Microsoft still provide security updates for windows 2000?

[Schadenfroh]

With all of the recent talk of Microsoft not allowing me to use the software that I purchased on my PC when I decide to upgrade, I am probably just going to put Windows 2000 on the machine, since i will be unable to activate my existing license for Windows XP when I upgrade my Motherboard/Video card.

Does Microsoft still patch security holes found in Windows 2000 through windows update?

 

[spyordie007]

Yes, they still offer security fixes for 2K.

 

[spyordie007]

http://support.microsoft.com/?LN=en-us&scid=gp%3B%5Bln%5D%3Blifecycle&x=4&y=20
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lifecycle/default.mspx
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=lifesupsps

 

[scottws]

Heck, I powered on my g/f's Win98 PC and went to Windows Update and they had hotfixes and drivers and DirectX 9.0c and .NET Framework 2.0 on there for Win98. I had to manually install IE 6.0 first for Windows Update to work though. I don't think they still actually make security updates for Win98, but they keep the ones they did make up there for download.

I can't imagine it's different with Windows 2000.

 

[mechBgon]

Actually, if the severity is rated Critical, they'll put out a fresh update for Win98 too. So far.

 

[Link19]

Originally posted by: scottws
Heck, I powered on my g/f's Win98 PC and went to Windows Update and they had hotfixes and drivers and DirectX 9.0c and .NET Framework 2.0 on there for Win98. I had to manually install IE 6.0 first for Windows Update to work though. I don't think they still actually make security updates for Win98, but they keep the ones they did make up there for download.

I can't imagine it's different with Windows 2000.

Windows 2000 will be around and supported by Microsoft for a heck of a lot longer than Windows 98. And its a good thing too because Windows 2000 is tremendously better than POS Windows 98/ME.

 

[Link19]

I cna't believe what I just read. So, after the launch of Vista, Microsoft isn't going to allow system builders to sell PCs with Windows XP on them anymore, and will force them to buy Vista licenses? That is crazy!! What if someone wants to buy a new PC with Windows XP still on it even after the launch of Vista? Not everyone will want Vista when buying a new PC? SO why would they do it?

They didn't force system builders to only buy Windows XP licenses right when Windows XP was released. They still allowed system builders to sell PCs with Windows 2000 on them for a while.

It seems Microsoft is going to force you to upgrade to Vista in a flash. They should have forced Windows 98/ME users to upgrade to at least Windows 2000 because Windows 98/ME were POS opertaing systems. Bow, Windows XP is still a good OS< so they shouldn't force users to upgrade to Vista so fast.

 

[spyordie007]

XP was released in 2001; after 5 years it's time to move on...

 

[Link19]

Originally posted by: spyordie007
XP was released in 2001; after 5 years it's time to move on...

Why? All that means is that there will be far more Windows XP users than there ever were of any previous MS OS because Windows XP has been sold on PCs for longer than any previous MS OS. So why should it be phase out so fast. SHould users really be forced into Vista when they buy a new PC? I don't think so. What happens if they want to use Windows XP on the new PC. They should be able to purchase it with Windows XP until Windows XP support is over which will be in 2011.

Also, Windows XP SP2 was released in 2004. And Windows XP SP2 was considered to be more like a new OS than just an update for Windows XP. Windows XP SP2 isn't even 2 years old yet. And some customers upgraded to Windows XP just because of Service Pack and the new security features it contained.

Windows XP should stay around for a very long time after Vista is released.

 

[PingSpike]

Being forced into vista would really blow, since it'll probably be at least sort of screwed up until the first service pack.

You can have my windows 2000 when you pry it from my cold dead hands!

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: spyordie007
XP was released in 2001; after 5 years it's time to move on...

You know if 9x installs didn't regularly eat themselves after a year I think there'd be a ton of people out there that would just as soon stay with that operating system. You hardly need windows XP to check email and download spyware games.

 

[spyordie007]

Yes but we're talking about buying new consumer machines; anyone buying a new consumer-level machine should be getting Vista on it (after its release).

Existing customers will still be able to run their older versions; Windows 2000 and XP Professional will have extended support for some years to come. In addition dont forget about the downgrade privilages.

 

[Link19]

Originally posted by: spyordie007
Yes but we're talking about buying new consumer machines; anyone buying a new consumer-level machine should be getting Vista on it (after its release).

Existing customers will still be able to run their older versions; Windows 2000 and XP Professional will have extended support for some years to come. In addition dont forget about the downgrade privilages.

What about new hardware and software released. Will new motherboards, chipsets, and video cards still provide drivers for Windows XP for years to come even after Vista is released? I sure hope so because Windows XP is still a good OS and deserves to be kept around for a long long time.

 

[VirtualLarry]

It's all about the embedded DRM, folks. At least IMHO. Just wait until MS pushes for anti-piracy laws that make anyone using a pre-Vista or non-Vista PC, guilty until proven innocent. Yes, that's a hypothetical FUD statement right now, but given the direction things are heading - for how long would that remain only FUD? It would also allow MS to strike Linux down at the same time, for the most part. (I think that there are a couple of DRM-friendly distros out there, but most are against DRM, and for good reason.)

In ten years, we'll talk about the non-DRM-encumbered internet, as the "good old days".

 

[stash]

That's...creative.

 

[Link19]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
It's all about the embedded DRM, folks. At least IMHO. Just wait until MS pushes for anti-piracy laws that make anyone using a pre-Vista or non-Vista PC, guilty until proven innocent. Yes, that's a hypothetical FUD statement right now, but given the direction things are heading - for how long would that remain only FUD? It would also allow MS to strike Linux down at the same time, for the most part. (I think that there are a couple of DRM-friendly distros out there, but most are against DRM, and for good reason.)

In ten years, we'll talk about the non-DRM-encumbered internet, as the "good old days".

Pretty scary to think of such a thing. Do you think it will one day become a reality where people using pre-Vista PCs will be jailed for life without the right to a fair trial, privacy, nor due process. We the people can't let things get that far. I somehow don't think people would stand for that.

 

[spyordie007]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
It's all about the embedded DRM, folks. At least IMHO. Just wait until MS pushes for anti-piracy laws that make anyone using a pre-Vista or non-Vista PC, guilty until proven innocent. Yes, that's a hypothetical FUD statement right now, but given the direction things are heading - for how long would that remain only FUD? It would also allow MS to strike Linux down at the same time, for the most part. (I think that there are a couple of DRM-friendly distros out there, but most are against DRM, and for good reason.)

In ten years, we'll talk about the non-DRM-encumbered internet, as the "good old days".

You're right...






....your post is FUD.

Actually the DRM folks to be worried about isnt Microsoft, it's the same content providers that continue to push down the worst of the stuff RIAA, MPAA, and now Sony :roll:

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: spyordie007
XP was released in 2001; after 5 years it's time to move on...

Why do you say that?

It's still the fastest OS MS has ever released - dominating Future Mark all apps over XP/98/ME etc.

It still runs everything I try.

It just looks great and functions great IMO compared to "kiddified" and "automated" XP. Also I've never had a "blue screen" or "crash" excluding OC tweaking.

Basically I never seen a reason to upgrade from this workhorse. But I'm open to sugesstions.



Schadenfroh - MS provides "security" updates for 10 years after a pro product is released so w2kpro till about 2011. Not that I use them anyway locking down most services that are vulnerable in addition to a firewall/hosts file & anti virus SW.

 

[spyordie007]

XP is a great OS, and it's not "kiddified" if you're using it in an enterprise enviroment (and/or configure the interface to be more efficient). What I was targeting with my post was mainly consumers; there really isnt a reason that joe schmoe consumer shouldnt be getting the up-to-date OS when they buy a new computer.

BTW I still have about a dozen 2000 servers in production. They do a very good job, but when I get the chance I'm still going to upgrade (or replace) them.

 

[pkme2]

I'm using Win 2000 on my Graphics Machine and still get security fixes for Win 2000. I'm building another A64 machine that will use XP Pro.
Win 2000 is a solid O/S, but its time for an upgrade. I'll use the old machine for a Linux server or whatever.