Final Windows 2000 Update 385
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."
It's a shame... (Score:5, Insightful)
They should have supported it longer.
W2K (Score:5, Insightful)
I dont think this isn the end just yet (Score:3, Insightful)
And this is why it had to die (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:No IE7! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
What if Detroit did this? (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Activation is the real problem (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Win2k vs WinXP (Score:3, Insightful)
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...
Re:No IE7! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:What if Detroit did this? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:No IE7! (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:W2K (Score:2, Insightful)
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?
Re:No IE7! (Score:3, Insightful)
"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.
Re:Any reason to upgrade yet? (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:No IE7! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Forking from Win2K to Linux...Is it hard? (Score:2, Insightful)