Jump to content

loss of win2k support irksome


This topic is 6096 days old. Please don't post here. Open a new topic instead.

Recommended Posts

What exactly in FM 9 required FMI/Apple to drop win2k support? Does anybody know why? As far as I can tell, the only logical reason(s) would be:

1. Pressure from Microsoft(you would think Apple

would relish the opportunity to show Windows

users that they wasted their money and time

buying XP)

2. Not wanting to test in the extra OS

3. Too much dependence on Windows features(which

is a trap FMI/Apple has never been known to

fall into)

It would seem to me that FMI/Apple could have issued a warning and denied tech support to users who wished to install on win2k rather than absolutely not allowing installation. The basic underpinnings of XP are very similar(if not identical) to win2k and I would be willing to bet FM 9 would work just fine on win2k in most circumstances. Most of my small customers love win2k for its low system requirements and seemingly higher dependability than XP Pro. Many have ordered new machines with XP Pro only to revert them to the copies of win2k from their junked PC's. The win2k Terminal Services Licensing is also much more generous than Server 2003 in that you are not required to purchase CAL's for machines with win2k or better client OS. I understand that win2k is old, but banning installation altogether seems a bit severe when most apps that will work on XP will work on win2k. Most people could give a rat's a** what operating system they have as long as it does the job without many hiccups. I think companies like FMI/Apple shoot themselves in the foot when they exclude a good portion of the potential user base by forcing them to pay the Microsoft/Apple OS tax (and all the headaches that go along with any OS change)along with the considerable expense of FM. The problem is obviously even worse for the poor Mac user who gets repeatedly trodden on financially by the cult when developers insist on the very latest version of OS X every six months to a year(my brother loves his Macs but hates the OS/App merry-go-round as he constantly finds that he cannot buy any new software without upgrading his OS for another $129). Requiring OS X 10.4.8 is analogous to requiring Vista, thank god FMI/Apple aren't as cruel to Win users as they are to their own!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My guess would be stability, im sure they tested pro on windows 2000, they took the time to test server. Possibly theres something that doesnt run properly, a great example of this is FileMaker Server 9 on Vista. When i tried to do this to see what happens, the Vista machine physically screamed at me over and over again until i removed the installation. I thought it was funny, but still slightly disappointed.

The world may never know :

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Davinc,

FileMaker is really no nicer to Windows than it is to Mac OS. Windows simply supports its OS for free from version to version (i.e. Windows XP, SP1, SP2 and soon SP3). You will however notice that 8.5 required SP2 to run it.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dave,

I half agree with what you say about making newer OS's compulsory. However, just how far back should FMI go in checking that FMP runs on the various OS's?

More to the point, I think you have the wrong end of the stick re W2K vs. XP Pro.

Initially, XP was hopeless; it is now very reliable and, in my experience, leaves W2K for dead in almost every respect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is 6096 days old. Please don't post here. Open a new topic instead.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.