DosFreak
Don't know if any of you guys have tried yet but the final version of Windows Defender does not install on Windows 2000 due to a limitation in the .MSI.
If you download Orca (MSI editor) (go to google and type in ORCA.ZIP + MSI).
Then download Windows Defender.
Now install Orca.
Open the Windows Defender.MSI with Orca.
Go to "Launch Condition".
On the right-hand side of the screen you'll see: "VersionNT > 500". Right click on this value and choose CUT.
Now save the file and run it.
Like the previous Beta of Defender you'll need GDI+:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/detai...;displaylang=en
Copy this .dll to your \WINNT\System32 directory.
I just finished installing Windows Defender, it just finished up[censored] and I am now running a spyware scan.
Enjoy!
If you download Orca (MSI editor) (go to google and type in ORCA.ZIP + MSI).
Then download Windows Defender.
Now install Orca.
Open the Windows Defender.MSI with Orca.
Go to "Launch Condition".
On the right-hand side of the screen you'll see: "VersionNT > 500". Right click on this value and choose CUT.
Now save the file and run it.
Like the previous Beta of Defender you'll need GDI+:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/detai...;displaylang=en
Copy this .dll to your \WINNT\System32 directory.
I just finished installing Windows Defender, it just finished up[censored] and I am now running a spyware scan.
Enjoy!
Participate on our website and join the conversation
This topic is archived. New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast.
Responses to this topic
packman
I'm not sure what you're saying here, DosFreak. Are you saying that the incompatibility of Defender with Win2K can be completely overcome by downloading and installing Orca?
At the last count, you'd just finished doing a spyware scan, so how has Defender run since then? Is it truly bug-free, under Win2K?
I'm rather sceptical because I've just read at Microsoft's website that Defender is categorically incompatible with Win2K. In fact, Defender will only run properly under Windows Server 2003, WinXP and (presumably) Vista.
Actually, as a Win2K user myself, I successfully used MS Antispyware, the predecessor of Defender. So, I'm really annoyed that Microsoft have decided not to make Defender suitable for Win2K.
At the last count, you'd just finished doing a spyware scan, so how has Defender run since then? Is it truly bug-free, under Win2K?
I'm rather sceptical because I've just read at Microsoft's website that Defender is categorically incompatible with Win2K. In fact, Defender will only run properly under Windows Server 2003, WinXP and (presumably) Vista.
Actually, as a Win2K user myself, I successfully used MS Antispyware, the predecessor of Defender. So, I'm really annoyed that Microsoft have decided not to make Defender suitable for Win2K.
DosFreak
OP
There is no incompatibility. I've been using Defender Beta 2 on Windows 2000 since it came out. (It was actually stated by MS that Defender would run on Windows 2000, I'll see if I can find where they stated that).
Yep, the Defender installed fine, the scan ran and finished.
ORCA is just an Windows Installer editor. (Windows Installer being the program that Defender is packaged in). It looks like MS packaged Defender and simply stated a requirement of XP/2003 and anything less than that will not install. Unless that is you remove the requirement using Orca.
Yes, It's pretty hard for MS to make programs incompatible with Windows 2000 since 2000 and XP are pretty much the same OS in many ways. In this case (and in many others) it's just a matter of removing the requirement from the installer.
Yep, the Defender installed fine, the scan ran and finished.
ORCA is just an Windows Installer editor. (Windows Installer being the program that Defender is packaged in). It looks like MS packaged Defender and simply stated a requirement of XP/2003 and anything less than that will not install. Unless that is you remove the requirement using Orca.
Yes, It's pretty hard for MS to make programs incompatible with Windows 2000 since 2000 and XP are pretty much the same OS in many ways. In this case (and in many others) it's just a matter of removing the requirement from the installer.
DosFreak
OP
Ooops, looks like I said Installshield up above. It's actually Windows Installer.
Changed the above to avoid confusion.
Changed the above to avoid confusion.
cyber111
Does this mean IE7 will also install on windows 2000?
jmmijo
Originally Posted By: cyber111Does this mean IE7 will also install on windows 2000?
NO, does this mean that Microsoft *may* have a Win 2K version of IE7 down the road, highly unlikely since they have publically said only Windows XP Home/Pro users will be able to install IE7.
NO, does this mean that Microsoft *may* have a Win 2K version of IE7 down the road, highly unlikely since they have publically said only Windows XP Home/Pro users will be able to install IE7.
matthewt
Are they coming out with a version for Win 2000? Wha't the game like?
DerekFlynn
Hi DosFreak
I’m a total newbee to this forum and found your article via Google. Tried it and am successfully running Windows Defender on Windows 2000 – Thank you very much for your advice – I wouldn’t have a clue how to do this with out you taking the time to post it.. so your help is genuinely very much appreciated!
Any tips on how to get Windows Media Player 11 and Internet Explorer 7 working on Windows 2000? Perhaps I should change over to Firefox instead of worrying about IE7 as Microsoft doesn’t seem interested in supporting their existing 2000 customers anymore.
Any views or suggestions you would like to offer would again be very much appreciated.
Regards and many thanks
Derek
I’m a total newbee to this forum and found your article via Google. Tried it and am successfully running Windows Defender on Windows 2000 – Thank you very much for your advice – I wouldn’t have a clue how to do this with out you taking the time to post it.. so your help is genuinely very much appreciated!
Any tips on how to get Windows Media Player 11 and Internet Explorer 7 working on Windows 2000? Perhaps I should change over to Firefox instead of worrying about IE7 as Microsoft doesn’t seem interested in supporting their existing 2000 customers anymore.
Any views or suggestions you would like to offer would again be very much appreciated.
Regards and many thanks
Derek
jmmijo
I personally use Maxthon as my primary web browser, it has tabbed viewing and all the pop-up blocking you would need plus it's based on the IE core so the compatibility is very high with those web sites requiring IE5+ to work with
Download Here!
Download Here!
twangbanger
For some unknown reason I opened up Defender today and was greeted with "beta testing is over.See ya around, win2k loser"
WTF? Luckily enough I had seen something about Gates screwing over us lowly 2k users on this matter on digg. Or was it /. ???
Anyways thnx Dosfreak. Your Info worked like a charm. <cheers>
Like a previous poster,I too wonder if this trick will work on media 11.
WTF? Luckily enough I had seen something about Gates screwing over us lowly 2k users on this matter on digg. Or was it /. ???
Anyways thnx Dosfreak. Your Info worked like a charm. <cheers>
Like a previous poster,I too wonder if this trick will work on media 11.
$lugg0
Thanks DosFreak.It realyy erks me that MS would deliberately try to ban Win2k users from up[censored]. Keep up the good work.
jmmijo
Originally Posted By: $lugg0 Thanks DosFreak.It realyy erks me that MS would deliberately try to ban Win2k users from up[censored]. Keep up the good work.
I understand your fustration, however, since Microsoft now considers this a LEGACY OS then what else should they do from a business standpoint ?!?
Not that I wouldn't mind if their new software releases would work on Win 2K as I think it's a pretty darn good and stable OS, but at some point the support factor has to stop and the company needs to move forward with their future products.
I understand your fustration, however, since Microsoft now considers this a LEGACY OS then what else should they do from a business standpoint ?!?
Not that I wouldn't mind if their new software releases would work on Win 2K as I think it's a pretty darn good and stable OS, but at some point the support factor has to stop and the company needs to move forward with their future products.
DosFreak
OP
I haven't tried IE7 or WMP11 on 2000 yet. I might mess around if I get bored. I'm suprised that the guys on the MSFN forums haven't bothered yet actually.
Defender was easy since it always worked on 2000 and it was just a simple check in the installer that needed to remove. IE7 and WMP11 are likely much more complicated.
I'm pretty busy testing Vista compatibility ATM and I never did like IE or WMP that much anyways so as I stated above...only if I get really really bored.
Defender was easy since it always worked on 2000 and it was just a simple check in the installer that needed to remove. IE7 and WMP11 are likely much more complicated.
I'm pretty busy testing Vista compatibility ATM and I never did like IE or WMP that much anyways so as I stated above...only if I get really really bored.
$lugg0
Originally Posted By: jmmijoOriginally Posted By: $lugg0 Thanks DosFreak.It really erks me that MS would deliberately try to ban Win2k users from up[censored]. Keep up the good work.
I understand your fustration, however, since Microsoft now considers this a LEGACY OS then what else should they do from a business standpoint ?!?
Not that I wouldn't mind if their new software releases would work on Win 2K as I think it's a pretty darn good and stable OS, but at some point the support factor has to stop and the company needs to move forward with their future products.
I see your point but when all that is needed is the removal of one check in the installer it shouldn't be that big of a deal. It leaves me with the impression that MS just wants people to upgrade and spend more money which for me is not necessary. Win2k is all I'll ever need on this machine for the forseable future. My laptop and the new MCPC I'm building use XP and I don't see me upgrading to Vista for them any time soon either.
I understand your fustration, however, since Microsoft now considers this a LEGACY OS then what else should they do from a business standpoint ?!?
Not that I wouldn't mind if their new software releases would work on Win 2K as I think it's a pretty darn good and stable OS, but at some point the support factor has to stop and the company needs to move forward with their future products.
I see your point but when all that is needed is the removal of one check in the installer it shouldn't be that big of a deal. It leaves me with the impression that MS just wants people to upgrade and spend more money which for me is not necessary. Win2k is all I'll ever need on this machine for the forseable future. My laptop and the new MCPC I'm building use XP and I don't see me upgrading to Vista for them any time soon either.
jmmijo
You're right, you shouldn't have to be forced to upgrade, however, I do see where Microsoft would want to limit what kinds of new apps/features you have access to on a Legacy OS so they can sell more of their new OS's. I mean if many/most users knew how to hack things like IE7/WMP11 to run on Win 2K, why would they want to both upgrading their current OS ?!?
But I'm also a Microsoft whore to some degree, I like messing about with their latest and greatest software/apps etc to see what it does and if it's something I will be getting when it's released. Mostly this is due to my job in that I'm a system builder and need to know these things and how they work with the hardware systems I build
But I'm also a Microsoft whore to some degree, I like messing about with their latest and greatest software/apps etc to see what it does and if it's something I will be getting when it's released. Mostly this is due to my job in that I'm a system builder and need to know these things and how they work with the hardware systems I build
rhema05
Have tried the ORCA d'load, etc, then rune the amended version yet encountered ERROR 2356 towards the end of the Defender's installation.
Any suggestions?
Any suggestions?
DosFreak
OP
I hard someone else had the same problem. They said used "save as" instead of "save" like they were supposed to.
Ornette
Dear Dosfreak,
Cheers, you are such a star, I can't thank you enough. I really am so gratetful for this nugget - Windows Defender is now up & running perfectly on my W2K machine.
I was so pissed when I turned on my machine on the 2nd of this year... I could see no need why they should artifically lock me out of using a much needed product. It's their shitty web browser that has such a lack of security that makes such a program so necessary... don't punish us, the end user, ffs?!
I hope that this new install isn't time limited, like the others all were, I don't wanna go through all this again.
PS I think the MS AntiSpyware was quite a better program on a number of fronts, at least it didn't remove my Kazza installation without asking, like Defender did?!
PPS just to let you know I came across this thread via a check on Wikipedia - thanks again
Cheers, you are such a star, I can't thank you enough. I really am so gratetful for this nugget - Windows Defender is now up & running perfectly on my W2K machine.
I was so pissed when I turned on my machine on the 2nd of this year... I could see no need why they should artifically lock me out of using a much needed product. It's their shitty web browser that has such a lack of security that makes such a program so necessary... don't punish us, the end user, ffs?!
I hope that this new install isn't time limited, like the others all were, I don't wanna go through all this again.
PS I think the MS AntiSpyware was quite a better program on a number of fronts, at least it didn't remove my Kazza installation without asking, like Defender did?!
PPS just to let you know I came across this thread via a check on Wikipedia - thanks again
DosFreak
OP
Yeah, a big thing about Defender from what I heard in an MS interview is that they want Defender to do it's thing behind the scenes with little intervention from the user. I've noticed this since I barely ever get any popups from Defender but when I check out the event log there are alot of entries from Defender. Only occasionally will Defender itself popup when something really serious happens.
Of course whenever I do a full scan with Defender it never finds anything any way which is why I keep spybot installed.
Of course whenever I do a full scan with Defender it never finds anything any way which is why I keep spybot installed.
jwcrim
Windows 2000 - all updates
Had old copy of Beta version and uninstalled it. Installed new Defender as you suggested. Works fine with the initial definitions - thanks.
I'm now running into trouble with the definition updates though. They load in but don't install.
I get one of two errors:
Installation Failure
Error Code: 0x800B0109
or:
The program can't install definition updates
Error found: Code 0x80070643
appreciate any ideas
Had old copy of Beta version and uninstalled it. Installed new Defender as you suggested. Works fine with the initial definitions - thanks.
I'm now running into trouble with the definition updates though. They load in but don't install.
I get one of two errors:
Installation Failure
Error Code: 0x800B0109
or:
The program can't install definition updates
Error found: Code 0x80070643
appreciate any ideas
DosFreak
OP
I've seen this happen on XP as well occasionally. I usually go to windowsupdate and download the definitions and I think it works then.
IIRC, there's also a command line command you run in your Defender directory that removes all definitions and redownloads the definitions again.
IIRC, there's also a command line command you run in your Defender directory that removes all definitions and redownloads the definitions again.
