Internet Explorer 8 on Windows 2000

[MrMaguire]

Given the effort that's been put into keeping Windows 2000 alive, would that even be remotely possible?

[submix8c]

Maybe this? I don't know since I haven't tried it yet (the KernelEX)...

http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/149233-kernelex-for-win2000/

 

Um... nope! Go to (Page 5?) starting at post#106. Seems the neither KernelEX for Win9x nor the one for Win2k will work.

[MrMaguire]

I can't even get KernelEx installed on Windows 2000, so I haven't tried that yet.

[ironman14]

I can't even get KernelEx installed on Windows 2000, so I haven't tried that yet.

Not KernelEx (Windows 98/ME). Blackwingcat's extended kernel:

http://blog.livedoor.jp/blackwingcat/archives/1299806.html

Scroll down to the bottom of the page (ver. 24G) and download that. There is also UURollup for Windows 2000, but that hasn't been updated since January. For either one, you need SP4 & update roll up 1 (or USP 5.1).

[MrMaguire]

Okay, I have USP 5.1 installed. And I also have the January daily relase of UURollup "Windows2000-UURollup-v11-d20140103-x86-ENU.7z".

 

I do have the install package for v24b of Blackwingcat's extended kernel "Windows2000-KB935839-v24b-x86-ENU.exe", but it complains about not having an update installed for IE6 that doesn't even exist on 2000. So I don't have that installed.

 

I also have the install package for Blackwingcat's extended core "Windows2000-KB979683-v14c-x86-ENU.exe". If I install that, it just makes Windows unstable.

 

I looked on the linked page, and I couldn't find anything with "ver. 24G" in the name.

 

______

 

 

Also, I'm trying to get Office 2007 installed, so I can use my .docx files without having to create second .doc copies. Do you happen to know where I can download Blackwingcat's Chrome tool? I'm having a hard time finding it.

[bluebolt]

I’m not really competant to guide you here, but perhaps I can offer some (hopefully) useful information, and you can do with it what you will…

 

In terms of finding information on BWC’s site, BlackWingCat has posted that:

     You can find the important files on my blog with the following keyword on Google.

     BM site:jp blackwingcat +  what you want

     for ex) BM site:jp blackwingcat nvidia

 

Use Google Translate with the Google browser (Google Translate using other browsers may be problematic at the present for BWC's site).

_______________________________________________

 

I can’t say what’s best for you, but I notice that tomasz86 seemed to make a specific point of NOT using the Game version of BWC’s kernel.  BWC’s kernel is included in UURollup.  Windows2000-UURollup-v11-d20140103-x86-ENU.7z is the latest Daily, and I think the version included there is v23l.  If I’m not mistaken, the extended core is included as well.  (See the topic Unofficial SP 5.2 for Microsoft Windows 2000).

 

[Tommy]

From what I can tell, IE 8 will NOT run on Windows 2000. Even with using blackwingcat's kernelex updates, it still doesn't have the required ordinals and extensions needed to run. Even if that weren't the case, I doubt it could be installed as it would update the Windows 2000 explorer shell itself. It seems to me I completely broke a Windows 2000 virtual machine install to install even IE7 beta and I couldn't even get into explorer anymore. It might be possible someday down the line with a lot of hard work but with the fact it's not even supported anymore, I doubt it would really make much difference to the standard user. Then again, switched to Windows XP because of that very fact, he needed Internet Explorer 8 for his work or whatever he does. So for him it would be practical but for us, there's Firefox, Pale Moon, Chrome, Iron, Safari, and a bunch of other ones that would work.

 

Also, do NOT mix UURollup with blackwingcat's installers. Despite UURollup using bwc's files, the two aren't compatible. As far as I can remember, you have to use one or the other. I've used UURollup for quite some time but it hasn't been updated in a while with tomasz86 living an extremely busy life, so if you're unlike me who can wait for updates, uninstall UURollup and just go with blackwingcat's KernelEx and Extended Core updates. I haven't tried mixing them but I'm sure it wouldn't be a good idea to do so. I was told by him one time to use one or the other.

Edited May 24, 2014 by Tommy

[MrMaguire]

Well, I managed to screw up my Windows 2000 installation pretty good . So we'll be back after I get things up and running again.

[MrMaguire]

From what I can tell, IE 8 will NOT run on Windows 2000. Even with using blackwingcat's kernelex updates, it still doesn't have the required ordinals and extensions needed to run. Even if that weren't the case, I doubt it could be installed as it would update the Windows 2000 explorer shell itself. It seems to me I completely broke a Windows 2000 virtual machine install to install even IE7 beta and I couldn't even get into explorer anymore. It might be possible someday down the line with a lot of hard work but with the fact it's not even supported anymore, I doubt it would really make much difference to the standard user. Then again, switched to Windows XP because of that very fact, he needed Internet Explorer 8 for his work or whatever he does. So for him it would be practical but for us, there's Firefox, Pale Moon, Chrome, Iron, Safari, and a bunch of other ones that would work.

 

Also, do NOT mix UURollup with blackwingcat's installers. Despite UURollup using bwc's files, the two aren't compatible. As far as I can remember, you have to use one or the other. I've used UURollup for quite some time but it hasn't been updated in a while with tomasz86 living an extremely busy life, so if you're unlike me who can wait for updates, uninstall UURollup and just go with blackwingcat's KernelEx and Extended Core updates. I haven't tried mixing them but I'm sure it wouldn't be a good idea to do so. I was told by him one time to use one or the other.

 

Good advice there, Tommy! Now to go back in time and undo the damage!

[ironman14]

Okay, I have USP 5.1 installed. And I also have the January daily relase of UURollup "Windows2000-UURollup-v11-d20140103-x86-ENU.7z".

 

I do have the install package for v24b of Blackwingcat's extended kernel "Windows2000-KB935839-v24b-x86-ENU.exe", but it complains about not having an update installed for IE6 that doesn't even exist on 2000. So I don't have that installed.

 

I also have the install package for Blackwingcat's extended core "Windows2000-KB979683-v14c-x86-ENU.exe". If I install that, it just makes Windows unstable.

 

I looked on the linked page, and I couldn't find anything with "ver. 24G" in the name.

 

______

 

 

Also, I'm trying to get Office 2007 installed, so I can use my .docx files without having to create second .doc copies. Do you happen to know where I can download Blackwingcat's Chrome tool? I'm having a hard time finding it.

Well, looking at this, Here is the URL for the Chrome tool. You can also use it to install Iron and Komodo Dragon. Here is the URL:

http://blog.livedoor.jp/blackwingcat/archives/360097.html

Hope you can get your Windows 2000 fixed. If you have any important files that can be and haven't been backed up, I'd suggest you do so, Then, completely reinstall Win2K over your crashed PC.

[Flasche]

From what I can tell, IE 8 will NOT run on Windows 2000. Even with using blackwingcat's kernelex updates, it still doesn't have the required ordinals and extensions needed to run. Even if that weren't the case, I doubt it could be installed as it would update the Windows 2000 explorer shell itself. It seems to me I completely broke a Windows 2000 virtual machine install to install even IE7 beta and I couldn't even get into explorer anymore.

 

That is the same thing I was thinking. In my thoughts I thought it would be impossible since IE is intertwined with the OS, so win 2k wouldn't adjust to the changes well.

 

 

but for us, there's Firefox, Pale Moon, Chrome, Iron, Safari, and a bunch of other ones that would work.

 

IE tabs won't work though .

Edited May 25, 2014 by Flasche

[tomasz86]

You'd better forget about IE in Windows 2000 unless you really have to use it (as I do).

 

The furthest you can go is IE6 SP3 using the BlackWingCat's files, and even those files can't be installed directly into the system but rather need to be run from a separate folder.

[MrMaguire]

Thanks to the help and advice, I was able to get everything up and running again. All of my files are on my file server, and this Windows 2000 install is just a test bed. I did try a repair install after I screwed it up, for some reason it wouldn’t go through all the way, so I elected to just do a fresh install instead. This time I’ve installed USP 5.1 and the latest daily UURollup mentioned by me in one of the posts above. Plus the drivers and programmes and stuff.

 

Using the Google trick that blueblot referred to, I was able to find the page for the Chrometool and using Bing Translator (Which worked surprisingly well), and was able to find the download.

 

After that, I followed some instructions in another topic here, and I was able to get Office 2007 installed! It actually works really well. With some minor teething problems from Outlook, I was even able to get that to work with my email account. There is no cleartype though, which definitely makes Office 2007 a little bit harder to look at than it already is.

 

By finding a topic started by Tomasz86 on another forum, I was able to get Firefox 28 installed, and that seems to work perfectly fine with my add-ons and such. Even Java 7 Update 55 and Adobe Flush Player 13.0 install and work.

 

_______________

 

I’m finally starting to understand how exactly the unofficial updates should be installed and used. Until now, I’ve just been guessing because I didn’t know what they all were for. Maybe there should be a guide somewhere (I’m assuming that there isn’t already), to clearly state that in some cases the updates are not completely compatible and may cause problems, and best practices for building new installs with the two sets of updates. I think I know of at least one Windows 2000 user who managed to break their install by applying the unofficial updates in the wrong manor.

 

_______________

 

I have no real reason to use Internet Explorer. No work related dependency, no add-on or web based application or anything like that.

 

However, I really like it. Especially Internet Explorer 8. It has a great user interface. In my obnoxious opinion, Internet Explorer 8 looks exactly like a web browser should. If it won’t run on 2000, it won’t run. I’m probably just going to switch back to Windows XP after I’ve finished experimenting anyway. Sometimes it’s just nice to know that there’s life outside of vmWare Workstation for OS’s that aren’t Windows XP and Windows 7.

[dencorso]

I’m finally starting to understand how exactly the unofficial updates should be installed and used. Until now, I’ve just been guessing because I didn’t know what they all were for. Maybe there should be a guide somewhere (I’m assuming that there isn’t already), to clearly state that in some cases the updates are not completely compatible and may cause problems, and best practices for building new installs with the two sets of updates. I think I know of at least one Windows 2000 user who managed to break their install by applying the unofficial updates in the wrong [manor] manner.

 

With all due respect: The only reason unofficial updates exist is because someone decided to create them or, more usually, port updates intended for other platforms to one that's now unsupported because the software house which created the -- now unsupported -- platform decided (fully within its rights) to stop supporting it, usually after having done so (viz. supporting the said platform) for a real long time, before dropping support, after repeatedly and laboriously warning (ad nauseam) everyone involved. That said, the reason support is dropped is because it's expensive and time-consuming to test -- exaustively enough for release -- every single update that proves to become necessary. So, by their own intrinsic nature, unofficial updates are much less well tested, and, of course, can give problems. It is expected from every user who decides (of his/her own free will) to apply such updates, that he/she take beforehand such measures as reasonably required (viz. making a full, know-to-be-good, backup) before actually applying any such update, in order to be able to recover from any unexpected problem that may arise from having applied such unofficial update. In fact, such preventive measures should ideally be taken even for the case of official updates, actually, although most users never even think about that. But, whatever the user decides to do, in regard to the application of unofficial updates, he/she must always be fully cognizant that, by going ahead and applying them he/she is also stating that he/she is doing it of his/her own free will (and not because anyone said to do it), solely on his/her own responsibility, and that he/she shall stand by this responsibility even if, after applying the unofficial update in question, his/her pc morphs into a purple mushroom and explodes, causing a 10-day worldwide blackout in the process. One's life is his/her own and one's decisions (and sole responsibility) likewise. Else one ought to take the blue pill, instead, and let unofficial stuff well alone.

[tomasz86]

In my opinion the only unofficial package (for Windows 2000) that can be said to be 100% stable is the original Unofficial SP 5.1 released by Gurgelmeyer.

 

When it comes to the newer updates, created by several different people, there simply doesn't exist a large user base for Windows 2000 any more to test such unofficial releases thoroughly enough.

 

In case of the unofficial updates released by myself, I'd say the only semi-stable one is UURollup-v10d. At this point it's rather old and doesn't contain any new files with updated functions, but has been installed and tested in various environments without causing any major issues. Despite all that, there still exist some bugs in it, some of which were reported long after the original package had been released.

All in all, I think it's simply impossible to do proper testing of unofficial updates for Windows 2000. If you decide to use them you should always be aware of possible consequences. Doing a full system backup beforehand is always recommended.