Windows 2000 - 1.1.11 killed by attempting update to 2.0.3

[Andy2No]

What's the most recent version of VLC that ran in Windows 2000, and how do I get it? All I see is a set or .tar files containing the source. I don't really want to have to deal with all that. Is there anywhere to download the .exe?

I had 1.1.11 and tried to update it to 2.0.3. I looked for information about system requirements before I tried updating but didn't see any, so I went ahead. I told it not to uninstall the old version, when asked. That didn't help though because it just overwrote it.

I've read in this forum that older versions are not considered to be secure. Where does that leave users of Windows 2000? Are we just supposed to stop using it?

[Rémi Denis-Courmont]

I've read in this forum that older versions are not considered to be secure. Where does that leave users of Windows 2000?

Windows 2000 is insecure since Microsoft stopped issuing security updates.

Are we just supposed to stop using it?

You'd have to ask Microsoft. I guess you are supposed to upgrade.

[edwardw]

What is exactly the problem with running VLC 2.0.3 on Windows 2000?

If it's API problems you can try http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/120936-kdw-fcwin2k/ - although I can't test it since I no longer have Windows 2000 installed

[Andy2No]

The problem is it doesn't run on Windows 2000. It gives a procedure entry point error, which is a classic sign of only supporting XP or later - calling functions in the kernel that never exited in Win2k, I guess.

I found an installer for 1.1.11 and put it back, so I can't give the specific error message at the moment. If necessary, I guess I could repeat the process.

[Andy2No]

Windows 2000 is insecure since Microsoft stopped issuing security updates.

Are we just supposed to stop using it?

You'd have to ask Microsoft. I guess you are supposed to upgrade.

I was talking about older versions of VLC being considered insecure, and asking whether users of Windows 2000 were just supposed to stop using VLC, since 2.x doesn't work in Windows 2000.

I'm well aware of Microsoft's take on Windows 2000. Supporting it isn't in their financial best interests, so they expect us all to pay for a new shiny, slightly less stable operating system that needs more RAM to do the same things, and with a user interface that reminds me of a children's TV show (called The Tellytubbies).

[edwardw]

The Tellytubbies

Did you try the MSFN link I mentioned above?

In other news:
If you like the ability to customize your desktop appearance I would recommend you try out Linux.

[Andy2No]

I didn't, but I have now. I thought you were linking to a version of VLC. It looks a bit scary, but I'll look into it. It could be useful. Thanks.

I've used Linux for work - setting up a webserver and a fileserver, but I've never really been tempted to use it on my own PC. Most of the software I want to use was written for Windows. I'm not ruling it out for the future, but recent releases of Linux seem to expect a fairly impressive PC to run them on. Windows 2000 works fine on anything newer than a 486.

I have Windows 7 on my other PC, and it's okay, but there's lots of things that don't support it properly, and I wonder if that will ever be fixed, or if it will just be abandoned in favour of another version of Windows. I can't even print from Windows 7 because there aren't any drivers available for my print server.

Although people see Win2k as outdated, it's only a couple of years older than XP, and that's now 10 years old. People seem quite happy with that. Mostly people who weren't familiar with Windows 2000, I expect.

I can understand developers not wanting to support Win2k any more, but it's kind of irritating when that isn't made clear and updating results in me losing what I already had.

I also tried to update Java yesterday. Big mistake. After uninstalling it, I found the new version doesn't run, of course, but also that there was apparently no way back. As it updates itself automatically, i haven't even seen the installers for it for a long time. Eventually, I figured out I could download the older versions by registering with Sun as a developer. I then worked my way back through them til I found one that would install - it's Java 6 update 31.

[edwardw]

recent releases of Linux seem to expect a fairly impressive PC to run them on. Windows 2000 works fine on anything newer than a 486.

Hmm, you should try LXDE or XFCE desktops, they are much more lightweight than KDE or GNOME3.

LXDE is fast enough to run on a Pentium III computer with 128MB of RAM. If you really feel pedantic Slackware will even run on the original 386...

[Andy2No]

Those look promising. Thanks.

[Lotesdelere]

I can understand developers not wanting to support Win2k any more, but it's kind of irritating when that isn't made clear and updating results in me losing what I already had.

Windows XP SP2 is now the minimal requirement since VLC 2.0 and it has always been clearly staten on this page:
http://www.videolan.org/vlc/download-windows.html

[Rémi Denis-Courmont]

You'd have to ask Microsoft. I guess you are supposed to upgrade.

I was talking about older versions of VLC being considered insecure, and asking whether users of Windows 2000 were just supposed to stop using VLC, since 2.x doesn't work in Windows 2000.

VLC versions are considered insecure on an insecure OS, no matter what the version. You can't build a really secure bank vault if the bank building is full of holes and on shaky grounds.

I'm well aware of Microsoft's take on Windows 2000. Supporting it isn't in their financial best interests, so they expect us all to pay for a new shiny, slightly less stable operating system that needs more RAM to do the same things, and with a user interface that reminds me of a children's TV show (called The Tellytubbies).

Supporting obsolete operating system versions is not in our interest either. It is a waste of our scarce volunteer time and blocks or hinders new features in newer OS versions.

[Andy2No]

In other words, anyone with Windows 2000 should uninstall VLC?

[edwardw]

Well, you can use the patch (the KDW/FCWIN2K one) from MSFN, those guys are very good at supporting older Windows versions, like they did KernelEx for 98/ME...

No-one is forcing you to upgrade.

[Andy2No]

I'll try that soon. Thanks.

Although VLC is a very good media player, "upgrading" windows 2000 to XP just so I can continue to run it (even the same old version, according to some) is not a realistic option. My insecure obsolete OS is just fine for the PC it's on. In fact, most virus and trojan writers can't be bothered to support Windows 2000 either, so it's safer than you'd think.

[Rémi Denis-Courmont]

In other words, anyone with Windows 2000 should uninstall VLC?

Anyone with Windows 2000 can update to a support Windows version (for money), switch to Linux (for free), fork their own VLC on Windows 2000, keep their old insecure VLC version on their old insecure operating system version.

You cannot expect scarce and overworked VLC volunteers to care about your obsolete, rare and dwindling operating system version. Support for a certain operating system is not free; someone has to take care of it. You're not my boss and I am not your salaried staff, so you don't get to tell me what operating system I have to deal with.

[Andy2No]

Is this the five minute argument, or the full half hour?

My original question was quite a simple one, or at least I thought so. At no point do I recall insisting that VLC should continue to support Windows 2000.

I've also done a few years of voluntary work, though it wasn't on a software project. What you choose to do with your own time is not my concern.

[Lotesdelere]

My original question was quite a simple one

What's the most recent version of VLC that ran in Windows 2000

Version 1.1.13

and how do I get it?

http://download.videolan.org/vlc/1.1.11/win32/ + http://download.videolan.org/vlc/1.1.13/win32/

Windows 2000 with SP4 + UR1 required IIRC.
But don't expect any support for this version and this OS anymore.

[Andy2No]

Thanks, Lotesdelere.

I expect nothing. That way, I'm never disappointed.

[solazy]

http://download.videolan.org/vlc/1.1.11/win32/ + http://download.videolan.org/vlc/1.1.13/win32/

As I'm still using Vlc 1.1.11 (with XP SP3) could you please tell me if it's not risky to overwrite the original libty_plugin.dll (1.1.11) with the one you indicated from version 1.1.13 ?

Also, after reading you, I understand it's important to use this file from version 1.1.13, is it for safety reasons or something else ?

Thanks a lot for reading me, as I never (until now) mixed dll's from different versions, for compatibility reasons

[Lotesdelere]

As I'm still using Vlc 1.1.11 (with XP SP3) could you please tell me if it's not risky to overwrite the original libty_plugin.dll (1.1.11) with the one you indicated from version 1.1.13 ?

Also, after reading you, I understand it's important to use this file from version 1.1.13, is it for safety reasons or something else ?

Yes, you can overwrite the original DLL but you can also feel free to make a backup first
It was a security update related to the web plugin IIRC.

[solazy]

@Lotesdelere :
Thanks a lot for your answer and valuable replies in many posts.
Have a great day !

[tomasz86]

VLC 2.0.3 works with UURollup (ENU) installed and should work with newer versions of BlackWingCat's kernel too (but never try to mix the two!). I haven't observed any serious problems with playing videos but not all options work correctly, ex. the player crashes when you try to set file associations.

Other players like PotPlayer, KMPlayer or GOM Player seem to work 100% correctly in Win2k but they've got their own bugs and are significantly heavier than VLC.