Got the 2.0 today and not working on my w2k machine.
I know MicroS... dropped w2k but this is not a reason for the NON-microsoft developers to drop support for it in their applications.
For the w2k lovers, please keep support for this stable OS! Should be not so difficult.
Please !
What error message do you get??
Richard S.
What error message do you get??
Richard S.
I get this message:
"This application requires Windows XP or later to run"
It's not an error message
Looks like a library bug I cannot see any real reason to drop Windows 2000 support.
Richard S.
I guess something was added to WinXP, and DF 2.0 requires that something.
Anyone knowing how to use a hex editor to try to bypass the warning ?
Does anyone from Piriform monitor these discussions?
I just downloaded Defraggler 2.00.230 (thanks to the review on PCWorld.com) and tried to install it on my Win2K system.
I too get the pop-up...
This application requires Windows XP or later to run
Has anyone gotten this to work on Win2K?
TIA
Yes, Piriform developers monitor all threads, but there is not much more to be said than W2k is not supported. You can download old versions from the official download spot (right hand column, all versions prior to 2.x run on W2K I believe)
Thanks for the download archive location. I pulled down/installed Defraggler 1.21.209, and it's working like a champ!
Thanks again.
I have been informed that The Docs page will be updated to reflect the change in system requirements. I apologize if it caused anyone to be misled
I have been informed that The Docs page will be updated to reflect the change in system requirements. I apologize if it caused anyone to be misled
How big can be the differences between Windows 2000 and XP?
Basically the defragmentation API wich Defraggler uses is the same(or backward compatible)
Why to drop this very robust OS wich is w2k?
I am sure this can be done with a minimum efort if The Team really want this.
There are still others programs to defrag a drive wich don't force you to change your OS to use the newest version.
Sounds like MirkoSloft has inspired most of the programmers to force upgrading, why not to Vista or 7.
Hope this don't apply HERE, so please, TEAM, don't drop w2k, it is still used by 'some guys' and does well his job.
Huge, iIrc Microsoft's defragmentation method changed between Windows 2000 and Windows 2003/XP, as well many of the new features of Defraggler probably do work on win2K. Win2K is an insecure OS and really should not be used any more. Most software has dropped support for it (Zone Alarm sticks in my mind)
Correct me if I am wrong, but the only thing the MS Defragmentation API does is blindly move files to specified locations on the disk; it is entirely up to the Defragmentation program to tell Windows where to move the files [the API does nothing but move files, there are no other features]. Case-in-point the command line version of 2.0 continues to work perfectly fine in Windows 2000.
Which would lead one to believe that there is something trivially wrong with the GUI version which Piriform decided was not worth fixing. If I had to guess the Offline Defrag feature seams like the most likely issue (assuming running custom pre-boot programs is a new feature of Windows XP and up). I really hope if that is the case, Piriform would simply disable that option in the GUI for Windows 2000 machines instead of eliminating support for the platform altogether.
P.S. Great software, love the work that you guys do. Thanks! However I hope that you continue to support Windows 2000, it has huge install base even if it only makes up a small percent of the overall market share.
Microsoft's defragmentation method changed between Windows 2000 and Windows 2003/XP, as well many of the new features of Defraggler probably do work on win2K.
Defraggler had supported Windows 2000 in the past so it seems hard to believe that there is now a compatibility issue using the defragging API.
It seems more likely to be problem with an add-on library used for Defraggler which doesn't support Windows 2000.
Until one of the coders would care to speak up it's still unclear whether dropping Windows 2000 was intentional or not.
Richard S.
Defraggler had supported Windows 2000 in the past so it seems hard to believe that there is now a compatibility issue using the defragging API.
It seems more likely to be problem with an add-on library used for Defraggler which doesn't support Windows 2000.
Until one of the coders would care to speak up it's still unclear whether dropping Windows 2000 was intentional or not.
Richard S.
I think dropping windows 2000 IS INTENTIONAL.
A lot of defragmenters with boot time defrag still work on w2k(Raxco PerfectDisk, Ultradefrag, o&o).
They must use the new VisualStudio wich actually drop w2k support.
@ Nergal
Win2K is an insecure OS and really should not be used any more. Most software has dropped support for it (Zone Alarm sticks in my mind)
Please speak for yourself.
Personally I consider w2k more mature, less resources hungry and bundled with less garbages than XP, Vista or 7.
Just the stuff you need to work with some garbage around.
bump
@ Nergal
Please speak for yourself.
hmmm what I stated was not opinion;it is an insecure Operating System and unsupported by it's creator as of this summer
For ten years after its release, it continued to receive patches for security vulnerabilities nearly every month until reaching the end of its lifecycle on 13 July 2010. . . . It will not receive new security updates and new security-related hotfixes after this date
On top of that it is truth that many softwares will no longer work on it, especially security software (as I mentioned Zone Alarm is one of these).
On top of that you make the ridiculous statement
bundled with less garbages than XP, Vista or 7
When the amount of stuff bundled in windows 2000 was nearly equal to (if not completly the same as) Windows XP, and more than Windows Vista and especially 7 as Microsoft was sued by the EU for the amount bundled. Windows 7 doesn't even include Mail, Messenger, Movie Maker etc, you must either download them sepereatly or your PC manufacturer may have placed them on there for you.
Again nothing I have stated is a "speak for yourself" opinion. It is a fact, just as windows 98 stopped being supported by the majority of programs so did/will Windows 2000.
You cannot use both an old OS and modern applications. People who still think older OSes are better shouldn't complain about not being able to use modern software
Putting aside personal opinions of what a safe, modern or bloated operating system should be. It still remains to be seen that a large number of users use Windows 2000 and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. As one of those people, I think I speak for everyone when I say that it would be greatly appreciated if Piriform were to continue to support the platform.
As I stated above, the command line version continues to work perfectly fine in Windows 2000; there is no deficit in functionality between Windows 2000 or Windows XP when it comes to the program actually performing it's job. Which means support was dropped for something trivial in the GUI version.
But without knowing more, that seams very lazy on Piriform's part. To be clear, Piriform has provided us with some wonderful and _free_ software, they owe me nothing in return. But as a long time advocate for their software, one does form expectations (however misplaced they might be). Hopefully one of the developer will reply with more information, so the matter can be put to rest.
Putting aside personal opinions of what a safe, modern or bloated operating system should be. It still remains to be seen that a large number of users use Windows 2000 and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. As one of those people, I think I speak for everyone when I say that it would be greatly appreciated if Piriform were to continue to support the platform.
Please provide a credible source. Three or four users complaining on support forums does not mean a "large number" of users are still using Win2k. I'd bet those are less than 1% of Piriform users.
Please provide a credible source. Three or four users complaining on support forums does not mean a "large number" of users are still using Win2k. I'd bet those are less than 1% of Piriform users.
I don't really see what relevance that has with the conversation; we have already established part of the user base is affected. Your reply and the previous ones in this thread are simply trolling, isn't there something productive you would rather be doing?