Hello All,
After searching the forum I came across a patch from a fellow named Stewart. This is the link: http://www.phoneservicesupport.com/view ... c9000af7ae
Stewart outlines a method to patch the executable to enable MajicJack to work with Windows 2000.
I ordered MajicJack and am trying to make it work with Windows 2000. The version of the MajicJack executable is 1.80.466.3 and is dated Dec 17, 2008. The bytes located at the hex addresses outlined in the article do not match what Stewart posted, I would think due to version differences. Does anyone know how to patch the latest version of MajicJack to work with Windows 2000? Thx in advance.
Regards, RPrinceton
Windows 2000 with the latest version of MajicJack
Moderators: Bill Smith, Pilot
-
RPrinceton
- MagicJack Newbie
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 12:32 pm
Well, there have been a lot of changes with the software of the magicjack (little changes in looks, but real big changes in the backend [sip people know what i mean 
] ) There is most likely going to be a way for you to use it for 2000, but I do not yet. Why are you running 2000 though?
Kumar
] ) There is most likely going to be a way for you to use it for 2000, but I do not yet. Why are you running 2000 though?Kumar
Will not be on forum until after June 15th.
Can you explain those changes (good, bad?).kumar wrote:Well, there have been a lot of changes with the software of the magicjack (little changes in looks, but real big changes in the backend [sip people know what i mean
Someone posted the list of proxy* servers registered in the DNS. It looks like Dan's getting ready to add capacity. Looked like 4-5 SIP (and presumably vms1) servers load balanced per city.
Mark
Many people, especially enterprise people, favor Windows 2000 over XP because it offers the administrator much more straightforward control over the PC's configuration and operation. Networking, especially for a small network (<500 stations) is much simpler to administer in 2000 than XP, and most enterprises have no need for the AOL-itized user interface of XP, nor its new music player nor its associated bloat.
Enterprise Systems
Ok, not flaming here but I find the remark of no reason to goto XP or higher in an enterprise system to be somewhat off the wall.
I would guess most if not all Enterprise systems have users that use Office. And most see the need to start using Office 2007. Especially if they are intagrating the Sharepoint software. If you check with Microsoft, the minimum requirements for Office 2007 is XP (SP2).
If the network holds 802.1X Security for its wireless and you wish to use TKIP/WPA2 with a hidden SSID, again you cannot effectivly use 2000 as a server, you need to goto at least 2003.
Just a couple examples. The way I see it is, from the perspective of an Enterprise system (or a home or business system for that matter) why not get what is stable that allows the best performance? For me personally, I use an XP, a Vista, and a 7 box. I also run ( at home) Server 2003. Have played with Linux, but to be honest I suck at it. lol. The work envirnment is Enterprise (approx 5000 users) with a few leftover 2000 servers. Mostly 2003 now. For workstations I believe we have 8 98 boxes, a couple hundred XP and the rest Vista. Supprise everyone Vista runs GREAT if its done right.
And one more thing. Don't be fooled, Windows 7 is NOTHING more than Vista SE (For those that Remember the Windows 98 days). A great marketing ploy in my opinion. Repackage it, make a couple little tweaks and sell a "New" OS. Rather Apple like with all the revs to OSX.
Again, not meant as a flame, just an alternate position on OS choices.
RP
I would guess most if not all Enterprise systems have users that use Office. And most see the need to start using Office 2007. Especially if they are intagrating the Sharepoint software. If you check with Microsoft, the minimum requirements for Office 2007 is XP (SP2).
If the network holds 802.1X Security for its wireless and you wish to use TKIP/WPA2 with a hidden SSID, again you cannot effectivly use 2000 as a server, you need to goto at least 2003.
Just a couple examples. The way I see it is, from the perspective of an Enterprise system (or a home or business system for that matter) why not get what is stable that allows the best performance? For me personally, I use an XP, a Vista, and a 7 box. I also run ( at home) Server 2003. Have played with Linux, but to be honest I suck at it. lol. The work envirnment is Enterprise (approx 5000 users) with a few leftover 2000 servers. Mostly 2003 now. For workstations I believe we have 8 98 boxes, a couple hundred XP and the rest Vista. Supprise everyone Vista runs GREAT if its done right.
And one more thing. Don't be fooled, Windows 7 is NOTHING more than Vista SE (For those that Remember the Windows 98 days). A great marketing ploy in my opinion. Repackage it, make a couple little tweaks and sell a "New" OS. Rather Apple like with all the revs to OSX.
Again, not meant as a flame, just an alternate position on OS choices.
RP
I wouldn't dream of taking that as a flame. And, frankly, I wasn't thinking about companies that move to new Microsoft platforms because Microsoft says it's a good idea. If everyone followed that philosophy, Dell wouldn't be able to charge a premium (as they do) for selling new PCs with XP in them instead of Vista.
The multinationals I deal with have some considerations to deal with that US-only companies do not. For example, as difficult as it is to get a US workforce to unlearn 15+ years of MS Office human interface in order to use Office 2007, it is an order of magnitude greater to accomplish this in multiple languages in offices around the world and to retain the ability for people in different countries to continue to collaborate. This learning curve and interworking requirement create a kinesis that dissuades many organizations from moving to the "latest and greatest" very quickly. The new tools may be wonderful, but the cost of migration is not.
Personally, all of my servers are Linux because the interwork with every OS' client. To my mind, this kind of diversity is what keeps both you and me employed.
The multinationals I deal with have some considerations to deal with that US-only companies do not. For example, as difficult as it is to get a US workforce to unlearn 15+ years of MS Office human interface in order to use Office 2007, it is an order of magnitude greater to accomplish this in multiple languages in offices around the world and to retain the ability for people in different countries to continue to collaborate. This learning curve and interworking requirement create a kinesis that dissuades many organizations from moving to the "latest and greatest" very quickly. The new tools may be wonderful, but the cost of migration is not.
Personally, all of my servers are Linux because the interwork with every OS' client. To my mind, this kind of diversity is what keeps both you and me employed.