With just two days to go before the expiration of mainstream support for Microsoft’s Windows 2000 operating system, the software giant has provided an update rollup with more than 50 security patches and system reliability fixes. The Microsoft knowledgebase article provides more info.
That was nice of them. Cutting support for it after this isn’t quite so nice (though the 5-6 years is pretty good compared to even Woody, say
). If XP didn’t have so many image (and other) problems, moving to it wouldn’t be such a big deal.
I’ve acually been contemplating going back to 2000. I honestly believe that was Microsoft’s best OS so far.
It’s speedy and pretty much does what I want it to do, of course so would 98 and xp I guess.
I wonder if they have all these “rollups” on CD?
Is this not Service Pack 5 under a different name?
Just because XP’s SP’s add features doesn’t mean they always did, it used to just mean “big rollup of all previous bug fixes”.
Something tells me Micrsoft marketing stopped them using the name SP5 for this.
According to the blurb posted:
<blockquote>
This update rollup contains a list of security-related updates produced for Windows 2000 between the release of Windows 2000 SP4 and April 30, 2005
</blockquote>
According to windowsupdate:
<blockquote>
This update consists of previously released recommended, critical and security updates for Windows 2000, rolled into one convenient package. Installing this item provides you the same results as installing all the individual updates.</blockquote>
Strangely, since I’m up to date on patches, it’ll take 15 minutes on a 2Mbps connection to download the updates. That’s an awful lot of downloading unspecified software updates for an already fully-patched system.
Tell me again why this I only use this system for desperate “Must-have-Windows” emergencies (which happen around once per quarter, unless the wife decides to actually read her email for once!).
I’ll stick to Linux / Solaris / *BSD, thanks. When Windows becomes stable (oh – too late, the only-ever stable version is now unsupported) … If it ever becomes stable, then I’ll start using it.
Rollups are a package of all the hotfixes that have been released. Now if you note, when downloading a hotfix, it says that they reccomend that you wait until a service pack, which is more thoroughly tested, to get the update unless the problem is effecting you already.
SPs are more fully tested patches as opposed to a bunch of hotfixes.
Can this rollup be slipstreamed like the other service packs? Does MS’s rollup differ much if at all from this other post sp4 pack?
http://www.pubforum.net/security/w2ksp4/
Gosh darn it, we’re out of time! Well, you know you folks can upgrade to Windows XP…
fixes 10 problems that were discovered, doesnt do a damn thing about the 20 that weren’t, and creates 10 more that will never be fixed now…. download now!
When Windows becomes stable (oh – too late, the only-ever stable version is now unsupported) … If it ever becomes stable, then I’ll start using it
—————–
Hmm… Its been 6 months since the last time I had a crash in Windows that wasnt caused by a bad program… Does that mean my Windows XP isnt stable? I guess the crashes every now and then I would experience in Fedora must have meant it was as stable as can be…
“I’ve acually been contemplating going back to 2000. I honestly believe that was Microsoft’s best OS so far. ”
——-
Going Back? I never left Baby! My windows Desktop runs way faster than a similarly configured XP machine. Dumbasses at MS. When will they realize sucking the performance out of machines with a new OS just isn’t Kosher?
Linux (KDE, especially, but Gnome too) users also feel this pain… which is why I don’t convert. It’s just slower and then I’d have to dual boot for games.. bah. pain in the ass.
More games for linux! Then I’ll switch full time. Until then, it’s just the odd livecd. (slax baby, yeah!)
Why does anyone bother using XP out of the box? Use nLite to modify it, and it is FASTER than 2000. My nLite’ed XP SP2 cd is just over 400mb and is a completely unattended setup.
Best of all, not only do you get to decide what features will and will not be installed, but you get to pre-define settings (classic look, disable error reporting, etc etc).
XP + nLite = a much better setup than 2000.
http://www.nliteos.com/
freeware (donationware)
I agree totally. My cd was 150 mb without the drivers of course but all hotfixes…and it is way faster and responsive. I would take this over win 2k anyday.
I’ve been using 2000 to launch games for a while now, I vowed never to use another MS operating system. But now I wonder. With Battlefield 2 as well as a bunch of other programs requiring Windows XP, should I just bite the bullet and install XP?
I’ve toyed with XP home on a Dell box (I reinstalled, the default config sucked), and it’s possible after a couple of hours to beat XP into submission. It’s then almost like 2000 except it boots quicker.
I would probably use the opportunity to convert my main OS from Mandrake 10.0 to Ubuntu. Hmmm.. how to back up 250GB+ of stuff….
Hmm, Battlefield2 doesnt run under w2k?
It does work, but says it has only been tested under XP. Although I guess it does not use any features that 2k doesn’t support. Correct me if I’m wrong 🙂
“Hmm… Its been 6 months since the last time I had a crash in Windows that wasnt caused by a bad program… Does that mean my Windows XP isnt stable? I guess the crashes every now and then I would experience in Fedora must have meant it was as stable as can be…”
use it to transfer a large file over teh network AND try to get other stuff done while it is doing that….
now explain why explorer only uses up about 3megs of memory in w2k and yet explorer uses about 20 in XP?
go wardriving with xp and change your connection, dhcp, wireless card config, and so forth about 20 different times and watch XP just crap out…. would not obtain a ip address for nothing…. even when i went home and set static settings it still crapped out….
xp home is what i am talking about, heck xp pro might be fine…
——————
” Use nLite to modify it, and it is FASTER than 2000″
install a bloaty OS to cut it down to a slimmer OS… why not just use a slimmer OS?
Can you tell me what is “faster”?
Here’s a tip you can do without installing any software (and you’ll learn a bit about your OS). After XP is installed and updated, (as a user with admin rights) right click on My Computer, click manage, then click services. Check out all of the services that are running. It will show you what each of them do (if still unclear, Google around to find better descriptions). You’ll see there are plenty you can disable.
I’ll not be leaving win2k any time soon. Atleast not ’till get a dual core cpu or something. On my athlon 2600 2k is faster and more responsive than xp ( I know because I tested it), and much better at handling multi-gig video files (no slowdowns or stuttering just because I move a window around).
I’ve moved 1gb+ files over a network and done other things on my dual P3 1ghz system with 512mb ram, it’s old and still gets the job done just fine. Some people have problems and some don’t, i guess it’s just in how you do things and how your system is setup. When I multitask I don’t have any sorta slowdown, only when encoding DVD’s and trying to watch other video’s at the sametime, but that’s due to the encoding program using 100% for both cpu’s and stressing the system.
The last time i had a nasty crash was due to crappy drivers, those things will mess up any OS though.
It’s funny to read a lot of the announcements and watch how Redmond is trying to give the false impression that if you’re running W2K, your out of luck on support. Actually you can still get support for none security stuff, you just have to pay…and just how many of us ever called Redmond for support before….few if any and it’s rare. Security related patches will still be available up into 2010…which is what most of us use from Redmond in terms of “support” so there’s a lot of FUD out there as Redmond tries to push folks onto XP. I ‘taint buying it and I’m not letting my clients buy their FUD. There simply is little if any reason to upgrade from W2K to XP and if you’re on older hardware…plenty of reason to stay if W2K is meeting your needs.
Just my 2cents worth..
JT
Since XP is only a year younger than Windows 2000, won’t its mainstream support be expiring around this time next year?
Won’t XP’s support expire even before Windows 2006 (aka Longhorn) is released?! During this timeframe they will have no “mainstream” supported desktop operating system?
If you buy XP after support expires, have trouble with it, call Microsoft for help, they will charge you? That’s nuts.
Hmm… Its been 6 months since the last time I had a crash in Windows that wasnt caused by a bad program…
That is awful. Programs should not be crashing your OS. The only time Linux has crashed on me was because of bad hardware. The fact that a program causes crashes on your system just shows the instability of your system.