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."

Comments

eWeek may be spreading FUD

[capboy118]

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.

Wrong, wrong, wrong

[R.Mo_Robert]

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.

Pulled from shelves

[smiley2billion]

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.

Re:Why upgrade to XP?

[R.Mo_Robert]

If all your concerned about is security patches, you've got until September 2010. I know Microsoft has delayed Longhorn a lot, but I don't think it'll be quite that late...

My advice: Stick with Windows 2000--extended support isn't the end of the world like this FUD-filled article wants us to think--wait a year or two for Longhorn to come out, and then consider upgrading. Hopefully you won't need to upgrade your hardware (much?).

Re:Why upgrade to XP?

[DaveJay]

>Have you ever administered/troubleshooted 20+ PCs remotely >using 2k.
>Right, you cant.

Yes you can. It's called VNC.

Re:No IE7!

[bhtooefr]

From what I've heard, you'll have to frankenstein XP SP2 onto Win2K, and that may also mean frankensteining pieces of the base of XP, to the point that it's XP, but with a registry telling it that it's 2000.

At that point, you're better off cracking an XP SP2 install, and going with that - Windows Update isn't going to work either way, and the cracked XP is going to be more stable.

Now, I'm hoping against hope that it's a simple:

if winver == "Windows NT 5.0":
exitInstaller("Insufficient Windows Version")

, but I doubt it... IE6 did that to Windows 95, but it didn't actually use any features of Windows that Windows 98 introduced that hadn't been backported to 95 already (with IE4). As I said before, IE7 supposedly uses stuff in XP SP2, and MS has already said that they won't backport that to 2K.

Re:Why upgrade to XP?

[Vellmont]

All of those features are perhaps nice for certain Enterprise users, but for me and anyone I work with they're mostly useless. I prefer people run a hardware firewall behind a NAT over a software firewall on Windows. People like to screw with their windows machines too much for software firewalls to be much use. No one ever touches the hardware firewall.

The only feature in that list that's even slightly usefull is the terminal services. While that's nice, if you really need remote access to a box, just install PCAnywhere. You can administer/troubleshoot 20+ PCs with PCAnywhere quite nicely.

Re:Any reason to upgrade yet?

[YrWrstNtmr]

I am honestly not trolling here, but what incentives besides "MS won't fix any further bugs" do we have?

If W2000 works for you, nothing. Extended support (security hotfixes) for W2000 doesn't end until March 2010.

Re:W2K

[bhtooefr]

The WSC stays out of your way if you disable ALL the individual features in the correct way (or give it what it wants).

To disable the firewall portion, do the following:

1. Open the Security Center
2. Manage the settings for Windows Firewall
3. Disable the firewall
4. Install your own firewall (if you so desire)
5. If your own firewall isn't compatible with WSC, it will be bitching about no firewall. Click "Recommendations...", and then check "I have a firewall solution that I will monitor myself". That will disable that portion (the WSC will show that in yellow, but it won't bitch).
6. If it is OK with your firewall, leave it alone. If your firewall fucks up, it'll tell you about it.
7. If you don't have a firewall, go to "Change the way Windows Security Center alerts me" (on the left pane). Uncheck "Firewall", and click OK.

Disabling autoupdates (Bad Idea(tm)):

1. Open the Security Center
2. Manage settings for Automatic Updates (notice a common thread?)
3. Turn off automatic updates (PLEASE don't - turn it down, but not off - I'm on cable, so I use auto dl, but not autoinstall)
4. Go to the "Change how WSC alerts me" thing, and uncheck Automatic Updates IF you disabled them. Otherwise, leave it on - somehow, malware (or clueless users who use your computer) could disable AutoUpdates, and notification would be nice...

Disabling AV detection:

1. If you have an AV app, disable it for a sec. Then, go to "Recommendations...", and check "I have an AV program I'll monitor myself". Reenable the AV app, for crying out loud!
2. If you DON'T, GET ONE! If you don't want one, go to "CHWSCAM", and uncheck "Virus Protection", and prepare to get owned.

That doesn't TOTALLY fix everything (for example, some things may be at a yellow state), but it won't annoy you. Disabling all alerts will in effect disable WSC entirely. Now, you can use SP2 as a major security update that doesn't fuck with you (and makes IE a little more bearable - get another browser if you're still on IE, while you're at it). Myself, I run Windows Firewall (I know, I know - but, I'm behind a NAT, and am pretty good at managing the apps on here, so I think I'm safe enough) in full mode, AutoUpdates in DL only mode, and Avast! Antivirus in full mode with the WSC (note - Avast has a timebomb if you don't give them your e-mail address (they don't spam), and WSC doesn't pick up that it timebombed).

The final security patch for win2k? Hardly.

[luminate]

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?

Re:W2K

[x0n]

The Slashdot editors are posting FUD again. From the IE Blog:

...Windows 2000 SP4 moves from mainstream to extended support. The key difference between mainstream support and extended support which I think is most relevant to this audience is this quote from the lifecycle site: "Microsoft will not accept requests for warranty support, design changes, or new features during the Extended support phase." We will of course continue to keep our Windows 2000 SP4 customers secure with security updates through the life of Windows 2000 (through 2010).

So, no, it's not the final nail: The article is blatently misleading, or just plain wrong. Essential fixes like security fixes will continue for at least another 5-6 years.

Can we please move away from this partisan hackery, and have the old slashdot back? please? anybody?

- Oisin

Re:Why upgrade to XP?

[hacker]

"It's called VNC is slower and less functional."

Do you know WHY its "slower" (by your incorrect perception)? Because it doesn't contain the Win32 primitives locally, which rdesktop does. VNC is simply placing pixels across the screen and transmitting x,y coordinates to the remote host.

Remote Desktop (the client) contains almost all of the local draw/vector primitives for Microsoft operating systems locally. That's the main reason you believe it to be "faster".

In reality however, VNC is faster in terms of sending and receiving the bits, its the local translation on both sides that makes it seem "sluggish".

But that's already been solved years ago by the dozen-or-so VNC clients that do a lot more than just send and receive packets. You should try one of the more-recent VNC clients first, before you admonish them all as "slow".

Not all Windows2000 machines have Windows Terminal Services running (if even installed), and even if they do, most of those will be blocked outside the firewall. VNC by comparison, lets you change the port and runs as a userland program (in some cases) on those machines. The same client also works to administer OSX, Linux, BSD and other machines. Can the same Remote Desktop client do that? No.

In short, VNC is much more useful, faster (if you configure it properly and use a decent VNC client and server combination), and works for every operating system out there.