Jump to content
CCleaner Community Forums
Portos

v2.0 NOT for windows 2000 ?

Recommended Posts

 

 

By pointing out that the user I asked to stop trolling is long-standing member on the forum, I assume that implies that you share some sort of history with him and as a Moderator grant him immunity when it comes to enforcing rules and forum etiquette (even to the point where it appears you are now defending his behavior). To allow abrasive users to run amok on the forums, and then reproach those very users who are following the rules and trying defuse flame bait / trolling situations, creates a hostile forum that nobody wants to participate on. It reflects badly on you, as not being an impartial Moderator and Piriform as not being in control of what is going on it's own forum.

 

 

 

I think you have said enough now to warrant receiving a warning. I will not 'allow abrasive users to run amok' so you are banned from posting for 5 days.

 

If you still consider this forum a hostile place for members after 5 days then you do not have to post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The developers of Defraggler are not supporting it now (although you can still download a Defraggler version that does)

Is this fact or just a general assumption because the software no longer works on Windows 2000??

 

It's just I don't recall reading anywhere here on the forum or website that development for Windows 2000 has been dropped by Piriform.

 

Richard S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The devs have not really said on forum Richard but given the fact that it doesn't seem to work anymore from the GUI, and support has finished from M/S for the operating system, it seems to be a general assumption.

 

This is one of the times I wouldn't mind being wrong mainly for the people who still use Win 2000.

 

Although Nergal did post this which makes it seem a done deal

 

http://forum.piriform.com/index.php?showtopic=30281&view=findpost&p=182917

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will not 'allow abrasive users to run amok'....

 

Good for you, Hazelnut. Everywhere I look, someone is running amok.

Can't we give those poor amoks a breather? 1.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to correct a few misconcsptions:

 

1. I don't know how many people still use Win2K, but we certainly do (along with XP, Vista, Win7, and until not long ago Win98SE). I came here today after discovering that Defraggler no longer supported it, and looked around the Piriform site for quite a while for a link to v1.21 before eventually landing here and finding one (you might consider listing old versions somewhere easier to find, as many sites do).

 

2. The reasons why people use older systems are many and varied. Some do so to run applications which no longer run well on newer systems. Others may not appreciate Microsoft's 'activation' mechanisms. And I suspect quite a few simply don't see any need to upgrade something that's still meeting their needs and/or might even have difficulty affording to.

 

3. Whether Win2K (even Win9x) is 'insecure' really depends upon the environment in which it's executing. It's certainly not insecure if not connected (directly or indirectly) to the Internet - even without the robust current anti-virus/anti-malware applications which still support it. It's actually just about as secure when connected to the Internet as XP, Vista, or Win7 if it has those applications in place and is sitting behind a hardware NAT router (our Win2K systems are still in heavy use in this configuration and it has literally been close to a decade since any malware was even detected let alone actually managed to run, and no, we aren't careful about where we surf though we are careful about what we explicitly download and run - the main potential threat for an OS that's no longer being updated).

 

So while there's no legitimate reason for people like me to DEMAND that Piriform continue to support this system, the reasons that some of its defenders have advanced for not doing so reflect more their own ignorance (and knee-jerk reaction to perceived criticism) than anything else. If there's no significant reason to drop support for older systems in the future, I hope you'll think twice about doing so arbitrarily.

 

 

Edit: Whoops - meant to ask whether the v1.21 portable version is also available somewhere (didn't see it at FileHippo).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoops - meant to ask whether the v1.21 portable version is also available somewhere (didn't see it at FileHippo).

What you can do is extract the version from file hippo (either run the installer or use 7zip and right click the setup exe and choose "open inside") and use the old portable.dat (or create a portable.dat see below)

If you run the in installer navigate to the folder un installed defraggler into

copy everything (except the uninstaller "unist.exe" ) to the portable folder of your choice

then (if you don't have a portable.dat) open windows notepad

and paste the following into it

#PORTABLE#

next save as

change text file (*.txt) to all files (*.*)

and name it Portable.dat

save this file in the portable folder

finally open defraggler go to options and Uncheck "Automatically check for updates to Defraggler"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there's no significant reason to drop support for older systems in the future, I hope you'll think twice about doing so arbitrarily.

 

What more reason does one need than to reduce development & testing time by dropping support of legacy Windows in future releases? The version 1 software still works as well as it did before, why not keep these old systems stable and stop upgrading the utititlies (and presumbably they've worked well enough for almost 10 years now or the OS would have been upgraded long ago).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have commented on this subject before however I have more to say.

 

I am responsible for maintaining computers running different operating systems. I still have some Windows 2000 computers on my system. These remain on my system mostly because they are used to perform a specific task that does not require the use of a newer PC or operating system. I.E. one of these Windows 2000 computers is used for an intrusion detection device located outside our firewall. Windows 2000 actually works better than the newer MS operating systems for this specific function.

 

With that said there are options with Windows 2000. If you do some research there are other free defragmenting programs that still work with Windows 2000. However, I find it completely acceptable to continue to use the older version of Defraggler on my older Windows 2000 computers. It isn't as though the older versions were crap.

 

One last thing. Defraggler is a FREE program. Should we really be getting so upset that a newer version of a FREE program no longer supports an older operating system? Last time I checked, I was not out one penny when the new version of Defraggler was released.

 

I am thankful for this free program, both the new and old versions.

 

Keep up the good work

 

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are still others programs to defrag a drive wich don't force you to change your OS to use the newest version.

Indeed there are and some even support back to Win95/Win98, i.e.; "WinAll". With so many free defrag tools available just search a freeware download site for a suitable replacement if you want one that's currently up-to-date for your Win2K OS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

In my experience for every reader or post one might see on a board such as this - there are likely 10s or 100s that are in the same boat but do not post.

 

This was a decision Piriform made.

 

Still considering that there are alternatives still supported then this thread can best be utilized by readers if over time those still requiring a Win2K version to comment on their experience with other systems and hopefully the 2nd best alternative to using Defraggler for a Win2K system can be arrived at.

 

My take.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my experience for every reader or post one might see on a board such as this - there are likely 10s or 100s that are in the same boat but do not post.

 

This was a decision Piriform made.

 

Still considering that there are alternatives still supported then this thread can best be utilized by readers if over time those still requiring a Win2K version to comment on their experience with other systems and hopefully the 2nd best alternative to using Defraggler for a Win2K system can be arrived at.

 

My take.....

 

 

To bad, the current version doesn't support windows 2000. I too have this OS and was trying to update it from the one around June 2010. I just downloaded the last one supported for w2k as v1.21.209. I also have all of these OS', W2K, XP, Vista, Win7 and MACOS. Moreover, non-of my computers are connected to the internet so security issues aren't a big issue. They are used for old and new application development and interoperability testing for apps that need to work together in a multi-MSoft OS environment. Now, for Unix and Linux... that is a different issue and piriform doesn't support the Unix's.

 

Be aware that piriforms'other software products still support to this day windows 2000. I.E. Recuva, and CCleaner thank god!! Just not, Defraggler. Hmmm.....!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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)

 

i have downloaded this last 1.version of defraggler, there is a filefolume of 4,04 mb, but really does only 1,9 mb! is this defekt? how can over 2 mb lost? is this the correct file of this version 1.21?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×