Slashdot Mirror
Final Windows 2000 Update
Ant writes "An article on eWeek discusses Microsofts plans to ship a Windows 2000 Update Rollup, the final security patch for the 5-year-old operating system. The Update Rollup, which replaces Windows 2000 SP5 (Service Pack 5), is a cumulative set of hot fixes, security patches and critical updates packaged together for easy deployment. The Update Rollup will contain all security-related updates produced for Windows 2000 between the time SP4 was released and the date the update ships. It will also feature a small number of important, non-security updates. The Update Rollup comes just one month before mainstream support for Windows 2000 client and server releases expires on June 30."
Why not go over there and tell them how you feel? This is the post in question, this is the direct link to leave a comment which they've deliberately made subtle.
Now all we have to do is to get Bill to admit that XP and 2003 are dead too, and the war will be over. Sarge install party, anyone?
This was easily the best operating system MS ever made; easy-to-use, stable, and could run any app written for Windows/WinNT/16-bit Windows.
They should have supported it longer.
Striking fear in the authors of godawful fanfiction, I am here, appearing in darkness, Tuxedo Jack!
Is that the final nail? I am still working with W2K - and I see no reason to upgrade.
Now who's going to release a security patch for me to download every month? This is not good at all. Deserting VB6 and now Win2k? I'm moving to Linux at home and gaming as long as I can on a seperate partition. Thank God Q4 is coming out for Linux in the next year.
My little site.
"Friends don't let friends install Microsoft junk" -- twitter
RIP twitter. We will miss you.
Given that lots of people find W2K appropriate for their needs and won't switch over to a supported Windows, I expect malicious exploit hunters will be paying closer attention to this platform soon.
How big a mess would there need to be to convince Microsoft to continue supporting this?
Remember RFC 873!
Microsoft Corp. plans to announce as early as next week that it is ready to ship a Windows 2000 Update Rollup
The Update Rollup comes just one month before mainstream support for Windows 2000 client and server releases expires on June 30.
This must be some weird definition of "one month" I've never previously encountered. I thought the days were longer during the summer, not shorter!
The Update Rollup, which replaces Windows 2000 SP5 (Service Pack 5), is a cumulative set of hot fixes, security patches and critical updates packaged together for easy deployment.
Isn't that what service packs were pre-XP?
Open Source Java Web Forum with LDAP authentication
They will do that too one day... but only after Longhorn and others have been released to take their places.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
Dork (dôrk)
1. Slang. A stupid, inept, or foolish person: "the stupid antics of America's favorite teen-age cartoon dorks" (Joshua Mooney).
2. Vulgar Slang. The penis.
3. Anyone who mixes Operating Systems installations and parties.
Besides all the "eyecandy" of Windows XP, what is the difference between this and 2k? I mean, they use the same kernel don't they? So if they are pretty much the same system, one "better" for desktop users and the other "better" for more experienced users, why discontinue support for one?
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=patchmanagement&m= 111773947308242&w=2
Eric from Shavlik, produced many counterpoints to this article by eWeek. It is not the final update for Windows 2000 - security updates will be released for it long after this roll-up.
A lot of companies I have visited recently still use Win2000 as their main desktop, have not yet and are unlikely to move to XP and will probably wait for a stable longhorn before changing. Given thats a couple of years away I think MS will have to support it by popular demand for a bit longer than they would like too.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
Alot of companies still have Win 2000 servers. Heck I'd say most windows shops still have a majority of their servers on windows 2000. Heck, many even still have NT4.
Then here comes Microsoft saying, "OK, you're done. Either upgrade your machine (and give us money) or you are going to be vulnerable to a slew of attacks that we won't patch"
Well, so they have to upgrade anyway, we need to get the message out about Linux, and how support for linux will not "expire" like this.
And this on the heals of Novell's big announcment today...
Don't Tread on Me
The Windows 2000 'operating system' includes Internet Explorer, the Java Virtual Machine, Media Player, DirectX, etc...
There are good reasons why Microsoft will want to keep these components updated. Win2K is the most-used operating system among enterprise customers.
If (inevitably) new bugs are found in these bleeding-edge Internet technologies, would Microsoft be willing to let them stay unpatched for evermore?
You're all fucking shit. I got first post.
Then again, maybe you didn't.
-- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
With Win2K's death I don't think Microsoft has much to worry about regarding Longhorn being not successful anymore. XP & 2003 are pains to use as a server.
Then stopped making replacement parts for consumables in order to force us to buy a new car.
Would we sit still for it? Or DEMAND Congress pass law that removes all patent and copyright protections from all unsupported intellectual property?
If those bastids we have in there now don't see it this way, its time we got some people in there who do!
Yes.. this is flamebait... but its exactly how I feel about this issue.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
Windows 2000 does move into Extended Support on June 30, but that doesn't mean they suddenly stop supplying security patches as this summary seems to claim (though, yes, it will probably be the last "Serivce Pack"-ish upgrade.)
The primary difference between mainstream and extended support is that "Microsoft will not accept requests for warranty support, design changes, or new features during the Extended support phase." Security updates will continue to be provided until 2010, the "end of life" for Windows 2000.
R.Mo
2K is easily the high-water mark of MS operating systems. They get my copy when they pry it from my cold dead hands.
For those who want to see 2K or NT4 open-sourced: it will happen when Hell freezes over AND the Sun goes supernova. XP is basically 2K with lots and lots of eye-candy garbaggio layered on top of it. And 2K is NT4 with a lot of stability tweaks and Plug and Play. A good deal of NT-line DNA is still in Longhorn, from all reports.
It's too bad that VMWare is so bloody expensive. I would feel more secure running 2K as a Client OS in VMWare with Linux as the Host OS. Probably after MS stops supporting 2K it will be the only safe way to do it.
It's MacOS X and Linux for me now...good night, sweet prince of an OS...
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
I'm still using w2k as xp is just a bloatware version of 2k.. ie, there's no real functional differences and xp is slower.
I'm sure a lot of people are in the same boat.
Cutting support of an OS works for me back when M$ was releasing new OSs every two years but But they haven't for going on 5 now (see above).. Hmm..
Hopefully this won't jack around with NinjaKey's recon features...
I know of lots, really a whole lot, of folks who run Windows2000 instead of XP, for the simple reason that it's not possible to run XP on lots of hosts or to do really frequent hardware changes with it.
Now, I suppose in some places it's technically illegal to run W2K on multiple machines, but that's different from it being technically *impossible*.
And before anyone suggests that WPA has been cracked, they need to show it. Everybody *assumes* that WPA is easily worked around, but there's not a really good solution out there.
An MSDN license for Windows 2000 for any kind of a lab environment is definitely easier to work with than Windows XP *especially* if you don't assume that every PC is going to be connected to the internet. The idea that XP will stop working due to activation issues, is simply abhorrent.
I've run windows 2000 since it came out, and it's by far my favorite version of Windows. I've tried XP and had some significant problems. I went back to 2000 and didn't miss any of XPs features. I work with small businesses and always advise them to use Windows 2000 over anything else. XP basically offers nothing in features over 2000, and tends to have more problems in my experience.
The sad thing is that Microsoft hasn't come out with anything to make anyone really want to upgrade. Windows 95 had so many advantages over 3.1 I can't begin to list them, Windows 98 had USB where windows 95 had very limited USB support, NT4 had great stability, Windows 2000 had all the features of windows 98 plus great stability (and a slew of other things) ME.. well ME was a piece of crap. XP has.. user switching? A playskool like interface?
With Longhorn still in the distant future, and Windows 2000 support starting to dry up, who wants to make a crappy pit stop at XP waiting for Longhorn?
AccountKiller
When will Debian stop letting me installing security patches. Surely they want to be as successful as the great microsoft, don't they?
I just drew on my head with a pen that I had thought to be retracted...I hope Head & Shoulders gets it off.
Mod up: according to this, 2K will be getting security patches until 2010.
If there are features in XP that prevent the backporting of IE to Win2K and WinNT, doesn't that mean they've tied the browser to the operating system again, in violation of the anti-trust settlement?
Maybe it's time to start handing out subpoenas like candy again.
"My God...it's full of trolls!"
I bet they still will have patches for 5 year old versions of linux... if only linux was a perfect as windows 2000 is now..
;)
Yeah, I work for a major retailer and we just pulled it from the shelves on Thursday. Sending all copies back to MSFT I believe.
Longhorn changes we do know about seem more desktop related than server - like UI changes (red instead of blue screens of death) or human-frendlyness changes (like acknowledging that it's no longer "My Computer" since they want to control it).
Yet Microsoft claims it's better for servers, more secure, etc. than XP.
This leaves me with only one possible conclusion. Microsoft already has a better-than-XP-for-servers OS in house, and that's Win2000. I bet the real longhorn strategy is to simply rebrand Win2000, but surely they can't do that while W2K is still supported or people would notice. By ending support now we'll all forget how great Win2K was by the Longhorn ship date in 2009.
...because things like Red Hat Linux 6.2 are still up to date and patched today. Right?
+5:offtopic,but anti-American
Security is
- Expensive to get right, taking lots of careful work and skilled people, and
- Harmful to the upgrade business.
A lot of people dismiss Microsofts poor security story as merely sloppy coding - but they're too smart and have far to great resources for that to be true.Heck, every other major software vendor (BSD, Linux) lets you get security patches for as long as you want to patch them, so clearly Microsoft would have the resources to allow the same. It's totally a deliberate and calculated business decision for them to design and release products that leave paying customers out in the cold where they have to upgrade when security problems inevitably arise.
I'm glad Win2K is finally fixed. It's nice to know my OS is now bug-free. :)
I use Windows 2000 and I have no plans to change, do any so-called update, or switch. I will use it until it stops working.
However at that point, I hope to change to Linux. There has to be a lot of people on Slashdot who have done this. Are there any suggestions of what to avoid? It has been my hope that Linux gets easier to install and operate ever few years.
I've installed Linux about five times in seven years. The first few times were absolute nightmares. The last time wasn't too bad. It's just that I already had Windows 2K working and it was free, and most important, I already knew how to use it.
I will never pay any money to Microsoft for any reason. It's just not an option for me. If they want me to give them money then they first need to give me a whole lot more money and then I'll consider giving some of it back. Technically then I would have given them money. But, they haven't contacted me yet.
One great advantage to Linux is the possibility of customizing it to your needs. I can't stand having Windows have the Exit Application button be right next to the Run-Ap-in-Background button. What fool came up with the idea of having them right next to each other in the upper right corner? And of course, it can never be changed in a hundred years.
Another serious disadvantage to Windows is when you have a huge well organized hard disk with lots of directories that have descriptive names. When you're working in one program and want to use the file in another program, you have to open the second program , click on file open and then go through the LONG process of finding the file in the directory tree. I want to have the File_open screen bring up a list of the last ten directory points where I have accessed a file, regardless of which program used to access the file. In Windows, impossible now, impossible forever.
In Linux, maybe. If not now then someday. It's these kind of things that cause people to switch.
Final like in "our OS has no more bugs" or final like in "we wont be supporting our OS soon"
"Microsofts plans to ship a Windows 2000 Update Rollup"
"The Update Rollup comes just one month before mainstream support for Windows 2000 client and server releases expires on June 30."
So have they released it or not? Those statements are contradictory. I can go check, but that means one of the statements will be proven false.
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
I can't blame Microsoft for phasing out Windows 2000. After all, synergies between killer applications empower emerging stewards to architect ubiquitous initiatives, harness revolutionary convergence, and engineer bleeding-edge solutions to recontextualize turn-key markets.
Growing open-source deliverables harness global interfaces to unleash holistic partnerships. Strategic content drives leading-edge web services to deliver efficient networks while syndicating one-to-one mindshare. When bleeding-edge content architects maximize seamless schemas to deliver robust web services, extensible infrastructures cultivate mission-critical functionalities. Best-of-breed communities target proactive enterprise paradigms while 24/7 methodologies reintermediate visionary content. By leveraging vertical synergies, content providers syndicate one-to-one cross-platform convergence.
Microsoft's plans include optimizing their internal operations to speed up delivery of Longtooth. Sources whom I consider accurate have told me that despite Microsoft's claims that Longtooth will be released by 2006 or 2007, the planned release date is actually late in 2019. Microsoft's secret goals for this version are:
Microsoft will accomplish these goals through a variety of changes. First, Longtooth will no longer be based on the Windows NT design philosophy, as were Windows 2000 and XP. Instead, Microsoft will release MS-DOS 9.0 2003, a 64-bit multithreaded DOS written in VisualBASIC.Net, and Windows Longtooth will run on top of that. Also, Longtooth will contain more code changes than any previous version of Windows, both in the number of changed source lines of code (SLOCs) and in the percentage of the total Windows codebase changed. Tremendous numbers of new features are being implemented in completely new code.
More importantly, Microsoft employees are combing through the codebase, in a relentless search for code that is mature, stabilized, and proven. This search has proved difficult, but when found, such code will be marked for reimplementation. I'm told that most of this code will be reimplemented in VisualBASIC.NET, even if the prior version was written in another language, such as C or C++. Programmers making the new VisualBasic.NET code are not allowed to look at the code that already exists, so that fixes to known issues will not be known until well after the software is deployed to millions of users.
The reason for these changes is simple: Study after study conducted by Microsoft has proven that security through obscurity is the only way to go, especially in an operating system deployed to millions of users, with many instances running mission critical applications in finance, industry, government, and other sectors. Microsoft has identified that viruses, worms, spam, spyware, adware, malware, hackers, and phreakers are able to compromise Windows security because vulnerabilities in the code are known. By changing much of the codebase, especially the stablest and most proven parts, Microsoft will thwart the efforts of malicious programmers, as it will take time for them to find the new vulnerabilities in the unknown code.
To meet Microsoft's first goal of reducing the user's perception of the complexity of Windows, Microsoft will integrate a new technology, dubbed Microsoft Windows User Simplicity And Security Manager 2003, into Longtooth. This technology will hide all configuration settings from the user. All settings will be completely automatic, and the user will have no need to know or care what is under the hood. In reality, Longtooth will be the most complex version of Windows yet, with thousands of configuration settings controlling nearly every function of the operating system. The settings will be produced by discove
is it really important? if it was important to use RHL 6.2, you have the source and there are plenty of smart people around to fix problems.
with linux, you have that choice. when MS really pulls the plug on W2k, you're outa luck unless you can find some source code
the other thing to realize is that part of this is consumer demand. the drop dead date for windows 98se kept on being pushed back because of an amazing number of *big* corporate users that wanted support. if the death of win98 can be pushed back, so can the death of w2k.
eric
This is a great example of the level of support, dedication, and customer service you get from a company like Microsoft.
Best Buy can have you arrested
our school gave us craptops with win 98 to use for school work. as long as we did our work and stayed out of trouble, they didnt really care what we did with the laptops.
we immediately started tweaking with them trying to improve the preformance and stability.
removing all the novell software was a great boost to the preformance.
upgrading to windoes xp expontntialy increased the stability, but with only 128mb ram, the preformance on xp left something to be desired.
then one of my pals tried windows 2000. it was perfect. stable, but not a ram whore.
redhat also ran prety good, but one of our classes required that we had M$ visual basic, so dual booting was the only choice to run *nix
"What does slashdotting mean?"
"You've never heard of slashdot?"
"I know it makes websites not work."
Heck, you can do your gaming on Linux as well.
The SNES was the apex of good game design, anyway. After the SNES, everything had to include FMV and 3D everything. Pfeh.
Well, you probably want a console if you're not a curmudgeon like me.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
I think supporting consoles is as dangerous as supporting Windows, because I want PCs to win.
So do you suggest that developers of homebrew GBA games should switch to supporting Palm OS or the J2ME platform or something? What decent handheld game system is there that's not locked down?
This is even a bigger problem with software than with other property "intellectual" or otherwise. With car parts, if worst comes to worst you can preserve the car by looking at the broken part and figure out how to make a copy. With old books or music you can preserve it by making a copy, because you can read or play it.
With abandonware, on the other hand, you're screwed. "Preserving" software doesn't mean just keeping the executable bits around, it has to be maintained and ported to new systems to retain its usefulness (remember, the Public Domain is designed to allow derivative works, not just access to the original). Therefore, preservation can't happen without the source code.
Considering all this, I don't think just passing a law that removes copyright and patent protections from unsupported software is enough. The law ought to require the release of the source code as well.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
My organization has about 80 Windows 2000 Professional desktops and no plans on upgrading yet. We are very good about getting all the updates as soon as they come out, but still see no reason to switch. I am honestly not trolling here, but what incentives besides "MS won't fix any further bugs" do we have? Is there anything that you found being worth the switch? We have roaming profiles and, up till now, very homogenious installs. The other side of the coin is how well XP behaves in Samba3 NT4-like domain. If it's any flakier than 2K, forget about it.
Haven't we heard this crap before? Quit comparing computers to 3000 pounds of moving metal. They aren't the same, as ubiquitous as they both might be.
it's cool but it's braindead.
In Server 2003 (which doesn't cost much more than XP Pro, in fact), you can do 2 remote sessions and a local session without having to log off.
And Windows 2000 can do real-deal terminal services (as many sessions as you want), which can be used for free if you use 2000 or XP as a remote client (and rdesktop with a patch).
I'd rather just add TS to 2000, install the license server locally, and enjoy the flexible goodness.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
Which reminds me of Dilbert's experience with the Random Number Generator which keeps saying "Nine, nine, nine.."
[Dilbert:] "Are you sure that's random?"
[Accounting Troll:] "That's the trouble with random, you never can tell."
Windows 2000 Pro is the last MS operating system I will ever buy; they haven't created superior alternatives, and it looks like they don't want to.
When I can no longer run the applications I want to run on Windows 2000, or when they stop releasing current security patches for it, I'm buying a Mac (it won't be the first time - Windows 2000 Pro was the OS to pull me AWAY from Mac OS Classic). Hell if I'm going to "upgrade" to XP Pro, not when you want to track my hardware purchases (activation, in case there are people who didn't know what this was for) and force me to turn so much garbage off in order to _approximate_ the same kind of setup I already have in Windows 2000 Pro. MS, you have lost a customer in me and caused your partners (PC parts manufacturers and software publishers) to lose my business as well. Should've recognized a good thing and kept it going, you idiots. Windows NT 5.1 was a giant leap backwards in many ways, as far as I'm concerned, and if my refusal to downgrade to it makes you want to lose my business, I'm happy to leave.
It's fairly obvious that this is a ploy to... *stimulate* economy. Let's face it, vendors (including Microsoft) needs the revenue from upgrades. With hundreds, if not thousands, of businesses contently using W2k, there's little reason for software or hardware upgrade. Kill W2k, and revenue from software and hardware upgrade will come streaming in...
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
This was easily the best operating system MS ever made; easy-to-use, stable, and could run any app written for Windows/WinNT/16-bit Windows.
Sure as a desktop OS it's huge improvement over 9x, but as a server product it's complete shit. Memory management and protected space are a joke. The registry is easy to corrupt and difficult to support.
I'm trying to influence a friend's purchase of a new PC, I think if it was shorter than 2 years the expiry date for support for XP Home/Professional could influence his opinion. (He wants gaming, and that's it, not even Word.)
It'd be handy for future reference too if I knew where to look for Windows details like this. A brief skim through the XP EULA didn't clarify this matter.
As ever, any help appreciated in advance.
One key reason for the Windows 2000 retirement may be that Windows 2000 does not require an online activation within 30 days, only the entry of a standard product activation key. In contrast, Windows 2003 Server requires an online activation within 30 days. By ending support for Windows 2000, Microsoft will close the loop on a stable OS that can be shared and reinstalled at will.
I run Windows 2000 Server at home and appreciate the fact that I can reinstall at any time if needed. I will run Windows 2000 as long as possible before switching.
p.s. I also run Apache and Firefox on my Win2K machine. Not worried about IE7 or IIS fixes.
With the most (arguably) liked and stable version of Windows now unsupported, will more interest be switching to the React OS http://www.reactos.com/project? Increasing userbase and gaining traction?
This article is just flat out wrong.
From the article:
"Microsoft Corp. plans to announce as early as next week that it is ready to ship a Windows 2000 Update Rollup, the final security patch for the 5-year-old operating system."
The final security patch? Microsoft will provide security-related patches for Windows 2000 until 2010. Heck, even eWeek's own site basically says that here.
Am I missing something?
1) Non-security hotfix support unless you buy an extended contract for this.
2) No-charge incident support
3) Warranty Claims
4) Design changes and feature requests
Here's a link to the dates on their site. Click ont he link towards the top of that page for the FAQ where they explain what all this means.
They released security updates for NT4 well beyond when its extended support phase ended and I imagine they'll do the same for 2000. Even if they don't, I'm of the opinion that this is a very agreeable support lifecycle.
-Lucas
>>And Windows 2000 can do real-deal terminal services (as many sessions as you want)
That's Windows 2000 Server, not the desktop product. Windows 2000 Pro has no RDP server at all, even for one client. Server costs a lot more, even with the cheapest license. Same for 2003. The 1 server, 5 clients license lists for over $1000.
..we can all trade our Win2K CD keys because Microsoft won't care about it any more?
I think that once software is "retired" that source code should be released for fans to support it.
If I wish to win 2k because it works for me - then I should be given the source to be able to code it to keep working as the net evolves.
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
I happen to agree totally that 2000pro/server was the first and last decent OS that they have put out.
However supporting it forever and not forcing people to upgrade cuts into their profits.
I expect a deliberate attempt to neutralize 2000 ( and earlier ) to begin soon. Cant have those pesky people running around that arent on the 'upgrade train'.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
More like only, and thats pushing it. Win2k is the best version of Windows there is, but whether its any good or not is definitely up for debate.
Either way, after XP, I can't see them ever getting this good again. |Its a shame 2k never made it into the mainstream.
"XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, use more." - Anonymous Coward
XP/2003 is SO much better than 2k.
There's countless trolls saying how XP is nothing more than 2k with a teletubbies skin (no extra features) and there's no reasons to switch...
There are new features. There isn't many of them though, and that alone makes it hardly worth switching.
What made me switch? No, not the skins and all that (got all that junk disabled). Stability is MUCH better. 2k has always given me MANY driver problems. XP seems to have a 100x better ACPI. Disable the themes and sounds on XP (and the annoying security center), and you get what Win2K should have been. It just works. And now updates (XP SP2 technology that was added to IE and what not), the new IE7 and WMP 10 and what not won't be ported to 2k, which is going in extended support as well...
Some people will stick to 2k, but I really don't miss it. 2003 is a much better server than 2000 ever was as well. Other than not paying for updates, there aren't any reasons to stick to 2k.
It is official -- eWeek confirms: Win2K is dying One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered Win2K community when Netcraft confirmed that Win2K market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of a recent eWeek article which plainly states that Win2K will roll out the final Win2K update, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. Win2K is collapsing in complete disarray. You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict Win2K's future. The hand writing is on the wall: Win2K faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for Win2K because Win2K is dying. Things are looking very bad for Win2K. As many of us are already aware, Win2K continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood. All major surveys show that Win2K has steadily declined in market share. Win2K is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If Win2K is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. Win2K continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, Win2K is dead. Fact: Win2K is dying
That thing deserves to die. It's used by 99% clueless coders, and the code produced by them is first grade garbage.
Oh yes, there's about 3 people left who can write decent VB code that would still like to use it, but you gotta get with the times.
This is similar to what they did with NT4 SP7. Just before SP7 was to release, they went to a hotfix and nixed it.
doesn't mean it sucks.
Properly configured XP doesn't seem any slower than 2k - even on old and slow PCs.
File delete? Just as fast here...
plug a mass storage device and don't want to see it scan it anymore? tell it not to, it's not rocket science...
I work with both everyday, and 2k doesn't do anything faster or better than XP does. You truly don't have a point.
Other than the gay looking themes and start menus? (thanks god those can be disabled!)
-system restore
-firewall (not a PIX firewall, but it works fine)
-Remote Desktop
-ClearType
-new start menu & taskbar (first thing I disable!)
-New SP2 features (IE security namely - although it's still crap)
-WMP 10
-automatic updates
-more than 600 new GPO settings
-better hardware support
-ACPI is about 7 trillion times better (or more?)
-driver rollback
-new tools and deployment kit (upgraded everything like WINNT.SIF), scripts, tools like bootvis... LOTS of very useful stuff
A bunch of not overly useful (or not used often/lesser known) features:
-can burn cds without 3rd party apps
-application compatibility mode
-WIA (windows image acquisition)
-remote assistance
-BITS
-ability to use fugly looking and themes to make your PC slow and the GUI bloated with useless clutter
-uPnP
-Wireless zero config
-fast resume from hibernate/standby
-faster boot times (not automatic!)
-memory protection
-better power management -> longer battery life on laptops
-"easy file sharing" (useful for some home users)
-fast user switching
It's WAY more stable than 2k ever was/will be
The only real downside is the activation on non-corp versions
There's LOTS more to list, that's just off the top of my head. Main thing is still better stability/reliability and by FAR. I, for one, won't be missing 2k at all!
But hey, it's cool to hate, and this is slashdot, so none of that is useful or doesn't really exist, 2k pwnz!! </sarcasm>
Are new releases going to be compatible with 2K ?
If you are a corporation, committed to evil, as M$
is please do not be surprised when marketing turns
technical sanity into a pretzel;
The message you are intended to take, from this, if
you are smart is __UPGRADE__ since w2K is dead,
if you are smarter, use this as a poster child for
why M$ is not to be trusted as a business partner,
and move your servers to Apache, and your clients
to Firefox,
then migrate all servers to Linux, carefully and
cautiously, and forget about crashes and reboots.
This just smells of Microsoft copying Apple yet again....
I have A couple of WinXP Pro machines, a few Linux based machines, and a Windows 2003 Server machine (MSDN "test os", for a side project).
Being behind a firewall, and using Firefox, the Kids don't pick up as much junk as before, but the WinXP boxes still get some minor trash to clean up now and then.
I have 5 personal computers and 3 work computers on-site (home based office).
They all suck!
I am seriously considering buying a Mac for the next computer, I am sure it will suck too, but in a different, and less troublesome way.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
BTW, I am still not going to read it.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Yep. Though I use GNU/Linux as my desktop and a Mac for a laptop, as a consultant I often need a Windows box. I've been running Win2K for years on a separate machine and it has been amazingly rock solid. And that is precisely the reason it is being phased out: solid operating systems mean no reason to upgrade, when means no sales.
The antidote for misuse of freedom of speech is more freedom of speech.
-- Molly Ivins
I think they meant to say "The Update Rollup, will be Windows 2000 SP5 (Service Pack 5)" or something like that...
Sheesh. Editors, please, don't drink until after 5pm, or whenever you submit articles, whichever is later. Maybe each post should get two approvals before we see it?
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Which of the following best expresses the INTENT of the passage?
[ ] The update rollup will be released as Service Pack 5.
[ ] The update rollup will not be released, but Service Pack 5 will.
[X] Instead of Service Pack 5, the update rollup will be released, replacing Service Pack 5 as the final mainstream support package.
[ ] Richard Nixon.
Have you *never* been laid? Maybe we should take up a collection for you so we can hire some help for you in that department.
As far as Longhorn being W2kPro, I doubt M$ would spend the money they have to develop an operating system that already exist (although Longhorn DEFINATELY sounds like it is W2kPro). Microsoft probably has learned a few things from it's competitors and from the way Gates and Ballmer have been talking I would expect to see Linux-like additions (such as multiple desktops). I also suspect that Microsoft will be doing some INTERESTING things (to say the least) with the way we watch tv, listen to radio, and watch movies.
Personally I'll agree with you to a point. Longhorn will resemble Windows 2000. What I think Longhorn is trying to do is implement a type of Windows 2000 / Media Center Edition akin to WinXP MCE '02. Of course there's still the ability to install Longhorn on OLD computers as well as the computers we're waiting for. So will I upgrade? I doubt it, at least not until it is shown to be stable (without have to restart everyday). I have still ignored WinXP for this very reason. Furthmore, Microsoft should not expect me to forget Linux because of Longhorn, even if Longhorn becomes the best OS they've ever made.
I had to reinstall a fried hard drive on a clients point of sale workstation. I was happy it was W2k so I did not have to hassle with the product activation that would be with XP. They still have the license available and installed on the same workstation. It is confusing with Microsoft licensing about used computers, OEM licenses, new hardware, non-transferrable. Open source keeps looking better and I hope it picks up more developers and software offerings. My .02
does this mean that winxp will be deserted in a year or two for longhorn?Winxp's 5 year anniversary is almost here...
See Product Lifecycle Dates and the Lifecycle Policy FAQ.
A thought occurs to me:
Microsoft, like many other software companies, regards what you purchase as a license to use their software rather than your buying complete ownership of it.
If it is a license for a single year, why is there not an ongoing fee for each year's additional license?
That there isn't implies that you are buying a license to the software in perpetuity. If that is the case, what is it that excuses Microsoft from that contract? Any other in perpetuity contract would certainly allow the manufacturer to stop supporting a given version so long as they provided an upgrade to a supported version.
Were Blizzard to release World of Warcraft 2 and decide to no longer continue the WoW1 service, most people would likely be offered a free upgrade to the WoW2 client. When Sony Online released an expansion and compulsory patch that no longer supported Windows 95, those who chose not to upgrade were able to get a refund of their initial EverQuest purchase price. Why is it that Microsoft doesn't have to abide by the same rules?
I'm willing to put my money on this:
If there's a major security breach in Win2k between the time of this rollup's deployment and the official EOL, win2k will not see a fix for it.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Well with the Fall of Windows 2K, I hear Windows 3K maks a good client if you stip out the server junk.
LOL
Isn't this the *real* reason why Microsoft is 'killing' it?
Beware of 'Trusted Computing'. I'll bet Longhorn is the gateway to that DRM nightmare....
Corporate XP Pro does not have to be activated.
this has been posted before just fyi... funny and ontopic though
I'm not stupid since the date that Microsoft did put automatic-traps in Windows XP SP2.
SP5 is spyware, sure!!!
It's my end, NOT MORE UPDATES!!!
Don't forget: Wintel, DRM, TCG, TCPA, Palladium, BSA, RIAA, ....
In other news, people are shocked and astounded that Microsoft is spending more time and more money devoloping it's next gaming console the Xbox360. It's even said that Xbox360 is going to be running Windows2k or at least based on it... So why stop support for 2k if your going to support it running on xbox360s! Quite contradictory...
I hate XP, w2003 seems just like a newer version of w2k. Only problem is you have to use product activation, so its not suitable for, er, sharing.
http://rareformnewmedia.com/
actually if you mod the setupp.ini file and tell it it's a volume license copy of Win2k, it won't even ask you for a product key!!
point 1 is valid. but not to forget that we talk about software you eventually don't even need, but get anyway (like the rest of the crap in xp)
2. just a waste of hdd space. that's all. the user musn't muck up his system! how's that gonna fit to point 7??!?!
3.this is no firewall. it's a so called "personal-" or "desktop firewall". they provide no protection, they do nothing besides breaking new holes (see win32.witty etc...)
4. correct.
5. driver question
6. driver question
7. windows did not make it to real multiuser enviroments. a user, a pc. that's 99% the case.
anyone here knows it better that windows could, but we all know that the apps won't.so....
in fact XP ist just a 2k with a lot of crap and shit and useless -and dangerous- stuff (like the desktop firewall).
there is in fact a reason why people ask why they should switch anyways. Additionally you have to mention that windows 2000 knows directX too.
Microsoft will be supporting Win2k for a total of 10 years.
Red Hat's best support offer is 5 years.
I run OpenBSD. Every release of that gets only a single year.
So how do you plan to convince entrenched M$ shops to switch? This should be interesting.
The OS that drove the original Xbox was a hacked down, highly modified version of a Windows 2000 kernel, purposely specialized for what the Xbox was intended for. FEX, there's no reason to keep multiple HAL support since the hardware platform is standardized (enough) so you can immediately rip that out. But that's superficial.
The Xbox360 runs a majorly reshaped version of the original Xbox OS, which makes sense for Microsoft since they like to pick a platform and stick to it. So I hardly think it's "contradictory" that Windows 2000 is being shut out while they're birthing the Xbox360 since I doubt they share any common code these days anyway. At least, no more then Photoshop might still have bits around from ILM. In any case it's a non-issue.
And I don't know who these people are that are "shocked and astounded", but if they're as informed as you then they certainly shouldn't have been included in the census.
I'm against picketing, but I don't know how to show it.
Pop a win2k server CD (for example, one from MSDN) into your computer.
... But you didn't hear it from me. :-)
Find the tsoc.in_ file. Expand this (using expand.exe) into a location on your computer.
Right click on this and select "install". It should ask you for the windows server 2000 cd (which is in your computer). It will copy the rest of the necessary files, make some registry changes, install the RDP driver and install the TS service and admin tools.
If this doesn't work, you might need NTSwitch to convince the system it's okay to proceed. Alternatively you can change a few lines in the header of the INF file to allow it to work on your particular build/revision of 2000 professional.
You could even install it manually if you know how to kick it with regsrv32, expand.exe and regedt32... the tsoc.inf file is well commented and straightforward (basically you want to look at parts that talk about installing from "nothing" to "50").
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
First, will there be any supported Windows OS when longhorn finally comes out? If they are on a 5-year dump-cycle, then XP only has two more, and 2003 only three more.
Second, I guess this is another example of how "unsupported" open source has better support than a commercial product. Fedora Legacy still supports the 7.x line of Red Hat linux, which was first release in 2000. I'm sure they will as long as there are enough users and maintainers.