Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Final Windows 2000 Update

Posted by Zonk on from the putting-her-out-to-pasture dept.

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."

47 of 385 comments (clear)

  1. No IE7! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting
    No IE7. What will this mean? For a start, web masters everywhere will be forced to support IE6's crappy CSS for ages. They even refuse to port back the rendering fixes to MSHTML.dll. Look on the IEBlog. Bruce Morgan, arrogant slimeball that he is, first censors a perfectly valid comment just because he admitted that Win2K has hundreds of buffer overflows and integer overflows that were fixed in XP SP2. (And doesn't answer why they aren't patching the overflows). He then goes on to say:
    "browser feature set of IE6, browser platform of IE6, rendering engine of IE7" seems like it appeals to no one. You wouldn't get end user adoption because that's not driven by HTML rendering abilities. You wouldn't get much corporate adoption because such a hybrid would risk breaking existing apps for (again) little end user goodness.
    Note how he doesn't mention webdevs once. What happened to ballmer and 'Developers developers developers developers'? And he makes it sound like home users actually have a choice! If MS wanted to make the internet a better place then they are morally bound to do this. Prats like Morgan mean that they won't. Yes, people can download Firefox but not everyone will - there will be enough people using IE6 on 2K to be painful to webmasters everywhere.

    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.

    1. Re:No IE7! by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:No IE7! by binary+paladin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:No IE7! by bhtooefr · · Score: 2, Informative
      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.
    4. Re:No IE7! by ScytheBlade1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "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.

    5. Re:No IE7! by MMMDI · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Then again, there's always a small minority of users who will blame the webmaster instead of the browser for their lousy web experience.

      Amen. My newest project (shameless plug) is still small in terms of popularity, but I receive numerous "why does this look weird / not work in IE" messages regardless. Trying to explain to people that the site is standards compliant and that IE doesn't properly support standards is somewhere in the range of explaining the laws of physics in terms of how much people grasp the concept.

      According to the stats for this month, 14.7% of viewers are still using Windows 2000 or lower. That number was 16.2% last month, but I'm sure the small drop is thanks to only four days worth of data being in the system for this month. Combine this with 75.3% of viewers using IE (0.5% using IE 3.0!), and I can only imagine the feedback I'll be receiving when the site grows in popularity.

      Disclaimer: the site is standards compliant unless you check out a review where one of us has used an & symbol in the review text. MySQL character encoding, been busy, need to fix it, blah blah blah.

    6. Re:No IE7! by jdvorak · · Score: 2, Funny

      yea yea! take back the web...in this case not by force or word of mouth, but just the simple fact that Microsoft isnt "up to date" hehehe

      --
      - Karma means you don't get away with anything
    7. Re:No IE7! by MacGod · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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
  2. It's a shame... by Tuxedo+Jack · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!
    1. Re:It's a shame... by Husgaard · · Score: 2, Funny
      Nah, MS-DOS 1.0 was the best operating system they ever made. Since then it just got worse and worse ;-)

      Just look at the security: I don't see any outstanding security bulletins on MS-DOS 1.0. How many MS-DOS 1.0 PCs have viruses, and how many are 0wned by zombie networks?

    2. Re:It's a shame... by shanen · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Ah, but they did not make DOS 1. They bought it from some local guy.

      Having said that, I, too, regard W2K as the best OS Microsoft has produced to date. However, they have a marketing cycle that, in the absence of real competition, requires that they produce a couple of years of garbage so that at some point they'll produce a good one they can really market. W95 was like that, and W2K. I'm doubtful that Longhorn is the real one, actually. I think they're still retrenching and they won't actually need another good product until around 2009. Then again, maybe Longhorn will be delayed that long...

      I still think Word XP is still a deeply offensive product compared to Word 2000...

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    3. Re:It's a shame... by toddestan · · Score: 2, Interesting

      W95 was like that, and W2K.

      Windows 95? I thought Windows 3.11 was a better OS. Sure, it lacked a lot of features that pretty much made running it after about 1997 impossible. But 3.11 was a lot more stable, and lot easier to configure and tweak - sure, lots of hacking of config.sys, autoexec.bat, and various .ini files, which wasn't that bad once you knew what you were doing. I'd rather deal with those than the mess known as the registry that we have been stuck with ever since. Windows 3.11 was fast too, it would fly on a high end 486, whereas Windows 95 would crawl on the same computer. And call me strange, but I kind of liked the GUI in 3.11 in a quaint kind of way.

  3. W2K by orangeguru · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is that the final nail? I am still working with W2K - and I see no reason to upgrade.

    1. Re:W2K by |/|/||| · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Same here - in fact I see many reasons not to upgrade. "Trusted" computing will be the final nail in Microsoft's coffin as far as I'm concerned, but even XP goes a bit too far with their activation scheme.

      No thanks, MS. I'll use 2000 for compatibility as long as it works, and then I'll go to linux 100%. Or maybe I'll get a Mac? Never thought I'd even consider it, but who knows.

      On a practical note, did anyone bother to read TFA? What do I need to make sure that I have on hand for future 2K installations - just this rollup or rollup+SP4? Bah, I guess I should investigate it myself.

      --
      [javac] 100 errors
    2. Re:W2K by hoeferbe · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Orangeguru wrote in comment 12718854:
      Is that the final nail? I am still working with W2K - and I see no reason to upgrade.

      I felt the same way, but it appears Windows 2000 users still have 2 more years of security updates.

      W2k is leaving the "mainstream support" on June 30, 2005 and entering "extended support". According to question #17 of Microsoft Support Lilfecycle Policy FAQ:

      Security updates will be available through the end of the extended support phase (five years mainstream phase plus five years extended support phase) at no additional cost for most products. Security updates will be posted on the Windows Update Web site during the mainstream support phase, and during the first two years of extended support. In the final three years of the extended support period, Microsoft will continue to post important and critical security updates on the Microsoft Download Center Web site.

      The caveat is that the above is for "Business and Development software" and not for "Consumer, Hardware, Multimedia, and Business Solutions products". I would assume W2k is business software, but I'm not 100% sure.

    3. Re:W2K by bhtooefr · · Score: 2, Informative
      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).
    4. Re:W2K by x0n · · Score: 2, Informative
      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

      --

      PGP KeyId: 0x08D63965
    5. Re:W2K by WAR-Ink · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Whether it can be disabled or not isn't the issue. The fact that it is unused and can't be removed it the issue. I have a hardware based firewall that works much better than any security Microsoft has ever provided. They should leave it to the professionals.

      The Security Center is exactly an example of how XP "knows better than you" and you should just except the defaults. It can't be REMOVED, only disabled. And the disabling only remains disabled under certain circumstance.

      If I get a crash, or a security breech or have trouble with a virus scanner, how do I know that Security Center isn't the problem? I don't, because it is there and it is in the way. McAfee even had to come out with a workaround for SP2 when it was released.

      XP is likely the last Windows product I will ever use at home. Linux or Apple will be next up.

      It seems to me this is exactly what Microsoft has just paid almost a billion dollars about. They add software (media player) that can't be removed (IE), call it an OS feature. I guess if they add Office in, thats a feature too?

  4. Time to Find New Exploits by N3Roaster · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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!
  5. Win2k vs WinXP by Paralizer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:Win2k vs WinXP by cnettel · · Score: 2, Insightful
      XP is the 2000 kernel trimmed and fixed up. One of the most significant changes was the work to speed up boot time, which involved lots of kernel tweakings, as most of the time is naturally spent in kernel mode, or polling/probing hardware.

      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...

  6. eWeek may be spreading FUD by capboy118 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  7. I dont think this isn the end just yet by Timesprout · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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
  8. This could be good for Linux though... by Heem · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:This could be good for Linux though... by The+Bungi · · Score: 2, Interesting
      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

      Please provide a link to some press release or support policy document where Microsoft categorically states they will not patch W2K security vulnerabilities, either for the core OS itself or for its components. I'd really like to see it.

      Wait, never mind. Why waste time and Google for that? Here's the lifecycle support dates for all three versions of Windows 2000. You'll notice the "extended support retired" column lists 2010 as the year. That means that Microsoft will stop patching the OS in five years. 10 years after it was first released. The RedHat upgrade train is what, 3 years now? And let's see what Novell does as well.

      how support for linux will not "expire" like this.

      If you are basing your business on a 10 year-old operating system in this day and age and that OS does not have the "IBM" trademark behind it you probably need a cat scan, open source or not.

  9. It's not really the end by richardcavell · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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?

  10. And this is why it had to die by team99parody · · Score: 4, Insightful
    It's the biggest thread to Longhorn sales in existance.

    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.

    1. Re:And this is why it had to die by tftp · · Score: 2
      We've successfully used Gentoo on commercial apps that say they "require" Red Hat.

      You won't get support in that setup. Imagine paying $50K for Oracle (requires RH), $200K for some mission-critical software (also requires RH), then having a failure (causing losses $10K per hour, since the factory is at standstill) and unable to get support! Your hide would be in danger.

  11. What if Detroit did this? by anubi · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Slap patent and copyright protection on their products.

    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]

    1. Re:What if Detroit did this? by mrchaotica · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Which explains why generic replacement parts are illegal, right?

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  12. Wrong, wrong, wrong by R.Mo_Robert · · Score: 4, Informative

    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
  13. Activation is the real problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  14. Why upgrade to XP? by Vellmont · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:Why upgrade to XP? by R.Mo_Robert · · Score: 2, Informative

      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?).

      --
      R.Mo
    2. Re:Why upgrade to XP? by DaveJay · · Score: 2, Informative

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

      Yes you can. It's called VNC.

    3. Re:Why upgrade to XP? by Vellmont · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

      --
      AccountKiller
    4. Re:Why upgrade to XP? by hacker · · Score: 2, Informative
      "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.

  15. Pulled from shelves by smiley2billion · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  16. Random thoughts about Microsoft... by rice_burners_suck · · Score: 2, Funny
    ...and the phasing out of Windows 2000.

    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:

    • To reduce the user's perception of the complexity of Windows.
    • To gain increased security from emerging threats, such as viruses, worms, spam, spyware, adware, malware, hackers, and phreakers, among others.

    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

  17. it worked for me by brickballs · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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."
  18. Any reason to upgrade yet? by fsck! · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Any reason to upgrade yet? by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 4, Informative
      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.

    2. Re:Any reason to upgrade yet? by eobiont · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

  19. The final security patch for win2k? Hardly. by luminate · · Score: 3, Informative

    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?

  20. The Article and Posting are Wrong by Nintendork · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Tech support for 2000 will have to be paid for, but security patches will be released at LEAST until 2010-06-30. Between mainstream support ending and extended support ending, the only missing things are:

    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

  21. Remember NT4 SP7? by jav1231 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is similar to what they did with NT4 SP7. Just before SP7 was to release, they went to a hotfix and nixed it.

  22. Re:Forking from Win2K to Linux...Is it hard? by Azzhole · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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 !