“After a long break between releases, Microsoft on Tuesday issued the Windows 2000 SP3 Release Candidate, marked build 3.140. The long awaited update weighs in at 17MB and 30MB for Professional and Server versions of the operating system, respectively.” Read the report at BetaNews.
Windows 2000 SP3 Nears, Adds Antitrust Tweaks
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
I know so now how them gotz without em! ya!
so this pack fixies it all with no mozilla at wensday.
ok great windows. looking good right on bill gates.
hah! they stealing cookies too!!?
Mr J.
???
Wow – thanks I needed that!
MY OSWORLD.com is much more better then os news.com. you people will love me and my OS SITE. haha.
can any one help me afford the domain????!?? thank you!?!?
Mr. Jingy
Mac IS SO MUCH BETTER ANYWASY
thank you. good buy
I feel like I just tripped on my frontal lobe. Thanks.
Mr. Jingy the troll of the future
… at least charge the idjits something to come in through the door
you shouldn’t drink and type!
I do.
This seems a tad too small, since SP2 is a huge 101MB… Or does SP3 require you have all the hotfixes/updates since SP2 as well?
The reason it’s so small is ’cause they forgot to include all the bugs in this one. <rim-shot>
Microsoft bowing to public demand ? I’m very curious about this service pack now. It DOES sound a bit small, aren’t the win2k service packs supposed to include all the fixes of the previous ones (unlike Nt4’s) ?
Mr j. , related to Jeff K. by any chance 🙂 ?
there is only 2 comments 🙂
Microsoft bowing to public demand ? I’m very curious about this service pack now. It DOES sound a bit small, aren’t the win2k service packs supposed to include all the fixes of the previous ones (unlike Nt4’s) ?
I guess not :-).
Anyway, this service pack only follows the Second Revision of the Proposed FInal Judgement, by the DOJ. That means when you hide IE, you don’t see it anywhere, but it’s there. And applications that use IE’s DLLs would still work.
isn’t there a better solution to this middleware then just hiding it?! yes, this seems like quite an improvement over previous style (it took an antitrust lawsuit to get this far) what is stopping them from doin the impossible (allow the user to uninstall IE and actually have UNINSTALLED IE?)
I feel real sorry for you if you had installed all those NT 4 Service Packs one after the other… who told you so..?
I was just staring @ my NT4 disk and wondering if I was going to have to track down the 5 Service Packs I don’t already have…. thanks. LOL.
Going to install it with Litestep, Opera, Trillian and a few other nonstandard things , dual booting with XP : then we’ll see whats best out of Middleware vs Competition…
isn’t there a better solution to this middleware then just hiding it?! yes, this seems like quite an improvement over previous style (it took an antitrust lawsuit to get this far) what is stopping them from doin the impossible (allow the user to uninstall IE and actually have UNINSTALLED IE?)
I don’t think its a terribly good idea. Compare Windows 95 UI with Windows XP. Now note off every part where the UI is better in XP. And you just found where the middlewares are actually being used. Like in Windows Explorer and Control Panel, it heavily uses IE’s DLLs. They would have to rip off Windows 95 UI, which isn’t such a good UI in the first place…
And then the amount of applications that won’t work. DO you have any idea how many applications actually use IE DLLs? The ones I use, Winamp, ICQ, MS Office, Yahoo! Messenger and few games won’t work without the middleware DLLs. I suggest reading http://www.osopinion.com/perl/story/17955.html and http://www.osopinion.com/perl/story/17981.html . (BTW, I don’t that apps only, I also use Opera 6.03 (just got it!) OpenOffice.org and a few other applications…)
Going to install it with Litestep, Opera, Trillian and a few other nonstandard things , dual booting with XP : then we’ll see whats best out of Middleware vs Competition…
If you are planing to use non-MS middleware in the first place, why Litestep. If you are a Litestep freak in the first place, why would you need SP1, except the bug fixes and security updates? Anyway, the only reason why Windows XP stays alone of this HP Omnibook, while my other laptop and desktops are able to run Linux is Windows XP and its shuffling of non-Windows partitions. Tell me if this is fixed.
okay anyway, about the TOPIC…
Who asked for this? who wants it? Who is it fooling?
I want IE GONE, Want MediaPlayer GONE, etc. I don’t want it wearing camo and still being called for every worm, virus, or pop up that asks for it.
I feel real sorry for you if you had installed all those NT 4 Service Packs one after the other… who told you so..?
You’re right ofcourse , i don’t know what I was thinking there. Must have been a sleep-deprivation induced hallucination that 🙂
I was actually thinking of a completely different problem. Anyway, sorry.
“DO you have any idea how many applications actually use IE DLLs?”
Ok. And do you have idea that most security exploits is just due this fact? Like recent in Yahoo Messenger.
I want IE GONE, Want MediaPlayer GONE, etc. I don’t want it wearing camo and still being called for every worm, virus, or pop up that asks for it.
You can do that. Use another OS. But wait, you want to use Windows. You, one by one, delete each DLL used by IE and WMP. Now, you won’t be able to see the desktop, maybe in advance install Litestep. Now you got a desktop that won’t run applications other than obvious ones like Netscape and Opera and Real…
Ok. And do you have idea that most security exploits is just due this fact? Like recent in Yahoo Messenger.
If the antitrust courts were really interested in how secure Windows is in the first place, they should pass rulings like forcing Microsoft make the next Windows OpenBSD based. Security is not the topic at hand. If you actually want security, what in God’s name are you using Windows in the first place? Since you want the security problems gone in a method that breaks most apps, why not use another OS?
If you are planing to use non-MS middleware in the first place, why Litestep. If you are a Litestep freak in the first place, why would you need SP1, except the bug fixes and security updates?
Its Windows NT4 I’ll be doing it to… I’ll use the Service Packs for Critical fixes, but as NT4 doesnt include an integrated web browser.. we’ll see how other Apps take to it. I suspect yahoo Messenger can work fine without IE – it certainly works when Netscape/Mozilla is set as default browser. if it can’t, I know Trillian can, and can connect to Yahoo messenger servers too.
I’ll be using Litestep not for any stability improvements but because the standard NT4 UI is excessively bland, and I want to make it compare to XPs pretty, calming look. Yes, I actually LIKE Luna.
BTW, FYI – Windows 95 and NT4 both support operation without a trace of MSIE or media Player.. and suppotr modern windoze apps. win 95 is better for games, NT better for stability and productivity apps.. you can install MSMP 7 and Office XP on it. Which kind of proves that integration of middleware functions isnt critical to OS operation or compatibility.
Its Windows NT4 I’ll be doing it to… I’ll use the Service Packs for Critical fixes, but as NT4 doesnt include an integrated web browser.. we’ll see how other Apps take to it. I suspect yahoo Messenger can work fine without IE – it certainly works when Netscape/Mozilla is set as default browser. if it can’t, I know Trillian can, and can connect to Yahoo messenger servers too.
Well,
the topic at hand is Windows 2000. Not really NT4.0, no? BTW, Obviously Netscape don’t use the middleware APIs, and I’m not sure about Trillian, I don’t think there was a public release of it. As for Yahoo! Mesenger, it doesn’t use the middleware APIs. (just a mistake, sorry).
I’ll be using Litestep not for any stability improvements but because the standard NT4 UI is excessively bland, and I want to make it compare to XPs pretty, calming look. Yes, I actually LIKE Luna.
Get an hardware upgrade and install XP then 🙂 Besides, prior to Windows XP, I never liked how Windows 9x looks, especially the titlebars. Am I alone with this opinion?
BTW, FYI – Windows 95 and NT4 both support operation without a trace of MSIE or media Player.. and suppotr modern windoze apps. win 95 is better for games, NT better for stability and productivity apps.. you can install MSMP 7 and Office XP on it. Which kind of proves that integration of middleware functions isnt critical to OS operation or compatibility.
I never use NT4, I can’t comment. However, I do use Windows 95, I notice the latest versions of software like Office, Photoshop, WP Office and stuff like that, either requires the installation of IE (and/or other middlewares) or is not available for Windows 95. Besides, most Windows 95 machines have IE as Windows 95b comes with IE built it and uninstallable, though it wasn’t co minggled yet. But developers used IE’s APIs anyway. I suspect it isn’t much different for NT 4.0…..
Anyway, are you sure you don’t have the middleware in your installation? It seems that since many applications that actually uses IE’s DLLs (especially Office XP) is able to run on NT 4.0. I would go and check and get back to you later… I’m very sure that SP6 has the middleware in it….
Accroading to http://www.microsoft.com/office/evaluation/sysreqs.asp –
“3. Systems running Windows NT 4.0 SP6 must have Microsoft Internet Explorer 4.01 SP1 or later. ”
So much for no middleware not needed
still on the Office XP on NT 4.0 thingy
For speech recognition (available for U.S. English, Japanese, and Simplified Chinese only): Microsoft Internet Explorer 5 or later
I don’t know…