From: Mike '/m' 


Of course, you are right.

Microsoft would never, ever place a false dependency in an upgraded program
in order to "encourage" its customers to upgrade to the newer
version of Windows.

My mistake.

 /m



On Mon, 30 May 2005 00:07:40 -0700, "Rich"  wrote:

>   Bullshit.  What they wrote is simple for someone without an agenda like you
have to understand.  The functionality they want to make use of is provided
by Windows XP SP2 and not Windows 2000.  Why redo work that has already
been done? Integration or not makes no difference.
>
>Rich
>
>  "Mike '/m'"  wrote in message
news:sjnk919k1tp0lmus5b2lm8k22p9qbf6qir{at}4ax.com...
>  On Sun, 29 May 2005 19:23:52 -0400, "Gary Britt"

>  wrote:
>
>  >>One reason is where we are in the Windows 2000 lifecycle.
>  >> Another is that some of the security work in IE7 relies on operating
>  >> system functionality in XPSP2 that is non-trivial to port back to
>  >> Windows 2000.
>
>  One of the problems with having an application so tightly
"integrated"
>  into the operating system.
>
>   /m

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5