Microsoft Corp. will gradually phase out its Windows 2000 Server family, the company said Wednesday. Effective April 1, 2006, the products will no longer be available.
Microsoft Plans Windows 2000 Server Retirement
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Dude, I’m so worried. That only gives me 2 years.
Well, more than likely the date will be pushed back 2 or 3 times.
After that, you switch to either a new version or a new OS, whichever you want.
Win2003 Server works so much more nicely than 2000 did, I must say.
Considering there a boat load of companies who still haven’t upgraded from nt 4, it seems that will do about anything they can get away with to get you to upgrade to 2003.
I hate 2k3 server. I gave it a 30 day run and it totaly sucked. Microsoft totaly screwed up windows networking in the XP/2003 series, makeing it an act of congress to share between computers NOT directly connected to each other or to a central server. They say its for “security” but it is a total pain in the butt. It uses way more resorces than its worth, as dose anything XP/2003. I would rather use more resorces for serving, not for running the OS.
I will stick with 2000 server, even if they drop it. Why kick a good horse in the mouth? It works, everything is configured just right, and I dont feal like reconfigureing everything again.
I have to say lately I am shocked and awed at their attempts to keep their customers.
Upgrading to run exchange 2000, dumping 98 (I am ok with that), and now retiring server 2000?
2003 server is pretty decent but just because you didn’t get widespread adoption of 2003 (That I have seen) doesn’t mean you give incentive for your own customers who run faithfully on 2000 everyday a chance to bail out.
I’m not sure what Microsoft is thinking.
– The fan
“Considering there a boat load of companies who still haven’t upgraded from nt 4, it seems that will do about anything they can get away with to get you to upgrade to 2003.”
Matt, I’m not following your logic. What does retiring Windows 2000 Server have to do with people not upgrading from Windows NT 4.0. Folks who are running NT 4.0 won’t care if support is ended for Windows 2000 Server.
In addition to that, all companies want you to upgrade to the latest version of their products. Even in the open source world there is the push to upgrade. Just try asking folks for help with the 1.3 version of the Linux kernel (which I moved on from in 1999, well after others had moved on.).
For good or ill, Progress marches on.
I’m not sure what Microsoft is thinking.
They’re thinking a 6 year product availability window and 7 year support window is reasonable.
Why am I not surprised? I did try Server 2003 and it’s ok. It’s just Windows 2000 Server with an XP interface. All I can say is that thank goodness I’m going to be installing Linux on our servers before 2000’s retirement. In all fairness, I liked Windows 2000 server more than NT server.
I’m sorry, if you think that is all 2003 Server is, then you really have no clue at all, and installing Linux will not save you.
There is another way to make people move to a different product. Release botched service packs. If people can not get decent service packs, they will, hopefully, move to something that has better support.
Even though it was not the server edition, a friend of mine had to uninstall SP4 for Win2K Pro. His DSL worked fine using SP3 but after the install of SP4, he could not browse or ping internet addresses using the www type address. He was able to use numerical IP addresses both in a browser and in Ping. To make sure it wasn’t the hardware, he used a Knoppix Live-CD and found that he could browse and ping using the www type addresses. So he uninstalled SP4 and everything works fine now.
All Microsoft has to do is provide bad service packs for a while and all their customers will move to a different product.
Eddie, I’m not sure the changes to the interface are the best way to gauge what has changed in a server OS. There are substantial differences “under-the-hood”. Enterprise services are not really limited by how cute the dialog boxes are presented, but by the function of the underlying code. I would have to guess you were headed to Linux anyway and this topic is unrelated to your decision.
Could the decision to pull the plug in 2006 be related to the launch of Longhorn?
That’s what I was thinking too. By 2006 they can phase out everything and just go with Longhorn Server if it’s ready.
and we’ll be up to what <?> Windows 2000 Service Pack 9?
AFAIK, Longhorn is planned as a client only release.
Please, think a moment before you post a comment.
And to first clarify, I am long time Linux user – but I still use common sense for this. You whine bitch and moan MS for dropping Win2000 support in 2006. Hello? That’s total of SIX YEARS of supporting. Can you point a single Linux/BSD version that does that? No, you can’t.
Linux distros are usually supported for 6 months, enterprise versions usually 1-1,5 years or longer with annual fee. At that point, Linux will be much, much more expensive than Windows as choice. Of course price has so many factors, timeline is main point here.
Microsoft provides total of 5 years support for each of it’s operating system, plus two extra years (total of 7 years support) for companies who want and need it. That is pretty decent amount. So stop whining, you can’t base it on anything. For most of you MS is just a big Satan grumbling the earth, still it’s a fact MS gives very long free support for it’s products and nowadays does its products very high quality too (Even Windows has it’s weak points as operating system, it has so many areas done better than any *nix).
In short, grow up.
Eddie, I’m not sure the changes to the interface are the best way to gauge what has changed in a server OS. There are substantial differences “under-the-hood”. Enterprise services are not really limited by how cute the dialog boxes are presented, but by the function of the underlying code. I would have to guess you were headed to Linux anyway and this topic is unrelated to your decision.
Not true. I know that a majority of functions were changed or improved. THose are great for large scale systems and those with more servers. I’m running a small business and we use no more than maybe two or three servers at a time. We upgraded our systems to Windows 2000 advanced server in 2001 and upgraded with the latest patches and so forth. Windows 2000 server does exactly what we need. We did look at Windows 2003 server and while a majority of it was impressive, it really wasn’t what we needed at this time. We may consider it in 2004 or 2005 but my boss wants to go to linux because of the cost issue. As the lead programmer, I’m responsible for doing this since all of our Windows servers are tied into a Linux proxy server.
Geek, I’ve kinda heard horror stories of people who moved from NT Server to Windows 2003 server. Mostly it was issues with NT compatiblity. Programs not running and so forth. I know in the past when I did a NT to 2000 server upgrade, it had a little problem but we resolved it.
Cpuguy, I’m sorry you think that because we already have most of our production systems on Linux. The result, less time for patches and more time for performance optimizations. THere’s also a cost issue and we weren’t going to pay more for Microsoft based products. We figure we will be totally Linux server based by the end of 2004.
Eddie, you’re right that Windows 2000 server/AD does pretty much everything small and medium sized installations need. Most of my current work is with large networks (U.S. government) and some of the new features in 2003/AD will save me lots of work and make some things I’ve been hoping to do, possible.
There are probably lots of NT 4.0 to 2003 server upgrade/migration horror stories. Some are even true <grin>. Any server migration should be carefully planned. It seems that the people who write the server OSes and services/daemons/etc have an odd belief that nothing ever needs to change once installed and the difference in assumptions between programmer and admin cause problems for the admin.
The biggest problem for legacy server side applications/services is that what the OS expects from them can change from one major revision to the next. If you write for the current version of Windows server, you are usually good for the next major revision. There is no guarantee on the second major OS revision. NT 4.0 to Windows 2003 may cause issues that are difficult to resolve. Often there are no issues, but an admin never really knows until someone tries it.
Judging from your most recent post, You already understand this. This post is primarily for others who are reading.
Eddie: I stand by what I said, you only continue to show how little you understand.
There was a lot of legacy support that was dropped in 2003 in the name of security, which is why some apps will not work (including MS apps).
Why in the heck do you need Win2k Advanced Server for a small business?
“Eddie: I stand by what I said, you only continue to show how little you understand.
There was a lot of legacy support that was dropped in 2003 in the name of security, which is why some apps will not work (including MS apps).
Why in the heck do you need Win2k Advanced Server for a small business?”
And I stand by mine. I do understand the situation, more than you realize. Microsoft did a good thing in terms of security but failed to realize problems when migrating from NT 4 to 2003. Most network administrators like myself realize this but others don’t. Espeicially when you’re trying to explain why an old DBASE or FoxPro application won’t work in 2003 but will in NT.
As for your question, why are we using Advanced Server? Simple, we use a majority of Linux and UNIX based systems on a WAN line which have to be managed via AD. It’s a good product and if my boss didn’t want to go to Linux, I’d be on 2003 so fast as long as all my applications would work on it and are 2003 ready.
Another thing is with 2000 server, I could slap it on any computer, no problem. Now with XP/03, you have to activate every, single, time. It crashes, reactivate. Reinstall, reactivate. Put it on a newer computer, reactivate. This reactivation crap takes time and money, that I save by still useing 2000. Just because they drop support, dosn’t affect me. Droping support just means nothing new will be made for it. All of the support.microsoft.com info and windows updates will still be there.
No, you isntall it and you activate.
You change a certain amount of hardware and you reactivate, that is it. Activation is only a downside if you are trying to steal.
And to first clarify, I am long time Linux user – but I still use common sense for this. You whine bitch and moan MS for dropping Win2000 support in 2006. Hello? That’s total of SIX YEARS of supporting. Can you point a single Linux/BSD version that does that? No, you can’t.
Support doesn’t stop until 2007. In 2006 they just take it off the store shelves (ie: you can’t buy it).
Linux distros are usually supported for 6 months, enterprise versions usually 1-1,5 years or longer with annual fee. At that point, Linux will be much, much more expensive than Windows as choice. Of course price has so many factors, timeline is main point here.
Redhat promises support for any version of RHEL for at least 5 years.