Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Windows Operating Systems Software IT

Final Windows 2000 Update 385

Posted by Zonk 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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Final Windows 2000 Update More

Final Windows 2000 Update

Comments Filter:

  • No IE7! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 03, 2005 @06:55PM (#12718839)
    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 [msdn.com]. 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 [msdn.com] is the post in question, this [msdn.com] is the direct link to leave a comment which they've deliberately made subtle.

    • Re:No IE7! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by __aaclcg7560 ( 824291 ) on Friday June 03, 2005 @07:04PM (#12718922)
      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.
      • Actually, that will be a large majority of users, and that's been the problem all along. Microsoft is perfectly happy to have the bulk of IE users pointing various fingers at Web designers and not at their own software.

      • Re:No IE7! (Score:3, Insightful)

        by ScytheBlade1 ( 772156 )
        "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 lea

      • Re:No IE7! (Score:3, Interesting)

        by MMMDI ( 815272 )
        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 [moviesmademe.com]) 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 gra

    • Re:No IE7! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by binary paladin ( 684759 ) <binarypaladin@gm a i l . com> on Friday June 03, 2005 @07:33PM (#12719156)
      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.
      • What are the chances of us geeks unbundling IE7 from XP and working it into a package for 2K somehow?

        • Re:No IE7! (Score:3, Informative)

          by bhtooefr ( 649901 )
          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

      • The only real downside is that webdevs like me who use Win2k for IE testing are going to have to get XP now too.

        XP seems to have become the dominant platform, even among web developers. with W2K fast fading. OS Platform Stats [w3schools.com] March 2003-April 2005

      • Re:No IE7! (Score:3, Insightful)

        by MacGod ( 320762 )
        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.

  • It's a shame... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Tuxedo Jack ( 648130 ) on Friday June 03, 2005 @06:56PM (#12718853) Homepage
    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.
    • 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?

      • Re:It's a shame... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by shanen ( 462549 ) on Friday June 03, 2005 @07:14PM (#12719015) Homepage Journal
        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...

        • Office 97 at least properly used MDI... Office 2000+ uses a braindead MSDI (multiple single document interface)...

          WinXP has some good components to it - but some crap mixed in. I see little advantage (except for Win2K's security patches ending (unless you shell out LOTS of money for hotfix support)) to going to XP on a desktop, seeing as 2K does everything. However, I just like XP on a laptop better than 2K. Maybe it's because I've never had a problem with WZC, and hated the Linksys connection tool?

        • Re:It's a shame... (Score:3, Interesting)

          by toddestan ( 632714 )
          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

    • And this is why it had to die (Score:5, Insightful)

      by team99parody ( 880782 ) on Friday June 03, 2005 @07:03PM (#12718916) Homepage
      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.

      • XP & 2003 are pains to use as a server.

        Well, you wouldn't use XP for a server, and I don't see how 2003 is harder to admin for any bad reason. Most of the hurdles in 2003 are legitimately for security.

    • 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 mor
    • And very clean and fast. None of the annoying bells and whistles like in XP. I was sad to use XP instead of 2000 at work for production office machines. :(

  • W2K (Score:5, Insightful)

    by orangeguru ( 411012 ) on Friday June 03, 2005 @06:56PM (#12718854) Homepage
    Is that the final nail? I am still working with W2K - and I see no reason to upgrade.
    • Well here is your reason, I guess. Maybe not now, but in 2-3 years, when stuff will stop being compatible, and you'll stuck with the today's equivalent of Netscape 4 as your browser (IE6).

    • Re:W2K (Score:3, Interesting)

      by |/|/||| ( 179020 )
      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 installation

      • OK, I guess it didn't take much investigation. The rollup is on top of SP4. Here's MS's official word [microsoft.com] on the subject.

        I forsee a Linux-only desktop and console-only gaming in my future.

        • The Linux-only desktop is a good idea, but the console-only gaming isn't. Consoles are even worse than Windows in terms of lockdown and DRM. Since PCs and consoles seem to be converging, I think the only difference between them in the future will be how locked-down they are. Considering that, I think supporting consoles is as dangerous as supporting Windows, because I want PCs to win.

          • 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 [gbadev.org] should switch to supporting Palm OS or the J2ME platform or something? What decent handheld game system is there that's not locked down?

        • Heck, you can do your gaming [wikibooks.org] 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
      • Same here - in fact I see many reasons not to upgrade.

        The biggest one for me is the thread scheduler in XP just seems *different* than the one in win2k. The multitasking in nt/2k was *very* smooth, whereas XP allows programs to grab all the resources and drown the machine.

      • "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."

        That's for sure. Quicken runs on the Mac (I should give Gnucash a try, but Quicken is what works for me now). Game consoles will match PC gaming pretty soon except for a few niche genres (just give us a trackball please; FPS's suck with a gamepad). What other reason is there to keep Windows? A few must-have PC-only games?

      • Re:W2K (Score:2)

        by Cecil ( 37810 )
        Me too. I'm still on 2000 for my Windows machine, but my newest two computers have both been Powerbooks. *shrug* The exodus has begun, the only question is how large it will end up being. Just a few of us holdouts, or larger, perhaps?
    • Well, Micro$oft sees a reason that you upgrade. They live on the money you pay them.
    • The main reason I use XP is for Remote Desktop, which is pretty darn cool.

      I also find XP to be more stable then 2K.

      And I disable the gummy bear theme, hidden desktop icons, customized menus, etc. as soon as I log in.
      • 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.

    • Re:W2K (Score:2, Interesting)

      by hoeferbe ( 168081 )
      Orangeguru [slashdot.org] wrote in comment 12718854 [slashdot.org]:

      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 [microsoft.com]:

      Security updates will be available through the end of the extended support phase (five years mainstream phase plus five y

    • Re:W2K (Score:3, Informative)

      by x0n ( 120596 )
      The Slashdot editors are posting FUD again. From the IE Blog [msdn.com]:

      ...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 t

  • 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.

    • Now who's going to release a security patch for me to download every month?

      Microsoft. For some reason, Slashdot (and, to a certain extent, this article) wants to think Microsoft suddenly stops provoding critical updates after mainstream support ends on June 30.

      In fact, from what I understand, security updates will be provided for an additional five years, though for the last three they may appear only in the Microsoft Download Center.

    • ...because things like Red Hat Linux 6.2 are still up to date and patched today. Right?
      • 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 b
  • 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?
  • 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?
    • I believe the difference is that Service Packs are fully regression tested. Applying a service pack has far less risk associated with it than applying a patch. What this is is just a bunch of patches collected together with little regression testing. Think of it as an untested service pack.
    • Isn't that what service packs were pre-XP?

      Service Packs generally introduce new functionality, not just fixes.

  • Win2k vs WinXP (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Paralizer ( 792155 ) on Friday June 03, 2005 @07:01PM (#12718900) Homepage
    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?
    • "Why"? Users who can't be repeatedly milked for more and more money are useless. There is no reason to support them.
    • Microsoft needs to discontinue any previous versions that may compete with Longhorn when it comes out.
    • A cached tcp/ip stack...

      Don't ask me what good it does, I run Mandrake and Fedora here...

    • why discontinue support for one?
      It's expensive to support old software. That's really the main reason why companies obsolete old, but popular and functional software. This isn't much different in the linux world. RedHat no longer supports version 7.0. I believe that's actually younger than Windows 2000. The difference of course in the Open Source world is if there's enough interest, some group will step forward and support old versions of a distribution. But I don't think anyone is supporting Redha

    • Re:Win2k vs WinXP (Score:3, Insightful)

      by cnettel ( 836611 )
      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,

    • what is the difference between this and 2k? I mean, they use the same kernel don't they?

      Whats the difference between LInux 2.6.1 and 2.6.11? They're the same 2.6 kernel arn't they? Thats the difference between 2K and XP at that level. Its like the difference between the latest Suse and the latest Fedora. Essencially its the same system, they just put different stuff on top.

  • eWeek may be spreading FUD (Score:5, Informative)

    by capboy118 ( 647367 ) on Friday June 03, 2005 @07:01PM (#12718901)
    http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=patchmanagement&m= 111773947308242&w=2 [theaimsgroup.com] 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.

  • I dont think this isn the end just yet (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Timesprout ( 579035 ) on Friday June 03, 2005 @07:02PM (#12718903)
    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.

  • This could be good for Linux though... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Heem ( 448667 ) on Friday June 03, 2005 @07:02PM (#12718904) Homepage Journal
    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...
    • 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 [microsoft.com] the lifecycle support dates for all three versions of Windows 2000. You'll notice the "

  • 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?

  • 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.

    • That's the reason that they change car designs every few model years. See, if the junkyard fills up with semi-useful, people take the parts off of those cars and use them to replace broken parts on their new cars since a brand new car can have most of the same parts as a two or three year old car. What that does is keep people from buying new cars. To limit the usefulness of old parts, auto makers simply redesign some of the parts so that they don't fit. See, they've been doing the exact same thing as Mi
    • 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 reta

  • Wrong, wrong, wrong (Score:5, Informative)

    by R.Mo_Robert ( 737913 ) on Friday June 03, 2005 @07:06PM (#12718935)

    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.

  • Activation is the real problem (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    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
    • If you are working with MSDN and XP in a corporate lab environment, you would use the Corporate version of XP which does not require activation.

      Having said that, I miss the stability of 2000Pro, not to mention that search actually "worked" in Win2k.

  • Why upgrade to XP? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Vellmont ( 569020 ) on Friday June 03, 2005 @07:08PM (#12718962) Homepage
    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?
    • People that are screaming to have DRM advantages included...
    • I ran w2k right up until I swapped my PII-233 for the AMD 64 which came with XP Media Center (whoop de doo) and all of the drivers for the new DVD burner, etc already installed. w2k -easily- gave me a 40% performance boost when I upped from 98. And that was before adding the extra ram. I don't think I'll ever see that kind of performance boost from windows again.

      The only application that I could run under XP but not in w2k was my old copy of Lost Island of Dr Brain (I'm addicted to the music game - one

    • 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?).


    • I agree that Win2k is a pretty nice OS, but to claim that XP is less than is silly.

      XP has terminal services built in.
      It has system restore.
      It has better integration with AD.
      If you care about the security side, it has a firewall.

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

      So turn off the eye candy, disable the few extra services, and enjoy what I call Windows 2000+

      • Re:Why upgrade to XP? (Score:3, Informative)

        by DaveJay ( 133437 )
        >Have you ever administered/troubleshooted 20+ PCs remotely >using 2k.
        >Right, you cant.

        Yes you can. It's called VNC.

      • Re:Why upgrade to XP? (Score:3, Informative)

        by Vellmont ( 569020 )
        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
    • "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?"

      The hundreds of millions of users who run XP on a daily basis?

      XP is like Windows 2000+. It's not a huge upgrade, but there are a number of nice and notable features (ClearType, RGBA icons, firewall, Internet Connection Sharing, WIA for scanners & cameras, faster bootup, wifi support). If you turn off the theme service and disable the search dog, it's
  • 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.
  • 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
    • 90% of this posting is nothing but pure conjecture. The rest is just wrong.

      Your first sentence says you run Windows 2000, and your 11th sentence says you have never paid any money to Microsoft. If you don't agree with the cost of Windows, then don't run it.

      Put your money where your pathetic little mouth is and run Linux. Show your support by switching, not waving the moron fan boy flag.

  • "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.
  • ...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

  • You don't see Apple (for example) coming out with updates for System 8, do you?

    This is a great example of the level of support, dedication, and customer service you get from a company like Microsoft.

    • Three points:

      Mac OS 8.0 was released in July of 1997, compared to Win 2K's Feb 2000.

      New major revisions of the Mac OS (9, X.2, X.3, X.4) tend to choose to do the upgrade rather than hanging on forever because they are afraid of changing. Heck, I know they have made some updates to the Classic environment relatively recently, and it still works well enough that I am still able to play Armor Alley, a Mac game that was written in 1989 under OS 6 or before!

      Last, but not least, I hate to sound like a ze

  • it worked for me (Score:3, Interesting)

    by brickballs ( 839527 ) <brickballs@g[ ]l.com ['mai' in gap]> on Friday June 03, 2005 @07:38PM (#12719196) Homepage

    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

  • Any reason to upgrade yet? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by fsck! ( 98098 ) <.moc.liamg. .ta. .redle.bocaj.> on Friday June 03, 2005 @07:55PM (#12719334) Homepage
    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.

  • The final security patch for win2k? Hardly. (Score:3, Informative)

    by luminate ( 318382 ) on Friday June 03, 2005 @08:36PM (#12719614)
    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 [microsoft.com]. Heck, even eWeek's own site basically says that here [eweek.com].

    Am I missing something?

  • Remember NT4 SP7? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jav1231 ( 539129 ) on Friday June 03, 2005 @09:14PM (#12719854)
    This is similar to what they did with NT4 SP7. Just before SP7 was to release, they went to a hotfix and nixed it.

Slashdot Top Deals

Love may laugh at locksmiths, but he has a profound respect for money bags. -- Sidney Paternoster, "The Folly of the Wise"

Close