You are here: Home > Google Chrome Tutorial

Why is Google Chrome browser not compatible with Windows 2000?

October 03, 2008 19:14 PDT

Posted by Andrew.

Google Chrome is released on Sep 02, 2008, it is available for only Windows XP and Vista. Why is Google Chrome browser not compatible with Windows 2000?

Lots of people still have Windows 2000. Some people have Windows XP or Vista at home, at work it is Windows 2000, - corporate users are much more conservative. Some people use Windows 2000 because they don't like the look of Windows XP. they prefer the classic Windows Logo, and the classic theme.

Why is Windows 2000 not supported?

I think perhaps because:

Why is Google Chrome browser not compatible with Windows 2000
  1. Today is 2008.
  2. Windows 2000 Server's mainstream support ended June 30, 2005. While extended support will be available until July 13, 2010.
  3. We are already going from Windows XP sp3 to Vista, and the next OS is being designed.
  4. Update: On the comment #1, the webmaster of surfchrome.com said that's less than 1%(0.72%) of visitors used Windows 2000 to visit his site last month. I just checked last month stats of ChromeFans, only 0.45% used Windows 2000:
    • Windows XP: 62.54%
    • Windows Vista: 21.95%
    • Mac OS : 1.63%
    • Windows 2003: 1.05%
    • Windows 2000: 0.45%

    only 0.45% used Windows 2000

If you want to download Google Chrome on Windows 2000, there is an article from NSpeaks: Google Chrome on Windows 2000/2k? Works with my method. You can also try Portable Chrome version.

Other resources of Google Chromes



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

#2  posted on October 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  posted on October 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  posted on October 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  posted on October 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  posted on October 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  posted on November 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  posted on December 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  posted on February 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  posted on February 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  posted on March 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  posted on March 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  posted on April 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  posted on April 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  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  posted on June 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  posted on July 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  posted on August 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  posted on August 07, 2009 17:52 PDT
GOOGLE IS EVIL!

#20  posted on August 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  posted on August 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  posted on August 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  posted on September 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  posted on November 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  posted on November 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  posted on December 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  posted on December 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

#28  posted on May 23, 2010 04:53 PDT
I don't think you can install chrome on win 2K.
to be honest, I do not see a reason to do so.

#29  posted on May 26, 2010 09:16 PDT
as far as i know and i agree with the comment above you can not install chrome on win 2K

#30  posted on June 09, 2010 13:48 PDT
The reason is quite simple. Just divided in two:
1.A chunk of computer users prefer W2k over XP, Vista and 7.
2.A chunk of internet users want to try Chrome, or already tried (in someone else's machine) and liked it.
That's all.

I prefer w2k myself because it's lighter, easier to config and more stable than the newer Windows. I tried XP a couple times throughout the years (and SPs), and always reverted to 2k in horror... What I read from Vista users didn't encourage a try either. I ended up not very curious about 7.
And we have a couple serious options on browsers. I like Firefox, don't like Opera, and really would like to try Chrome. Why shouldn't I? Why would Google not want me to?

And, if it's deliberately blocked by a single OS-check, it's quite of a shame. More: if a blogger can do it in a couple days, it's more still of a shame.

C'mon, guys! Internet is for all! Let's quit this Microsoft mind!
Best regards,
Emerson

#31  posted on November 08, 2010 22:24 PST
Although everything about this browser is great i abandoned the use of it just for the simple reason of it CRASHING too OFTEN.Back to Avant which I used to use.

#32  posted on November 20, 2010 11:28 PST
i think AVG works with chrome...i don't seem to have a problem

#33  posted on December 07, 2010 05:33 PST
No win2k version, they can keep it. And they can keep their stinking google, too. It just keeps getting worse and worse.

#34  posted on January 13, 2011 18:50 PST
Well, Chrome turned out to be awesome! I love it.

#35  posted on January 24, 2011 15:27 PST
People who post that XP is bloated are so horribly wrong, I have run win xp on a 64mb machine with a Pentium 2 and it worked wonders, Ive been using xp since it came out and i believe its the best os ever made, either you dont have atleast 64mb of ram to run xp or your to blind to figure out that xp is better. Its a matter of being smart NEVER TOUCH WINDOWS VISTA its horrible and microsofts big fail, Windows 7 is much better and can run on 512mb of ram easily, XP is the best and it can run even under 32mb of ram. I currently have 3 pcs running xp, these are all their specs:

Oldest pc:
Pentium 2 @233mhz
64mb of ram
5gb of hd
8mb of graphic memory

Medium end pc:
AMD Sempron Single core @2.7ghz
Asrock n-68s
1gig of ram ddr2 @1066mhz
128mb Nvidia GEForce 7025
30gb of hd

GAming pc:
Asrock 880gmh
4 Gigs if ram ddr3 @2000mhz
AMD Radeon HD6970 2gigs gddr5
1.8tb of hd WD Velociraptors @10,000rpm 600gb e/a
AMD Phenom X6 1090T Black Edition @4.150ghz

All of them have XP Home, exept the gaming pc it's windows xp gamer. And i must say it runs wonderfully on all of them. Win2k is too old, you need to learn how to upgrade, atleast try XP then talk. All my XP instalations idle at 69mb of ram and it runs beutifuly, no crashes, no freezes, and no inestablity.

#36  posted on April 20, 2011 01:23 PDT
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.

#37  posted on May 25, 2011 13:22 PDT
The primary solution to these issues is system optimization.
Unfortunately, Windows built-in tools are not efficient enough to fully optimize computer's performance. Therefore computer experts recommend installing specialized software to scan the system and fix all issues.

#38  posted on May 30, 2011 16:18 PDT
Google chrome rules! Internet explorer is just old and rusty nowadays. I rather have a fast simple browser like chrome as a more fancy but slower one.

#39  posted on June 19, 2011 04:23 PDT
Windows 2000 is dead so don't worry about not supporting Chrome.

#40  posted on July 20, 2011 01:04 PDT
Google chrome rules! Internet explorer is just old and rusty nowadays. I rather have a fast simple browser like chrome as a more fancy but slower one.

#41  posted on July 20, 2011 01:05 PDT
Google chrome rules! Internet explorer is just old and rusty nowadays. I rather have a fast simple browser like chrome as a more fancy but slower one.wtf

#42  posted on August 02, 2011 20:27 PDT
@joost
IE SUCKS!

My site doent even support ie.

#43  posted on September 10, 2011 09:11 PDT
That is pure nonsense.

The reason that win2K is not supported is because the supreme court refused to hold Microsoft accountable for its antitrust activities.

In particurlar, most software is written using MS Visual C.

Every time VC is upgraded, it is upgraded in a way that makes WIN2k more obsolete.

The ONLY way to make sure the same thing does not happen to XP or Vista or 7 is to REFUSE to buy any software written using MS VC.

#44  posted on October 17, 2011 08:21 PDT
Windows 2000 is the best for me by far. It's lighter, easier to config and more stable than the newer Windows.

#45  posted on January 02, 2012 18:08 PST
Windows 2000 is fundamentally the same thing as Windows XP. Microsoft is trying really hard to make it obsolete even though they were only released about a year apart. I think the reason is because of the WGA crap that's in XP. It's why I won't use it and why I'm still using Windows 2000 today. There's a Japanese blogger "blackwingcat" google it, he has made a couple hacks to make programs work under windows 2000.

#46  posted on January 04, 2012 12:28 PST
This is total BULLCRAP! I use Google on Win 7 & XP, but it won't install (as with some other apps) on Windows 2000 Pro, although it's the most maintenance free OS that I have. And uses the least amount of space (12GB) on my hard drive.

I know that Windows 2000 users are less than 1% of Windows users (in the US), but that still amounts to hundreds of thousands of users. Many of the leading AV companies still supports the OS.

Google should make their browser available to Win 2K users, they do with Linux, which also amounts to a small portion of the total computing base.

Shame on Google! This is the same as MS won't allow IE9 installs on XP.

Cat

#47  posted on January 04, 2012 13:15 PST
And my I add, Firefox & Opera both allows Windows 2000 users to install the very latest versions of their browsers. There may be others, but as far as I know, only Google's Chrome & Apple's Safari won't install on Windows 2000.

I'll try the portable version, since I have a dedicated flash drive for PortableApps.

There's other software that won't run on Windows 2000 that I can run in this manner. Every PC user needs PortableApps for this very reason.

Cat

#48  posted on January 21, 2012 13:07 PST
i use win2k i hate Windows Xtra Problems and linux and 7 love vista though just becouse someone dont like an os dont mean it bad whats bad about it when u have an os u love but either software or hardware manifatures require to upgrade to an os that u dont want to in order to use it. To me i have more luck with 98 2k and vista than all other oses combined

#49  posted on March 03, 2012 05:33 PST
That is a terrible argument given in chromes response. It covered only the number of users they believe are still using w2k, and even their measure of that number is less than suspect. They made no mention of how hard it would be to get chrome to work on w2k. I believe they failed to mention it because it would be easily proven false, even they mention a work around and post the link. I think they are just bending over and taking it because Microsoft wants w2k to die. Chrome is not supporting a version for w2k because Microsoft wants that...they simply have no other reason. FF can be lean and always easier on the eyes(dark themes for those computing in the dark). Love my w2k running FF10.0.2 only checking chrome at friends reqest. I thinking chrome would have gotten with things by letting it work with w2k and offering a dark theme...no such luck :/

#50  posted on July 03, 2012 11:09 PDT
Google chrome rules! Internet explorer is just old and rusty nowadays. I rather have a fast simple browser like chrome as a more fancy but slower one.

#51  posted on August 16, 2012 01:39 PDT
Google, why do you spam me to try Chrome only to
turn around and refuse to install it on the same OS?
Think much?

#52  posted on August 25, 2012 13:39 PDT
I run W2k over XP because I have found it to be 40% to 200% faster on the same hardware for the applications I run. Why should I have to keep upgrading my hardware due to bloatware for the same performance. All that extra GUI I don't need. Having Google Chrome compatible with W2k would stop Microsofts conspiracy to increase their revenue by forcing the internet to IE8 and users to upgrade their OS to run it. Having Chrome compatible with W2K would definitely be nice for browsing the changing internet and help break Microsoft's 23% hold on the world browser market. Over 10% of the world IE market is still running IE6. Wake up Google Chrome, opportunity knocking.

#53  posted on November 20, 2012 23:55 PST
I'm still using Windows2000Pro simply due to cost reasons. When you live paycheque to paycheque and most of your income is going to rent, I cannot afford to upgrade my PC. I'm probably not alone in this regards (I live in the second most-expensive city in regards to rent vs. income in North America) as people either get richer or poorer and the middle class disappears.

#54  posted on November 21, 2012 09:47 PST
I agree with DSC. #1:I can not afford to update my Windows 2000Pro OS whenever Microsoft wants to make more money. #2:I am comfortable with what I have #3: don't want to learn something new. ... have been using Firefox and am tired of their pop-ups telling me to update. Then, when I try to update flash or whatever am advised my OS is old, I should update. ... My house was built in the 1850's and it's doing just fine. I have 'dressy' shoes I still wear that I bought 30 years ago and they're just fine. My car is 15 years old and doing just fine. ... I LUV Windows 2000 Pro and will continue to use it for as long as I can. It's deplorable that "old" things are tossed out just cuz someone wants to make $$.

Leave your comment
If you want to leave your comment on this article, simply fill out the next form:
Name: * Requirement
E-mail: Optional (won't be published)
Website / Blog: Optional
Are you a human? For anti spammer, please calculate following expression:
1 x 2 + 5 = * Requirement
Comment:
* Requirement
You can use these tags:
[b] Text [/b]: Bold text
[quote] Text [/quote]: Quote text

Social News