Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

What USB Wireless Network Adapters are compatible with Windows 2000?

26 views
Skip to first unread message

Kenn Caesius

unread,
Jun 3, 2011, 2:54:41 PM6/3/11
to
I suppose that in more detail, I would like to know what manufacturer
or what specific wireless adapter do you recommend for Windows 2000
Pro. with Service Pack 4

---End of message---

Mico

unread,
Jun 3, 2011, 5:02:10 PM6/3/11
to
If works in XP, should be compatible with 2k.

Java Jive

unread,
Jun 4, 2011, 3:47:01 PM6/4/11
to
Not necessarily so: what price IE7, Safari, Chrome? Although in
principle the fact that W2k is v5.0 and XP is v5.1 damned well OUGHT
to make your statement true, I suspect the sad fact is that many OEM's
no longer test in W2k since it went end-of-life, and rather than risk
their product unexpectedly not working, they just program the
installer to fail on any version earlier than XP.

On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 17:02:10 -0400, Mico <mi...@mico.com> wrote:
>
> If works in XP, should be compatible with 2k.

--
=========================================================
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

Bruce Morgen

unread,
Jun 4, 2011, 4:05:52 PM6/4/11
to

The device driver level
is different from the
app incompatibility you
describe -- for the most
part, Win2K device
drivers will work under
XP, not quite as sure
about vice-versa, though.

Java Jive

unread,
Jun 4, 2011, 5:07:40 PM6/4/11
to
On Sat, 04 Jun 2011 16:05:52 -0400, Bruce Morgen <edi...@juno.com>
wrote:

>
> The device driver level
> is different from the
> app incompatibility you
> describe

When I go to the driver download page for my now aging Dell Latitude
610, the dowloads for XP and 2k are noticeably different.

> for the most
> part, Win2K device
> drivers will work under
> XP, not quite as sure
> about vice-versa, though.

And it was the vice-versa claim that I was particularly questioning,
of course.

0 new messages