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."
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.
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
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.
For a start, web masters everywhere will be forced to support IE6's crappy CSS for ages.
The only webmasters who might be incline to support IE6 forever would be business application developers for the intranet. Otherwise, webmasters should design web pages with open standards in mind. When users start having a lousy web experience because they are running an older browser, they will either upgrade the operating system and/or switch browsers. Then again, there's always a small minority of users who will blame the webmaster instead of the browser for their lousy web experience. Go figure.
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]
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.
There is very little reason to use 2K pro if you have XP Pro available. You'll have to configure XP to get it to be 2000-like, but it does a great job of emulating it.
Windows 2000 is 5.0, and now 5.5 years old. It's a quite venerable age for a piece of software. Also, some hot fixes will continue to be available for those who have a reason to stay there until 2010.
I'm sad to see 2000 go, but XP is the natural successor. It's not like they would have asked you to ditch NT 4 for Me, or something...
I think you overestimate Win2k's usage. Not only that, but the kinds of people who use Win2k. Remember that while XP is based off the NT setup it was also the first to be marketed toward home users.
Yes, Win2k is NT and yes it supports DirectX but it was never marketed toward home users. The people using Win2k are professionals, nerds, techies, server admins, etc. These are the same kinds of people that keep their software up to date and are at least a little bit security conscious. The kind of people who still cling on to 2k aren't part of the senseless mob that generally uses IE in the first place.
You're right, not EVERYONE will download Firefox. Not EVERYONE has stopped using older versions of IE (still a good sized handful of people using 5 out there). Not EVERYONE has stopped using fucking Netscape 4.x either.
What changes is that when IE 7 comes out, there is an expectation that things won't work in IE 6 anymore and that expectation wasn't there before. Honestly, the worst thing this will do is force some 2k users to switch to something besides IE.
The only real downside is that webdevs like me who use Win2k for IE testing are going to have to get XP now too. Teh suck. Gotta make sure it works in IE 7 too. Bleh.
Yeah, a "small minority" of around 95%. Say, dork, have you even met an end-user?
"Otherwise, webmasters should design web pages with open standards in mind."
"Should". It's a wonderful word, isn't it? It means something, yet at the same time, means nothing.
I'm not trying to troll, but just remember: we'll ALWAYS have Joe's Mother's Geocities account, and unfortunatley, if relative B can't see this in Firefox, but can in IE, it isn't going to matter.
People SHOULD develop for open standards on the web, I do. However, getting EVERYONE to do so isn't going to happen. Period. Or, at least, it's going to be a heck of a long road before we reach that point.
For the IT staff of a small organization, Windows XP offers three important improvements to Windows 2000 (off the top of my head)
1. Built in remote access. You can shadow/remote control a machine without leaving your desk.
2. System save states. A user mucks up hear system, you can roll it back to the way the computer was before she installed the Aquarium Screen saver and assorted spyware.
3. Built in not too shabby firewall.
I thought of some more.
4. Faster boot times.
5. Support for Bluetooth
6. Better wireless support.
7. Lots of Group Policy Objects for securing clients are XP only.
All of these (first three) things of course may be added on to Windows 2000 for added expense from third parties, but having it in the OS means it will be patched and supported by MS PSS.
Windows XP is leaps and bounds better on laptops than 2000, but for a desktop machine, you'd have to decide whether any of the 7 points above are worth switching for. I would say any two would be worth the switch.
Except that a lot of businesses still install Win2K on their machines. And many of them lock out installs of other programs, including FireFox. Many of the bigger companies are a little reticent about free/open-source technology in general, so they stick with MS software (Windows Server, IE etc) because it's perceived as "safe". So, all of these users will still be running IE6, forcing the web-devs to ensure compatibility with an obsolete rendering engine.
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one " -Albert Einstein
I fugged with Linux for five years. It is my only OS at this time. I use Debian. the best way to install Debian is by using Progeny, Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Libranet or Xandros. I run a dual monitor setup, host my website and do allot of Gimp work . So far I like Xandros the best. You pay $90 bucks for it but Windows users will feel instantly comfortable on it and their file management system makes software installs a breeze..WAY easier than winbloze or any other flavor of Unix/Linux They have a free version./ Go load it up. You'll frak !