windows 2000

im looking to purchase a serato unit in the next few weeks but i see that it is win xp, is it compatible with win 2000 or linux as id rather not go xp

Then you'd better go with a Mac, cause I wouldn't press your luck with 2000. I've heard it runs smooth on XP anyway, with better latency.

Scratch LIVE is not compatable with anything less than Windows XP (with SP 1).

I would personally go with a Mac as well IMHO. :-)

can we have a win 2000 compatible version??? i hate xp and im not gonna go spend a grand on a new mac....

Why exactly do you prefer 2000 to XP?

... lol if its all the mario brothers i$h you can turn that off... (i hate it too)... XP is better than 2000 minus the mario stuff :) ...

Can you make drivers for Win2k? It would be great

My system must be "clean". So i choose Win2k. XP is for my dad and my sister. lol

clean? there are ways to keep XP clean also...

Go to www.litepc.com This is how I keep my version of XP clean, and running effecient. I have noticed a increase in stability and speed since I installed it.

xp is a mickey mouse os, designed for my nan.. im a netowrk based user and dont want all the hassles that xp brings.. it would mean running multiple os etc and i realy dont want the hassle.. A product as good as this should be backward compatiple... Josh. it would be realy appreciated if you guys can look into this. And stop me buying final scratch!!!!!!

beardie you are digging your own grave... dont buy FS... that would be cool if they made a win2k update but i wouldnt hold your breath and it would be much MUCH less of a hassle to just switch to XP opposed to going with FS...

think of it this way XP can do all the things 2k can do... you just have to clean xp up a bit more...

at this point you can either go through the hassle of upgraing to xp or create a prepetual hassle for yourself and buy FS... better to go through the hassle once rather than buying a CHEAP Mp3 interface for your turntables... and buy cheap i mean CHEAP FS is the most ill designed crap, honestly stanton couldnt design their way out of a wet paper bag...

XP Pro is better than 2000 for heavy networking, trust me on this one :)

I strongly agree with radish.

Scratch LIVE will never run on Windows 2000, it is an old operating system that is no longer supported by its manufacturer, and offers no advantages over XP.

Although XP looks like it should be called "Playskool My First Operating Sytem", you can actually turn off that ghastly window treatment and make it look like Win2k, then I think you'll find it is not only much more stable, but also the networking is much more reliable. Still not "good" but definitely "better".

then you should probably be running a breed of unix... but that has nothing to do w/ SL

ok guys let me get this straight, i will upgrade to xp if nes. but it means running a whole additional os just for serato, i am currently running gentoo linux and win2k and im happy with that.. i just dont understand why only xp is avaliable and the product is not backward compliant.. i love everything that rane have ever built and im not seriously going to buy a fs. if nothing else its the 5gb install and security issues.. xp is a home user os and win2k is for networking.. im just very dissapointed that such a good quality product with such good ongoing support is lacking in this... please guys can we have win2k?????????????????????????????????????

If w2k is not supported by MS anymore it will be of little use to port it to that, it won't run on newer hardware anyway. XP is not that bad when you strip it down and use it dedicated for your music apps only :)

there is a pro version of xp that might be more suited more for you and your needs... and I'm pretty sure that xp only swells to 2 gb on install... I agree with you ther are security issue but you as the operator of the computer have the power (well at least i hope seeing as you are 'network based'... as am I) to fill in the holes - Xp can be made to be just as secure as 2000... but probably not as secure as 'nix unless you do some serious shutting down of services ;) ... I seriously think its worth it... other than that im not sure what to tell you xp _IS_ definatly better than 2000... I mean its not like your gonna be instant msg'n and writing emails on this machine while spinning @ a club... or are you that high tech that you are needing to secure shell somewhere wile @ the club?

how is this an ongoing support issue? never has it been said that ssl would run on w2k. i would much rather have the developers spending their time making updates and squashing bugs as opposed to re-writing code to be backward compatible with a 5 year old os that isn't even supported by the manufacturer.

The only difference are tools for user managment etc. The kernel and performance is the same.

To make XP safe disable the network/WIFI card in the BIOS :-)

could a moderator confirm that there WILL not be win2k compatibility??

AJ already did confirm this in this thread on sept 15!

sorry yes i should have re-read the thread.. can i have one more answer please (mods). is this because it wont work with win2k or because there are no plans to make it compatible?

I think it would be possible to make it work but the amount of work involved and the fact that windows 2000 has been compromised by leaked source code and is no longer supported by microsoft mean that it's just not viable.

The way I interpret AJ's answer
Is that it is possible but pointless. Like porting it back to Win 3.11 :-)

thnx josh. i presumed this would be the case. Can i put in a personal request that win2k options are made avaliable or a linux version at some point in the software development program.

Yes you can, but the answer is no. I can say for absolute certain that there is no way we will ever release Scratch LIVE for Win2k. I realise that you are not happy about upgrading, however rewriting scratch live to work for Win2k would be far too much work for no gain whatsoever.

I realise you believe that Win2k is a better operating system than XP, but I am afraid you have been misinformed. I will be very surprised if you can name anything that win2k can do that is not possible in XP. The networking in XP has actually been improved over win2k.

XP is the next version of Win2k, it is not a separate operating system, it is the next version:
Win2k = NT5
XP = NT5.1

Some things were borrowed from the win98/ME family to make it better for games and multimedia etc, but XP was built on top of NT and 2k. Get Windows XP Pro, and try it out. Turn off the disgusting bubble windows that make it look stupid, and use it for a while. Try green eggs and ham, I am sure you will like it.

why would anyone want to stick with an older OS? win2k is going on at least 5 years old now. that's half a decade which is more or less eternity in computer years.

i have friends who work in IT and they've found XP to be even faster than 2k on the same hardware.

Right then....

I work in IT (have done for over 10 years) and I run a large IT department for a massive blue-chip company here in the UK and until very recently i to was an "XP hater".

But after installing it solely for the purposes of SSL and locking it down and stripping the "fisher-price" standard gui out using the instructions provided on this site - I can safely say that XP rocks.

I to run a networked setup at home (10+ pcs and a couple of compaq servers)and after using the stripped down XP for a while i came to the conclusion that it is better than win2k...hands down. I've just re-done all my machines at home to use XP and they are all fine.

** Just remember to get hold of a copy of XP pro, cause the home edition is totally awful and trying to connect it to anything else is a right nightmare.

...rant over :)

lol :)

I found it more like a "TeleTubbie" GUI :-)

i would say more of a mario brothers GUI =)

ROTFL :) Y'all rock...

how about a linux build???????????????????????????

I would really like that but I guess chances are low on that....

Extremely low. Close enough to zero as to be indistinguishable from this distance.

:-)

Better spend the time adding nice new features to SSL. Mac OS X is *nix anyway... When I can afford it one day I might switch to Mac.

shame once again!

Hi, just read this thread. It is too bad that this can't be ported to win2k. There are a lot of potential users (including me!) that don't own XP and don't want to shell out the money for it in order to run SSL. Even though 2000 is older, it still runs on a heck of a lot of machines (I wouldn't be surprised if win2k market penetration was higher than XP, actually).

In terms of security, an older, time-tested OS is sometimes more secure than a newer one. Remember Win98 when it first came out, supposedly as a more secure version of 95? The source code leak for 2000 may have actually improved security, since more of the exploits can be identified when more people see the source code, whereas XP has many that are waiting to be found. That's the whole principle behind why an OS like linux can be open source and very secure at the same time.

As the moderator AJ mentions, XP is simply a newer revision of the same OS, and many of the DLLs, compilers, etc, are similar, so the port to win2k isn't as difficult or costly as a port to, say, a brand new OS.

MS still supports 2000 for its consumers and its developers. And a lot of people use it. I know I'm not rushing to go out and buy XP anytime soon, but I'd love to buy SSL, looks like a great product :)

win2k is phasing out quickly. I prefer the SSL developers to spend their time developing new nice features as supporting another OS! win2k is similar to XP but has its own issues and to get everything running flawless will be a lot of work. (it's a MS product :)

Getting SSL to run on Palm OS would be great :D Although the current Palms are probably not strong enough ;)

Just to sort out a few things
Windows 2K is practically non-existant in the home market due to the lack of a home version, the prefered OS for home OEM PCs during that time was the awful ME.
Current stats show XP to make up 60% of the entire computer market with 2K holding 23.5%
2K is mostly used by businesses with IT units stuck in the dark ages and afraid of change. When I'm forced to use a windows 2K machine I feel like I've stepped back in time.
Microsoft have long stopped selling windows 2K and support will be retired on 30th June this year.
For these reasons, a port to windows 2000 makes no sense what so ever.

Thanks for your comments. Win2k is used in my home, not XP, so there's at least one reason why it might have made sense to port it. I'm sorry you feel like you've "stepped back in time" when you use 2000. Far and away, businesses still use 2000 for server-side computing over XP in my experience. But we're talking about the home market for SSL, and I think you're right that XP dominates there. It's a shame that SSL is XP-dependent; I guess it's just the drivers?

XP isn't a server OS, where I work all our servers run 2003 (apart from the linux/unix ones). Expect to see no support for 2000 for new versions of all software from July. As soon as a new version of .NET comes out 2000 will be done for.

who's your employer? it's obvious you haven't worked at a large corporate company before. i have a group of friends that work in IT at huge organization and they'll tell that changing over to a new OS is a very time consuming process, not to mention expensive. when you go live to a new OS, that means new licenses for each desktop. for a company with, say, 5000+ laptops and desktops to get everyone on the same page, that's a huge and expensive undertaking. as with any OS, proprietary programs the company might use (such as logistics software) might break on a new OS and that needs to be tested. supporting 2 OSes is also twice as much work. supporting the latest and greatest for the end user is not always possible or pratical and it doesn't help microsoft's "forced upgrade or you get no support" options don't help the cause either.