On the 28th of June, Microsoft released an Update Rollup which is expected to be the last major revision before Windows 2000 moves from having Mainstream support to Extended Support. Microsoft doesn't add features to products which is in the "Extended Support" period unless it is really necessary so the Update Rollup is just alot of security patches bundled together, with some new ones for low to medium security breaches for Windows 2000 before it moves into Extended Support. Lots of people expected it to be a service pack, going to be known as SP5 but Microsoft announced last November that it was only going to be known as an Update Rollup, not a service pack. The final service pack for Windows 2000 will be SP4. Service pack 4 was released in March 2003.

Although Microsoft's Windows 2000 operating system has been around for a long time and has been followed by some other Operating System versions (latest is Windows XP), a survey by AssetMatrix showed that Windows 2000 is still quite popular among Small Business and Corporations. Nearly half of all Windows-based desktops now being used by computer users are Windows 2000s. Find out on the survey at http://news.com.com/The+slow+road+to+Windo...046.html?tag=nl.



For more information, go to http://news.com.com/Windows+2000+moves+to+...tml?tag=nefd.ac








My comment: Well, I just think that Windows 2000 should be special and have a longer mainstream support than other previous operating systems from now on, along with the operating systems after it. As the survey shows, lots of people are still using the Windows 2000 operating system.

Why I'm sad about the retirement of Win2000:

1. It seems to be one of the last versions of Windows which doesn't require "activation". Activation can be a problem for computers without a phone or Internet connection, or for people who make frequent hardware upgrades.

2. Even worse, it looks like Microsoft is edging toward a renewable-subscription model for licensing, instead of the current buy-a-liceinse forever model for their OSs. For most people, that means we'll be paying more for the same product.

3.. It seems to be one of the last versions of Windows using a completely traditional Windows GUI, without any of the resource-heavy gimmicks and hard-to-learn wizards. Best for old fogies like me.

Oh, well. Nothing I can do about it. Unless I can find a version of Linux compatible with my cheapy hardware and my ISP's weird connection methods.

There's nothing wrong with sticking to windows2000. All this means is that microsoft won't be focusing as much on it, no more updates is all. The os still works fine (for a windows =P), ms has just decided that because they have xp and longhorn coming out that they need to focus on those as their main operation systems to give suport to.

There are at least two problems, though, for the people who like it:

1. We won't be able to buy any more copies.
2. There won't be any more security updates.


What do you mean "for a windows"? What specific complaints do you have against Windows 2000?

Yes Win 2000 is still an extremly popular OS...but the numbers of users are not increasing. I my self still use win 2000, and find I like it better than XP, so it will be a great loss when its retired. But with the upcomming release of longhorn, win 2000 will be soon known as obsolete.

Longhorn was a codename, Vista is the true OS name.

I use Windows 2000 Pro on my other machine, SP4, and I find it to be perfectly secure. Any other updates would only cause problems. It is fast (for the specs) and is extremely usable. Almost all tweaking systems for XP work for 2000, as XP was built on 2000 technology. As so many people use 2000, especially those who use it as a server, will make sure that it does not become obsolete, as not everyone can afford to buy Server 2003.

Windows have the problem that there are far too many security exploits, because they launch the systems before they are ready. A very dangerous approach that is keeping their life line just above a candle.

I'm not sure how one can find an operating system to be perfectly secure, unless one has a staff making systematic and dedicated attempts to compromise it, as they do in some government and industrial laboratories.


What about future threats which noone has thought of yet? What about threats for which Microsoft has not provided a solution yet, such as rootkits? How many people here have even tested their Windows 2000 systems for rootkits?