Why is Google Chrome browser not compatible with Windows 2000?

 Comments

Leave your comment | All comments | Contact Andrew  

#1  chrome browser posted on Oct 04, 2008 09:19 PDT

I think the number of users that have Win2K is so insignificant that they rather not do any backward compatibility for the product. I just checked my one month stats for my site and out of 8,224 visitors only 0.72% used Windows 2000. That's less than 1% of visitors.

Andrew replied on Oct 04, 2008 21:02 PDT :
You are right. I just checked my last month stats, only 0.5% used Windows 2000. :)

#2  Joost posted on Oct 05, 2008 05:12 PDT

I was a major fan of windows XP, but working more and more with it I found more and more problems. Specialy problems with other non-Microsoft programs.

Also I noticed that virtually no professional PC user was happy about windows XP. So I went back to Windows 2000. Now with Windows Vista I and several others tried again. Still no improvements if you let your self be fooled by the new looks, and only look at real functionality.

And lets face it if Windows XP or Vista is so great why do we want something else Google Chrome or Firefox, why not stick with Windows Explorer.

I manage 2 real sites one for the common basic user (picture sharing and web-logs) and one for more advanced users (source-code forum, GPS-tools, Photo-camera new).
On the first site I see 1,5% Windows 2000 users and 21% Firefox users, on the second site I see 39% windows 2000 users and 54% Firefox users and 0,4% Chrome users.

Sounds to me that only the people that don't know their stuff use windows XP or Vista.
So I don't agree, I want Google to support Windows 2000 too!

Oh, and all the solutions like making you system simulate Windows XP do work for installation, but Chrome still won't work.

#3  Craig posted on Oct 06, 2008 02:24 PDT

I'm afraid I'm not in agreement with this. If a Japanese blogger can write a hack for win 2k in just days after it's released. It can't be that hard to make Chrome compatible with w2k.

#4  Bob Vandenbosch posted on Oct 12, 2008 03:00 PDT

I use W2K on 5 machines, W2S on my server, dualboot W2k/Linux on my laptop, and 1 XP machine (so that I can see what Chrome looks like) & sure would like Chrome running onder W2K. If one uses the PC for serious work W2K gives you all you need and it is fast, stable and small too. Intel's Wireless routines run fine.So does everything else (except Explorer 7 and Chrome). I am a long term user of google mail. As I am a 75 year old former IT professional (I wrote BAL for IBM's mainframes) I have no time or interest for juvenile games (for which one needs Vista these days?). Both Office 2000 and Open Office run fine under W2K. So, Google, why not a leetle beet of effort for the generation that built the foundations on which you seem to rest your laurels?

#5  Phil Cutcliffe posted on Oct 17, 2008 01:18 PDT

I would suspect they mainly windows 2k users consist of Businesses and people who do not feel the need to update their now very operating system. The very fact that windows 2k users are using windows 2k would suggest that they are not early adaptors of software. I would expect the take up a new browser that is currently only in BETA from these users to be tiny.
It does not make sense for Google to delay distribution to over 99% of its potential market on the off chance that some 2k users would switch. Perhaps they will consider minority operating systems once the main product is finished?

#6  2KUser posted on Oct 27, 2008 12:46 PDT

Are you serious. Please don't make these decisions on our behalf. Just release the product for 2K and above. BTW I am posting this from a W2K machine. I have not seen a need to upgrade my desktop since I moved to 2K and Firefox has been fine with me.
Every google product has provided unique capabilities that made me want to use them and I attempted Chrome on similar lines. I will not cross this barrier for the sake of this browser. Trust me installing a new OS horrendous experience and I would rather stick to my trusty W2K.

#7  Mike P posted on Nov 04, 2008 09:38 PST

I just cannot believe just what I am reading. Win2k is still a major OS, at least in Germany. It is just as easy to install as xp, without a lot of the silly bugs that xp has, and a whole lot more secure. The LEGAL sticker in Germany is cheap to get. People don't like Vista, and don't trust it! so every day more and more people are going back to win2k. In our computer club we have 233 members, of which 81 are using win2k, 107 are using xp, 26 are using Linux, only 6 use Vista, the rest use os like BSD. This is just in Northern Germany, but the figures are the same in other parts of Germany. So, what is this telling us, that a lot more people are useing win2k than MS would like you all to know. Wake up, please!

Mike P in Germany

#8  Polynonymous posted on Dec 12, 2008 16:57 PST

Not supporting Windows 2000 sets a very bad precedent. The only reason Chrome doesn't run happily on Windows 2000 is because they added a line of code to detect and refuse to run on it. This is the same as those stupid websites that detect browsers other than IE and refuse to display a page, even though alternative browsers will render it fine.

#9  Steve posted on Feb 06, 2009 10:16 PST

I suspect that win2k is not supported due to DRM and future controlling mechanisms which will rendered useless by 2K and everything below.

It's nothing at all to build for backwards compatibility. W2k being the easiest of them all. If we were talking about W95 A, or win3.0 Then that is a different story.

Chrome developers could simply give a list of Libraries, Controls, COM's that need to be patched or updated for use on 2K. I seriously doubt that problem stems from the 2K kernel.

I work in embedded and know where there is a PDP-11 that still controls a drill. Custom hand built io cards too. The machine works and they have no reason to buy into an upgrade cycle. The same is true for W2K,W98,W95 and W3x. (notice WinME is not listed here) Quite a few people still run numerous flavors of DOS.

#10  Josephine posted on Feb 16, 2009 07:28 PST

You can't use stats on web sites named things like "GoogleChromeIsAwesome-O-SaysCartman.com.

People who have installed Chrome are much more likely to visit. Much better would be to see browser stats of how many people visit CNN, or Google itself, for that matter.

#11  John Sim posted on Mar 15, 2009 21:45 PDT

From what I understand it would be a Windows security API issue, as currently Chrome is being designed to use certain security related XP and above APIs (read DLL) which are not yet available in W2K.

Apparently there is no reason for Chrome not to be compatible with any operating as a MacOS and Linux versions would presumably already be in the making. Either of them will have the Windows XP and above security API available to them.

These operating systems from the ground up have been designed with security in mind, rather then just reaching a large audiences... (see the pattern here?)

If these "new" Windows security features are so vital to Chrome then the Chrome team will have to develop their own version of these new (presumably build in) security features to have them available on any of these non-Windows OS-es, which would also indicate the same could be done for W2K.

My guess is also that these "new" security features are not intended to keep people safe when browsing (as it's the underlying OS itself that is supposed to keep you safe) but rather are needed to restrict/control people that are downloading and playing available multimedia from Google owned/affiliated websites.

The main reason I still use W2K myself is that I still have early P4 systems that would become too slow running the newer versions of Windows.
I do not believe that people should be forced to upgrade the hardware of perfectly good running systems, just so they can support an OS-es graphical features..?

Last time I checked what an "Operating System" is supposed to be is a reasonably secure and stable platform that controls the system's hardware and at the same time is a launching pad for any application you choose to install and run on that it...

The latest Windows version fitting that description would still be W2K, I'm afraid...

#12  Darius_McGinty posted on Mar 20, 2009 02:58 PDT

I, too, am a user of windows 2000. My hardware is actually sufficient enough to support windows XP, and with some minor upgrades Windows Vista, but I absolutely refuse and boycott both OS's. Windows 2k does have some unfinished features (larely due to Microsoft laziness), but overall the OS performs BETTER than windows XP on the hardware for that era. Hardware that, I might add, most people still use. Newer OS's DO have better performance on newer hardware (duh), but this tends to be NEGATED by the increasing visual effects and bloated nature of newer OS's. Test this on games that run on win98, win2k, and winXP. Win98 will actually have the fastest FPS, but is extremely buggy, thus a bad gaming machine. Win2k is the next fastest, and is quite stable, thus a PERFECT gaming machine. WinXP is bloated, "stable", and full of various "protect peopel from themselves" features that most SENSIBLE users can't stand.

I hope that, soon, microshit gets the message. An increasing number of professionals are choosing Linux and Win2k over XP, Vista, and LIKELY windows 7, because they're BLOATED and PROTECT US FROM OURSELVES. To put it concisely: DO NOT WANT. Linux distro's tend to be fairly bloated, and I in fact almost destroyed my machine in frustration in attempting to use linux (even though I knew what I was doing!), but if this shit continues I (and others) will simply make the Linux move regardless.

Fact: Smart people hate Vista (and sometimes winXP).

#13  Paul Taylor posted on Apr 11, 2009 10:46 PDT

Loads of peeps still use win2k its nice and stable. There is no way I will touch vista. May update on 7 but perhaps linux distros will beat

#14  Jim Canale posted on Apr 29, 2009 10:55 PDT

Quote:
the webmaster of surfchrome.com said ...less than 1%(0.72%) of visitors used Windows 2000 to visit

Quote:
last month stats of ChromeFans, only 0.45% used Windows 2000"

WHY SHOULD ANYONE WHO HAS WINDOWS 2000 AND THEREFORE CAN'T INSTALL CHROME, BOTHER VISITING A WEBSITE DIRECTED AT CHROME USERS?

This is like the car dealer who told me he doesn't order any manual shift cars because "no one buys them". Never occurred to him that the people who want manual shift cars are no longer visiting his lot, because he doesn't have any manual shift cars. IS THIS STILL AMERICA?

I was told by a Gillette marketing person the reason they stopped making my favorite menthol shave cream was that 58% of their customers wanted a gel. Three competitors immediately played "follow the leader" and also dropped their menthol shave cream. (Seems as if someone would have wanted the sales....) I'm sure someone in marketing is patting themselves on the back saying how they "predicted" the falloff in shave cream sales.

If you only ask people if they want a banana or an orange, you'll never learn that they prefer apples.

#15  Sud posted on May 13, 2009 10:33 PDT

I am using a Win2k machine after trying xp, me and 98.I think Win2k is one of the stable release from Microsoft.I have also installed Google Chrome and a zip file to make it work and it works!

#16  Jim Canale posted on Jun 30, 2009 13:40 PDT

Quote:
#15 Sud posted on May 13, 2009 10:33 PDT
I am using a Win2k machine after trying xp, me and 98.I think Win2k is one of the stable release from Microsoft.I have also installed Google Chrome and a zip file to make it work and it works!

How did you install Chrome on W2K? Most info I have found on this indicates that people are not having much luck. Do you have a link to a download and some instructions?

Thanks for listening.

#17  pr0fessor posted on Jul 19, 2009 02:16 PDT

i think, google are microsoft assslickers. winxp is based on win2k and they have the same kernel. many programs are not for win2k but if you workaround o.s. check they will run. but here google make premeditated obstacle for win2k

#18  lfields posted on Aug 07, 2009 05:48 PDT

I'm also using Windows 2K and was looking to install chrome. There are a lot more people out here still using Windows 2K then you think, regardless of some people stats. They could have at least did a little modification and release a quick version for Win 2K. Like one poster said if a japanese blogger was able to make the changes to the setup file in 2 or 3 days after its release, no reason why google can't provide a download for 2K users.

#19  Cloud posted on Aug 07, 2009 17:52 PDT

GOOGLE IS EVIL!

#20  google is the new microsoft posted on Aug 08, 2009 23:32 PDT

Google used to be the company that took popular tools supported them with ADs and distributed them for free. They embraced open source and supported mac & linux when MS would try to force you to use windows. Now Google is acting like MS. They are discouraging people from making use of an older more free OS and expect people to go out and buy the newest OS just to use their products.

#21  win2k chrome posted on Aug 08, 2009 23:35 PDT

As a matter of fact it should be easier for Google to create a Windows 2000 version because there are less people using it.

#22  mbrusl posted on Aug 14, 2009 01:56 PDT

I had no problems installing Chrome onto Win2K. It was rather easy and painless. Just follow the instructions in the article from NSpeaks, and you should be set and using the browser. Just remember to reboot after you make the adjustments before installing Chrome.

#23  john posted on Sep 24, 2009 09:23 PDT

hi can anyone tell me if the avg anti viras works with chrome i dont seem to get green ok or red warning signs when surching many thanks john

#24  joe posted on Nov 19, 2009 20:19 PST

Quote:
the webmaster of surfchrome.com said ...less than 1%(0.72%) of visitors used Windows 2000 to visit

Quote:
last month stats of ChromeFans, only 0.45% used Windows 2000"


WHY SHOULD ANYONE WHO HAS WINDOWS 2000 AND THEREFORE CAN'T INSTALL CHROME, BOTHER VISITING A WEBSITE DIRECTED AT CHROME USERS?

OMFG PWNED!

#25  ChromeFan posted on Nov 26, 2009 14:46 PST

I use windows 2000 for quick and dirty installs. No activation. I could use some kind of unix but then everyone would complain. These systems are rebuilt frequenty. How may users are there on google.
0.45% is still probably hundreds of thousands of users.

#26  pink posted on Dec 09, 2009 20:46 PST

i think they should make a google chrome for windows 2000 also and not only windows xp and 7

#27  pink posted on Dec 09, 2009 20:53 PST

does anyone know how i can download and install a Google chrome that actually works on windows 2000? if u do please reply to me