Ross, Alwin is mostly correct, but he does not note that MS will stop providing updates for W2K in 2010. That will force most remaining W2K users onto XP or Vista (or a server version of them), or out of the Windows world entirely. Hardware drivers for W2K is already a problem, as are software updates.
Furthermore, the Chromium team has said that Chrome needs features not present in W2K. You need to understand that Chrome is currently dependent on proprietary Microsoft code in the form of libraries. Google has stated their intention to make Chrome run on Linux and the Mac, but that has not been done yet, presumably because the proprietary MS libraries are only available for XP and Vista. When there is a Linux version, it will probably be relatively easy for any developer to adapt that version to W2K. It may be feasible to adapt the Linux code to providing missing functionality to the MS W2K libraries, or it may be possible to provide equivalent Linux functionality from W2K. The kernels of all three hosts are similar, but Chrome currently uses higher level facilities extensively. MS does not provide the source that utilizes kernel functions, but presumably the Linux version of Chrome will. In fact, the difference between W2K and XP is slight, but that is not to say the specific differences are not significant for Google. If you want a W2K version of Chrome, you may be able to simply disable those features that depend on XP or Vista. The following thought may comfort you. As Alwin points out, Google is making an alternative browser, and one that may be used as a platform for applications. This is a strategic threat to MS because Chrome can potentially replace the Windows desktop as the UI that consumers use most. With that in mind, do you think that MS may correct some bugs in those proprietary libraries and just happen to make Chrome fail? I think the Chromium team made a mistake in rushing to get a beta Chrome on the street when they used proprietary MS code to do it. If you want to doubt what is said, doubt that support will ever materialize for Linux and the Mac because all three could have been supported from the beginning if Chromium were designed as a common core with three wrappers for the host OS. Instead, Google has used proprietary libraries to circumvent apparently large parts of the XP and Vista wrappers. However, I think the Chromium team has the right to make the decisions they did. If MS cripples Chrome at a critical time, their wisdom may seem dim. But if they follow through and produce a truly open source version for Linux, then I think they will have fulfilled their commitment. If you really want a W2K version, you can make it yourself, so Google has no obligation to support any more host OS than they chose to. Ken On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 15:20:38 -0300, alwin wrote: >Apart from the fact that it's difficult just to figure out what you >exactly mean, the parts that I do understand make no sense at all. >From what I understand you're saying that Google is siding with MS >because they aren't supporting Win 2k... Well that's just nonsense for >the following reasons (among others): > >- Google is making a browser that directly competes with Microsoft >- Google's browser will also run on Mac and Linux >- The choice to not support Win2k was most likely based on the fact that: > - The Win2k userbase is <5% > - Win2k doesn't have support for some of the security features in Chromium > - Including support for Win2k would mean Google needs to spend >much more money on testing and development > - Perhaps some of the libraries that Chromium depends on are also >no longer supported on Win2k, and backporting them would take even >more time/money. > >So just shut up and either stop using Windows 2000, and install some >decent operating system (like Ubuntu) ;-) or just don't use Google >Chrome. > >Or at least stop inventing stupid conspiracy theories. > >On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 12:11 PM, burgersoft777 ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> >> So are we saying it doesn't work on 2k or that it wasn't designed to >> work on 2k. I can appreciate that some of the code that is being used >> is hidden from users and >> for that matter developers, but that should not have been used as an >> excuse to breach the trust of 2k purchasers by MS's removal of support >> 2 years early. The fact is 2k users have been sold short by the Bears >> of the cartel. The fact that Google sides with the bears is reason to >> promote a deal of distrust from the 2k user base. >> Fact win2k has had value removed by this sharks breakfast of an >> interpretation of their License. MS may be the no1 villain of the play >> but Goggle is starting to look very like its Masters lapdog. >> >> > >> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chromium-dev" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
