Microsoft has confirmed that they will no longer issue security updates for Windows 2000. In addition, standard support for Windows 2000 is currently scheduled to end in June.
Microsoft Axing Windows 2000 Security Updates
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
The changes introduced in SP2 are more trouble than they are worth. I am glad to hear they will not be finding their way into the best OS MS has ever made.
The article and its title is misleading, Windows 2000 won’t get the security features built in Windows XP SP2 (Such as Windows Firewall and NX protection) but It WILL GET SECURITY UPDATES UNTIL 2008, and extended support up to 2010.
AS stated by microsoft
http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifewin
Microsoft Windows 2000 Professional 30-Jun-2010
Windows 2000 Server 30-Jun-2010
That means security Patches…
How many misleading articles along these lines are going to be posted? I swear every few weeks I read a headline stating that MS is discontinuing support for Windows 2000. 100% of the time the article is simply saying they are not going to backport new features that were introduced to XP with SP2(which BTW has been working very well on my PC).
They’re still support NT 4 with critical security patches, what makes someone think that they’re all of a sudden going to drop support for 2000?
editors?
Typical bit of marketing speak there: “We believe that technology designed before the internet had taken off will always have problems”
Well the Internet had taken off well before Windows 2000 – MS were busily integrating IE by that point because they were convinced it was the way forward.
XP has just as many problems as 2000 – pretty much every flaw so far affects both – so was that also designed before the internet took off? If so, when is it finally going to “take off”?
MS would rather want to have those Win2k customers to make the switch to XP and Windows Server 2003. OSNews should have at least made a small note on what the article really meant before posting.
‘Standard support for Windows 2000 Personal and Server editions ends on 30 June’
What is that standard support means? windowsupdate ? no more service packs? what?
This is ridiculous. MS are saying that they are unable to build a firewall for 2k or introduce popup blocking for IE6 because “there are limits to the technology”. What kind of programmers are these people?
Anyway, anyone who is already squared away with a firewall (anyone is better than the one in sp2) and an alt browser has no real issues and is already more secure than relying on MS half hearted attempts.
I’ll be staying on 2k until well after longhorn appears and maybe longer. There is no need for XPsp2 or even an sp2 like update for 2k.
I loved this part:”Echert also confirmed that there will be no more browser releases until the arrival of the new Longhorn operating system.
He indicated that the changes to Internet Explorer made in SP2, such as blocking popups, essentially made it a new browser anyway.”
LOL!!! Is that the biggest load of crap or what eh?? oh yeah right, IE SP2 is a “new” browser. If so, I must be the king of Spain!
Everyone knows IE is behind, everyone knows IE is crap. Everyone knows that it’s a huge security hole, yet Microsoft refuses to do anything about it. There’s nothing new in IE SP2! It’s the same crappy browser.
As for Win2k support, I’m also upset about that. I have four licenses for 2k, and now what am I supposed to do with them?
I think it may be time to dump Windows. I’m tired of Microsoft, I’m tired of their FUD, I’m tired of the lies, I’m tired of their crap period!
Sounds like it’s time to switch to Linux or get a Mac mini and go Mac OS X!
windows 2000 will indeed get security updates until 2008! why this kind of lies in osnews?
The article isn’t bogus, the title is intentionally misleading and it’s meant to capture the fear instinct of those using Win2k. For those that never seem to read the articles themselves things like this tend to snowball. The article gives lie to it’s own title. Internet FUD marketing “journalism” at it’s best.
windows 2000 will indeed get security updates until 2008! why this kind of lies in osnews?
==============================================================
It will get a patch here or there but not a service pack. There are enough patchs right now for an SP5 for w2k but MS wont release them as a SP.
Nothing new. They did the same thing with NT. And a guess a safe bet would be XP in about a year. My guess is that XP ‘might’ only get one more SP before Longhorn is release.
Tis a pitty that the customers that paid for NT and 2000 get a raw deal (IMHO). I know I won’t be upgrading to any other releases.
Seems that the only way that the OSS world fights back the FUD of Microsoft is using FUD themselves …
Misleading? It’s plain wrong.
Microsoft announced that it will not release any more Service Packs for Windows 2000. It will continue to release security updates and the forthcoming Update Rollup containing all updates and patches since Service Pack 4. From Neowin.net:
“The update will include all the latest hotfixes and security hotfixes for Windows 2000 but will not feature any improvements in IE security or any of the codename “springboard” enhancements that XPSP2 and Server 2003 SP1 have brought with them.”
” rel=”nofollow”>http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/server/evaluation/news/bulleti…
Sorry, URL for the Microsoft FAQ should have been:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/server/evaluation/news/bulleti…
This really is just a bad news article. Its misleading, designed to sow fear and doubt, and basically worthless. Its also in serious need of an editor. It reads like a computer typed it.
Also, does anyone else think that the Microsoft guys comment of: “You would have to effectively replicate XP on the 2000 code which makes no sense. We believe that technology designed before the internet had taken off will always have problems.” seems chopped? It seems like VUNet just basically merged two seperate thoughts because they have NOTHING to do with each other. As the microsoftie says…”makes no sense”
“They’re still support NT 4 with critical security patches, what makes someone think that they’re all of a sudden going to drop support for 2000?”
Actually, support for NT just ended in Dec. 2004. They released the last couple of patches for it this month.
http://www.computerweekly.com/articles/article.asp?liArticleID=1362…
“The company previously stated it would continue Windows NT Server 4.0 incident and security hotfix support until 31 December 2004. Support for non-security hotfixes ended on 31 December 2003.
On its security site, Microsoft said its engineers had carried out the bulk of the work on fixing the vulnerabilities before the end of 2004 and so it had decided to release a security update for the operating system version as part of its security bulletin.”
“We believe that technology designed before the internet had taken off will always have problems”
Ahh, always the same bullshit.. That was told about win98, and win95 earlier. But hey, i can remember, when 2k was released: that huge hype around it, the only and one modern OS, etc.
So if MS say: “the best OS”, they mean: this is released now, dont care about the previous one, which you bought recently, it was in fact a shit, THIS is the best. Buy THIS!
Marketing makes them say these brainwashed stupidities always after coming out a new OS-generation.
Anyway, i’m happy that they dont force me their firewall, and i use opera, so their “new” IE means nothing to me.
Ps. sorry for my poor english, but i had to write a comment after misunderstanding the title
This is the final nail in the coffin for my network at home. My wife and myself moved over to Linux over two years ago. The kids are running Win98 and Win2K (total of 4 machines). There was not a reason for us to pay to upgrade the OS for their machines, and other than the security holes there still isn’t a reason. We will probably convert their machines to dual boot and their main network connection will be via linux and they will use Windows only for software that does not have a linux version (games).
I can understand why MS won’t provide a firewall for win2k but to leave all us win2k users with a broke as IE is just inexcusable. Yes I normally use firefox and mozilla but that’s not the point. Their browser has serious security issues and they refuse to fix them. Looks like my lone windows box will have linux installed on it (like all my others) as soon as I can save up enough cash for a mac.
..or FreeBSD (4.11 was released a few days ago). I know it isnt meant to be a multimedia-OS, but incredibly fast and stable.
Yet another article with a misleading title. Easy to see why many say journalism is a joke anymore.
They, per their own comittments earlier, have to provide security patches for W2K for several more years. They are trying to FUD folks into thinking there will be no more security updates for W2K when they are just dodging providing any more service packs. Heck even NT4 got a SP6 (actually SP7 via SP6a) so it appears their committement to their products continues to fall off.
The sad part is they go out and make all these claims/statements yet not one mainstream report/journalist will ask the tough questions of them. Example, awhile back in San Diego Mr. Gates was bragging that they turned out secuirty patches in just a few days after a vulnerability is announced. That same week the IT community was waiting on a patch for a hole that was several weeks old. They’ve got IE holes they’ve yet to patch, months later.
When W2K came out, they bragged that it would be the most well supported product they had ever made with service packs coming out every 6 months. Yeah right.
AS to their comment that W2K was designed before the internet took off and thus isn’t possible to add XP SP2 security features to it….pure non-sense.
As for Redmond, they just don’t get it. People are tired of being forced to upgrade, upgrade, upgrade, and by more hardware to run ever increasingly bloated software. There is nothing that prevents them from adding most all of the XP SP2 security features to Win2000…other than greed and wanting to force everyone onto XP.
Personally, I think they are just continuing to shoot theirselves in their own foot. This move will only give more room for Linux and Solaris 10 to take over in the server room and may make a opening for Linux on the corporate desktop if they are not careful. Solaris and the Enterprise versions of Linux have far better support windows where you don’t have to go upgrading everytime you turn around unless you have a truly compelling need to do so.
Simple fact anymore is that both Microsoft and Intel have really been tripping over their own feet lately. If their competitors are smart, they’ll leverage this to their favor.
Maybe one of these days we’ll get to see the mainstream IT press start asking Microsoft about the pure hippocracy of many of their statements/announcements. Some basic journalism skills in the IT media would do wonders for bringing the FUD level under control.
JT
Be nice if in their intro to the article, they would note that the title is misleading. Call these folks out for what they are…sensationlists, not journalists.
JT
“The article and its title is misleading, Windows 2000 won’t get the security features built in Windows XP SP2 (Such as Windows Firewall and NX protection) but It WILL GET SECURITY UPDATES UNTIL 2008, and extended support up to 2010.
AS stated by microsoft
http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifewin
Microsoft Windows 2000 Professional 30-Jun-2010
Windows 2000 Server 30-Jun-2010″
30-jun-2010 for EXTENDED support, if you actually read the article you’d see the catch to extended support:
“Standard support for Windows 2000 Personal and Server editions ends on 30 June, although companies can pay for an extended version. Support for Windows 98 and NT4 has officially ended, although some patches are still being released.”
companies can pay for an extended version. which will include patches and fixes that those who don’t pay cannot have access to. If you don’t have the extended version support ends jun-2005.
while some patches are still being released, it’s nothing but the absolute super critical and standard win 2000 support will soon be the same. Whenever a bug or hole is found that could turn your machine into a zombie, they’ll release a patch to move the hole.
as for his idiotic comment:
“You would have to effectively replicate XP on the 2000 code which makes no sense. We believe that technology designed before the internet had taken off will always have problems.”
what does this guy take us for complete idiots?
win 2000 ver: 5.0.xxxx
win xp ver: 5.1.xxxx
xp is based on 2000, like 98 was based on 95. To say they can’t backport fixes is hubris, and IMO makes them look incompetent.
that’s ok though, my end of lifecycle for windows is next year when I’ll be completely switched over to linux.
Win2k is fine for me. XP’s major changes were cosmetic(taking a “feature” cue from Apple?), there were very few changes to the core underlying OS. Remember that win2k was a MAJOR effort that took years, while M$ cranked out XP is almost record time for them(resource requirement bloat was the major addition).
I expect that Longhorn might be the one worth upgrading to, as long as there are no further “feature” “slippages”.
“””
This is ridiculous. MS are saying that they are unable to build a firewall for 2k or introduce popup blocking for IE6 because “there are limits to the technology”. What kind of programmers are these people?
“””
There are limits to the technology… They’re set buy the accountants, though, and have nothing to do with the programmers.
It is WAY too early for Microsoft to do this Upgrading large numbers of servers to 2003 is a big undertaking and many corporations are not ready to do this. This is nothing more than a blatant attempt by Microsoft to force corporations to move to 2003. its going to backfire though because alot of companies will figure if they have to switch they might as well switch to Linux.
“Its misleading, designed to sow fear and doubt, and basically worthless.”
Yeah Microsoft could have written it. If you don’t think Microsoft is trying to scare people into upgrading to 2003 then your not paying attention.
I am glad that MS is not building in that new Firewall for Windows 2000, no self respecting true geek uses the Windows Firewall on SP2. I am also very happy none of the other fixes are going in because to me SP2 has slowed down alot of machines, it takes forever for an SP2 machine to boot. This is the best thing Microsoft can do for their customers. Want to be secure browsing, USE FIREFOX!!!, Want a Firewall , USE ZONEALARM PRO OR SYGATE!!!!
//I am also very happy none of the other fixes are going in because to me SP2 has slowed down alot of machines, it takes forever for an SP2 machine to boot.//
Funny, SP2 made my box boot up about 8 seconds faster.
Don’t assume your findings are universal.
Various benchmark suites ran against XP SP2 have shown the effect varies depending on the application, but typically you’re going to take a 3-5% performance hit with SP2 applied in MOST situations. Of course, we all know what they say about benchmarks.
My personal observations have been that on a clean install the impact of XP SP2 isn’t nearly as noticeable as it often is on say a machine that’s been running XP/XP SP1 for a long time although the pattern of impact isn’t really clear cut, some machines seem to take to SP2 better than others, some really take a performance hit, some it’s barely noticeable.
FWIW
JT
yeap, FreeBSD 4.11 looks nice. Actually been a pretty solid OS since 4.8 for single CPU boxes. Be nice when they get some of the SMP and scheduler issues worked out on 5.x.
I only wish they’d come with a DVD ISO for it, CD’s are beginning to go the way of floppy disk based installs IMHO.
If they’re worried about bandwidth of a DVD ISO, Bittorrent is a sweet thing!
JT
This Operating System’s Sun is setting. Fast.
I decided to have a read of this nice, older article:
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,39020381,2076967,00.htm
I must admit. I chuckled.
Allchin said Microsoft spent 500 person-years and $162m (£99m) on people and tools specifically to improve reliability of the product. In more recent weeks Microsoft has plastered ads on buses, billboards and telephone booths in a number of major cities. “Windows 2000 is coming. Online or off, a standard in reliability,” reads the text.
Well they didn’t spend enough.
“Our customers do not want us to sell them products with over 63,000 potential known defects. They want these defects corrected,” stated one of Microsoft’s Windows development leaders, Marc Lucovsky, in the memo. “How many of you would spend $500 on a piece of software with over 63,000 potential known defects?”
And I thought to myself…. it’d be interesting to know exactly how many of those “potential issues” are considered FIXED today!
Today is a special day. We are only three weeks away from the 4th year anniversary of Windows 2000’s launch-party. (Thursday, February 17 2000).
Everyone knows IE is behind, everyone knows IE is crap. Everyone knows that it’s a huge security hole, yet Microsoft refuses to do anything about it. There’s nothing new in IE SP2! It’s the same crappy browser.
All the better for Firefox – where’s the problem ?
As for Win2k support, I’m also upset about that. I have four licenses for 2k, and now what am I supposed to do with them?
Keep using them. This isn’t Mission: Impossible, they won’t self destruct.
Sounds like it’s time to switch to Linux or get a Mac mini and go Mac OS X!
Best of luck getting five years of full support – and another 3 years of security patches – for OS X from Apple (and any of the non-Enterprise Linux distros from their distributors). You’ll need it.
Tis a pitty that the customers that paid for NT and 2000 get a raw deal (IMHO). I know I won’t be upgrading to any other releases.
Yeah, goddamn. Imagine what would happen if other OS distributors treated their customers so poorly as to only give them 5 – 8 years of free updates and patches.
Oh, wait, hangon, most of them don’t even come *close* to providing them for that long.
As for Redmond, they just don’t get it. People are tired of being forced to upgrade, upgrade, upgrade, […]
No-one is being forced to upgrade.
[…] and by more hardware to run ever increasingly bloated software.
Windows 2003 runs on ca. 1995 Pentium Pro machines.
There is nothing that prevents them from adding most all of the XP SP2 security features to Win2000…other than greed and wanting to force everyone onto XP.
No-one is being forced.
As for “greed”, welcome to business 101.
This move will only give more room for Linux and Solaris 10 to take over in the server room and may make a opening for Linux on the corporate desktop if they are not careful.
Right, because Solaris and Linux develop updates for much longer and run on the same hardware you’ve had in your server room for the last twenty years.
Oh, wait, holdon, they *don’t*.
Solaris and the Enterprise versions of Linux have far better support windows where you don’t have to go upgrading everytime you turn around unless you have a truly compelling need to do so.
False.
Simple fact anymore is that both Microsoft and Intel have really been tripping over their own feet lately. If their competitors are smart, they’ll leverage this to their favor.
What are they going to leverage, exactly ? Very few distributors offer product lifecycles *as good* as Microsoft’s – let alone *better* than it.
Some basic journalism skills in the IT media would do wonders for bringing the FUD level under control.
The FUD coming out of Microsoft pales into insignificant compared to the FUD coming out of the anti-Microsoft zealots.
Microsoft’s web site clearing indicates the end of life cycle for Windows 2000 and they will continue to provide security updates for a REALLY LONG TIME!