• E-mail this page
• |  Print this page
• | 
• | 
• | 

Has Microsoft Ordered A Hit On Windows 2000?

Brian Livingston's article, Microsoft Turns Up The Heat On Windows 2000 Users, is right: Microsoft has obviously put out a hit on its own best operating system ever, Windows 2000. Livingston's article cites some of Microsoft's most blatant moves to push Win2K into history -- moves Microsoft has taken against the best interests of its own customers. But he forgets to mention the most egregious of all (or maybe he's just too polite): there is no version of Internet Explorer 7 for Windows 2000.

The bugs and design flaws in Internet Explorer hung a "Welcome, Bad Guys" sign on every PC that ran it. A new, more secure version of the PC world's most widely used, least secure browser was absolutely required, and IE 7 seems to be a step in the right direction. It should be available not just for Windows XP, but for every PC running any version of Windows -- and there are still plenty out there running Windows 95 and 98, let alone Windows 2000.

Microsoft is hiding behind its own rules for supporting its products which create an artificial "lifecycle." Windows 2000 is currently in "extended support," which means, according to Microsoft, that it is not eligible for new design features, but only for critical security patches. IE is not a critical security issue, according to Microsoft -- despite the number of viruses and trojans and malware exploits that continue to use it as a launching pad.

The problem with that is that by refusing to provide a safer version of IE for its older operating systems, Microsoft gives the appearance of very cynically using the weaknesses of its own products, like IE, to sell more of its own products, like Windows Vista.

There's no doubt that Microsoft is convinced it needs to get everybody off Windows 2000 and onto Vista. But, as Livingston notes, Windows 2000 users aren't convinced. It's a major financial dilemma for Microsoft, and I've written about it before (see The Internet Explorer 7 Glass Is Definitely Half Empty).

The question is, does Microsoft need to make the computing community it built on Windows less safe in order to insure its upgrade revenue streams? By putting out a hit on Windows 2000 Microsoft doesn't put just new revenue opportunities into the cross-hairs. It leaves many of its customers, even some of its best large corporate customers, at risk of becoming collateral damage.

« Outsource Security Carefully, And Carry A Big Audit Plan | Main | What Does 2007 Promise? »