Jody Thornton

Too bad it's not a modern contender, but I feel Windows 2000 Professional would have been PERFECT for such a machine; it would run substantially better than Windows XP Professional, no?

I found it more bloated. I hated v8 and 9. Once I go with Vista x64 next year, I'll just use Lame (WinLAME) to encode MP3s.

There is a download called Multiple IEs which allows you to take the binaries/DLLs of IE 6 and place them in the local program folder for Roxio. I use this to install MusicMatch Jukebox v6x.

If you can get your hands on an HP xw8200 Workstation, I think you'll be pleased. I'll check the specs when I get home, but here's what I basically have. 7 GB DDR 400 MHz RAM (slower but it works well) Two 73 GB U320 SCSI HDDs (each on their own controller) LG Sata DVD-RW Drive Integrated Sound/LAN/USB 2.0 nVidia PCI 6200 Display Adapter (no worries, the system has a PCI-E slot for a more current card, but I'm not a gamer, so the card I have is sufficient for me)

Given the announcement of Windows 8.1 and its supposed inclusion of Internet Explorer 11, I wonder if Windows 7 will also receive an updated IE version as well. Will Internet Explorer 11 run on Windows 7? I haven't seen any announcements.

I was just curious as to what impressions had about what was coming down the pipe. Will the Start Menu return? What are changes are expected? Personally I'm hoping for a re-inclusion of the classic (non-skinned) desktop, but I won't hold my breath.

That's funny. Similarly, I use music automation and sound editing software that works GREAT! on Windows XP x64 Edition, but there is no further support after April 2014. I don't really want to move to Vista (although Vista x64 does run VERY WELL on my Dual Xeon HP machine. I would like to go to Linux or eComstation, but I need to be able to run these applications (Wine and Odin just won't cut it). I really just wish I could keep using Windows XP x64 Edition, or go back to Windows 2000 on some alternate hardware.

Just to revive this thread, I wonder if we are running more native 64-bit applications than three years ago. Here's what I've run natively in 64-bit (I switched to Windows XP x64 Edition in Novemember 2011). Seamonkey 2.17.1 (Unofficial x64 Build) 7-Zip 9.20 Ccleaner 3.28 ByteEssence Registry Cleaner MSE x64 build for Vista/7 (it installs and works in XP x64) I had run uTorrent 3.0 x64, however it's stability was questionable, and I found it slower than the x86 build. I also liked Media Player Classic x64. However, I browse a site often that uses RealMedia to present old radio airchecks (doh!). The site admin refuses to convert the codec to something more modern, so I have to use MPC's x86 build.

I was able to get SeaMonkey v2.9 running as supported under Windows 2000 (so no KernelEx or anything like that). I can't remember offhand what Gecko revision that is, so I don't know what the comparable version of Firefox is.

So just how stable is Windows 2000 with PAE enabled? Will it work well with 8 gb of RAM? I only thought Server Datacenter Edition supported PAE mode. If I boot a 4 gb system without PAE, and then run a browser and mail app; then I boot an equivalent system with PAE and 8 gb of RAM (using the same apps), will there be a performance hit?

And these included CURRENT updates for IE 5? Yes This I have to check out. So what are the oldest browser/OS combinations supported? (I'm at work so I can't check)

Plenty of reading...when I arrive home from work, I'll try it.

And these included CURRENT updates for IE 5?

Where in heck are you getting updates for Windows 2000, let alone Internet Explorer 5x? The updates should have ended in July 2010.

I can respect that, but how long will Opera v10.10 be able to render these pages properly? Plus, I want to render pages properly, not just passably. I suppose XP will be able to support Seamonkey builds for awhile. I can only hope. But at least I have a migration path with either Vista or Windows 7, if that's not the case. As for the person I previously corresponded with regarding Seamonkey vs K-Meleon, I ran K-Meleon v1.6 and 1.7 alphas with one of the several add-ons and user-agent strings. And without proper HTML 5 support, Google Images doesn't work quite right. So even K-Meleon isn't a modern option really. It's too bad too, because I really liked K-Meleon.

Hi dencorso: I was setting up an old machine for my superintendent's brother. He was wanting a machine just use for six months while he saved up to get a new one. He had a Pentium III 400 MHz CPU. I upped it from 256 MB to 512 MB of RAM, and installed a clean copy of Windows ME on it. I used the unofficial SP for Windows ME and the Revolutions Pack v9 to modernize the interface somewhat. For browsing, I installed Seamonkey v1.1.19 (which as far as I know, was the last release to work with Win9x from 2010). And still, there were SO MANY sites that just do not render properly. It may be a small thing, but when I load Google, the two search buttons should be side by side; not one on top of each other and stretched out. Facebook doesn't work properly. Many sites leave the top part of the page blank, leaving you to scroll down to see the actual page. I could go on, but you get the idea. Sure, the OS is lickety-split fast, and the browser loads quickly. But the rendering issues of supported browsers are too much of an issue for most people (and even though I'm usually quite tolerant, I'm fast becoming one of those who just want the site to work). And what of banking online? The site has to be secure, and I would only trust a modern browser to do that. Which means Win9x is simply out. Sadly that will soon mean Windows 2000 as well. As for my being fixated on ensuring I'm on a supported system, once Windows XP goes the way of the operating system graveyard, the browser vendors will stop releasing for XP as well. So I'll need to use Vista or higher; just to have access to a current browser on Microsoft Windows. Is that not correct?

I wonder if it would be easier to setup one with only post-SP3 updates. Everyone should be able to get SP3 on to their installation (SP2 for us x64 folk). Would that not be more productive? Why stock all of the original Post-RTM updates when one service pack will take care of that need?

I placed a thread on the Windows XP x64 forum probing the latter question. I think that updates for the x64 version of Windows Server 2003 would need to repackaged in order to be used for Windows XP x64. But it would be great to use the OS until July 2015. On my second machine, I was using regular 32-bit Windows XP as a simple file server, but I since changed over to Windows Server 2003 so that I could have an additional year of extended phase support. Hopefully, there is a way I could do the same with Windows XP x64. Failing that, I plan to move to Windows Vista x64 Ultimate Edition (my DVD has SP2 integrated) to take me to 2017.

I wrote one to five years for my vote. To be honest though, three of those years were using Windows 3.1 as a Win-OS/2 session. 16-bit apps ran great under OS/2. (Edit: Apparently from reading the thread, I'm not alone. There are other Win-OS/2 users too.)

Found a copy to install onto v3.1 (it looks like Outlook 97 running in Windows NT 3.51). However there is no POP support right out of the box. Interesting to observe anyhow.

I tried the Gavotte RAMDisk and PAE with 32-bit XP initially too. However, I found that XP gave a performance hit. PAE/RAMDisk worked fine when I only used the remaining 512 mb of RAM (of my 4 gb). But once I enabled PAE/RAMDisk with 7 gb of RAM, there was a definite slow down. 64-bit XP Pro is a MUCH more elegant solution.

In a year from now (when extended phase support dies out for my Windows XP x64 Edition), I plan to install Windows Vista x64 Utimate Edition. I have ran a test install for a couple of weeks. I find that, except for the boot logo and Weclome Screen taking twice a long to load, I have managed to tweak Vista x64 to the point that it's besically as fast as XP in Basic Mode, once the desktop appears. In fact it runs REALLY well! I am using an HP xw8200 Workstation with 7 GB of RAM, and two Xeon CPUs at 3.66 GHz.

Is there a better forum where I could have posted this question? I mean no disrepect, but I just want to find out more about these legacy products. This thread has reached a dead end here.

I vote for Seamonkey. It renders modern pages the same as Firefox, thanks to it's Gecko engine revisions. But it's simpler like Netscape was. Seamonkey would be a good bet for MaxImRecoil (except for tabbing which never will, nor should go away.) I run an unofficial x64 build of Seamonkey v2.15 on Windows XP Professional x64 Edition. It makes for a WONDERFUL, yet simple browsing experience.

I am running Seamonkey 2. 13.1 (x64 experimental) on Windows XP x64 Edition (and using an experimental x64 plugin for SumatraPDF). The x86 version of Seamonkey works great on x64 too, and I use the 32-bit version on my older XP notebook PC (running 32-bit)