE7
>>>> on win2000 couldn't really bring me anything but a chance to tell
>>>> Microsoft that they are wrong in saying that ie7 doesn't work on
>>>> win2000.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So what if you sorta make it open, it's NOT supported, and they don't
>>> care, and you impress no one.
>>
>>
>>
>> Whether Microsoft supports what I do or not doesn't matter to me and
>> if they don't care then they have an attitude problem. And you're
>> wrong in saying I would impress no one because I know people who would
>> be impressed.
>> JM
>
> Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back.
>

Wasn't planning on it.
JM

JM
Mon May 19 08:21:34 PDT 2008

Sid Elbow wrote:
> JM wrote:
>
>> How did you find out I was using Thunderbird for email?
>
> I suspect he meant you were using Thunderbird as a newsreader (that's
> contained in your message header).
>
> Either that or he assumed that if you were using it as a newsreader you
> would automatically be using it as an email client too. Not a very good
> assumption - I don't.

Actually I just remembered that there is this add-on for thunderbird
called "display mail user agent" and it shows what program was used to
write the selected message(email or newsgroup). I use it and he probably
does too. Are you using thunderbird too? - that's what the add-on says
you're using, it would be nice to know if the extension is accurate.
Thanks,
JM

Sid
Mon May 19 09:11:48 PDT 2008

JM wrote:

> Actually I just remembered that there is this add-on for thunderbird
> called "display mail user agent" and it shows what program was used to
> write the selected message(email or newsgroup). I use it and he probably
> does too. Are you using thunderbird too? - that's what the add-on says
> you're using, it would be nice to know if the extension is accurate.

Why do you need an add-on? The normal nntp message header tells you what
user-agent you are using. just go to View>Headers>All.

Yes I'm using Thunderbird - for newsgroups but not for email.

JM
Mon May 19 09:57:29 PDT 2008

Sid Elbow wrote:
> JM wrote:
>
>> Actually I just remembered that there is this add-on for thunderbird
>> called "display mail user agent" and it shows what program was used to
>> write the selected message(email or newsgroup). I use it and he
>> probably does too. Are you using thunderbird too? - that's what the
>> add-on says you're using, it would be nice to know if the extension is
>> accurate.
>
> Why do you need an add-on? The normal nntp message header tells you what
> user-agent you are using. just go to View>Headers>All.

Thanks for the tip. It just takes up a lot of space when you do it that
way - the add-on just shows an icon in the right part of the normal view
so it helps reduce the space taken up - you should try it.

> Yes I'm using Thunderbird - for newsgroups but not for email.

What program could be better for email than Thunderbird?
JM

Sid
Mon May 19 14:03:57 PDT 2008

JM wrote:

> Thanks for the tip. It just takes up a lot of space when you do it that
> way - the add-on just shows an icon in the right part of the normal view
> so it helps reduce the space taken up - you should try it.

Not really, I only find a need to look at headers rarely so the regular
way is fine. I don't have it on by default - just take a quick peek when
I want to.

Plus, although the Thunderbird/Firefox concept of "community-produced"
add-ons sounds great in principal, the fact that they work with today's
Firefox/Thunderbird is no guarantee they will work with the version
released tomorrow. If you are lucky they may be updated sometime but
again there is no guarantee. Many times it's a one-shot effort on the
part of the writer.

It seems with every new release of either program (which are not
infrequent), one or more of my existing add-ons breaks, to the point
where I've really given up seeking new add-ons. Nice idea but ...


> What program could be better for email than Thunderbird?

I suspect if you ask 10 people, you'll get 10 different answers.

Thunderbird is relatively basic both as a newsreader and as an email
client. In fact, that's why I like it as a newsreader ... some of the
others out there (such as XNews et al), while being terrifically
versatile, have become way too complex for my needs. Even then, it's
filtering is pretty inadequate but I have my own local news-server
(Hamster) which gives me much better filtering options at that level.

For an email client, I've used Eudora in its various releases for more
than 12 years, I'm happy with it and Thunderbird didn't offer anything
more (rather less actually - like I say, it's pretty basic).

.... and now back to our regular programming.

JM
Tue May 20 06:40:13 PDT 2008


> Plus, although the Thunderbird/Firefox concept of "community-produced"
> add-ons sounds great in principal, the fact that they work with today's
> Firefox/Thunderbird is no guarantee they will work with the version
> released tomorrow. If you are lucky they may be updated sometime but
> again there is no guarantee. Many times it's a one-shot effort on the
> part of the writer.
>
> It seems with every new release of either program (which are not
> infrequent), one or more of my existing add-ons breaks, to the point
> where I've really given up seeking new add-ons. Nice idea but ...

Every time I have updated thunderbird the add-on has always worked fine,
but like you said, there is no guarantee it will always work.
JM

Steph
Wed May 21 11:42:05 PDT 2008

JM <1@2.3> wrote :

> Steph wrote:

> How did you find out I was using Thunderbird for email?

At least you are using it for net news; your headers betrayed you, as
noted by others.


> I don't really use Internet Explorer, I just like to experiment.
> IE7 on win2000 couldn't really bring me anything but a chance to
> tell Microsoft that they are wrong in saying that ie7 doesn't work
> on win2000.

It's not designed to work, or designed not to work, in Win 2k :
others have tried hard, including people who /can/ program and know
how to lookup email & news headers :=) I strongly suggest you forget
that particular fancy.


> I am fully pleased with firefox except for the amount of memory it
> can take up. I didn't really like Opera, I still use Netscape, and
> the Safari browser from Apple runs on 2000, even though they say
> it only works on xp or vista.
> Thanks,

Y.W.

--
Steph