Talk:Windows 2000/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

SBS 2000

I'm not very familiar with the hierarchy, but shouldn't SBS 2000 at least be mentioned in this article? --Resplendent (talk) 17:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

"To date, its encryption has not been compromised."

But very misleading. The encryption algorythm hasn't been compromised, but the Windows 2000 EFS has been compromised, through the recovery agent. This only requires a reboot using downloadable software, so shouldn't there be at least a note saying that the system has been broken? 218.214.18.240 (talk) 02:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

WPA

any chance of a note on lack of WPA, and solutions.. ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.107.93.248 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Windows 2000 (and earlier versions of Windows) never included Windows Product Activation (WPA) meaning that users any install the OS on literally any PC whatever it's a retail or OEM product. Windows XP and onwards has WPA to cut down on software piracy thus making it difficult, if not impossible to reinstall the OS on another PC. --74.42.185.134 (talk) 04:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

"Interruptible"

Just a question: what does the article mean when stating that

Windows 2000 (also referred to as Win2K) is a preemptive, interruptible, graphical and business-oriented operating system

? What does it mean? That the system can be interrupted, or that it interrupts itself because of failures? It's the only Windows article that I've noticed this statement. --WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 21:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

An article called "Interruptible_operating_system" is available, read it. 1() (talk) 09:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

When NT was first introduced, the client OS Win3.1 was a cooperative, non-interruptible multi-tasker. Any task could open and run for as long as it wanted without giving control back to other apps or the OS. The lead sets up those distinctions. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Datacenter

Missing image of Windows 2000 Datacenter box is here. Please add it to Windows 2000#Editions. 79.191.250.92 (talk) 11:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Correct image uploaded. ㍐ (talk) 16:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. 83.30.141.84 (talk) 16:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The edition section has not been written completely....

as I have had hard copies of the evaluation editions purchased from one of the campuses of TAFE--222.64.30.66 (talk) 23:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Kernel improvements

There are MAJOR kernel changes in Windows 2000. The article completely lacks them, I wonder how this was a featured article in the past. - xpclient ^Talk 13:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring over status

Hey guys, is there a need to fight over the "proper" sentence structure of the status, be it "Unsupported as of..." or "Support ended on..."? Just come to a consensus that we'll all agree on, alright? NoNews! 13:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

We have only two options here: Support ended on 13th July or unsupported as of July 14th but not a mix of both as it was still supported on July 13th. While it's true W2k did not receive any new updates on July 13th it was listed by M$ as not affected. M$ would not have listed an OS that way if it's out of support on this date. --Denniss (talk) 14:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The correct wording is "Unsupported as of 13 July 2010", meaning that support for Windows 2000 ended on 13 July 2010. However, other users have been fighting over the ability to change the wording of the support status whatever "support ended on 13 July 2010" or "unsupported as of 14 July 2010" as this will only lead to endless edit wars by other users. Windows 98 also has a correct wording of "Unsupported as of 11 July 2006" as well. I think that you might want to consider getting the admins to protect the article from being vandalised in a frequent matter. -- 74.42.188.45 (talk) 01:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Somebody should do something. the Microsoft Windows page said "Support ended on July 13", as I don't agree. Articles like Windows 95 and Windows 98 say "Unsupported as of (date)". Is there a need for Windows 2000 to say "Support ended on (date)" or say "Unsupported as of 14 July 2010". The Microsoft webpage says Windows 2000 and Windows XP SP2 says unupported on July 13, 2010. Mabye the page should be protected so registered users or admins should only edit it temporarliy? Mabye warn the user who edited the articles? --Quoladdie (talk) 14:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Support for Windows 2000 and Windows XP Service Pack 2 ended on 13 July 2010 which means that the correct wording for Win2K is "Unsupported as of 13 July 2010", not "14 July 2010". I believe that the admins should protect both pages so that only a specified number of registered users can edit articles and should either warn or temporary block Denniss for aggressively engaging in edit wars. This is something that no one one wants if the edit warring continues. -- 74.42.188.45 (talk) 15:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

What's the source at Microsoft telling us these products were out of support on July 13th? Support ended on this day but was still available. Support ceased to exist on July 14th thus these products were effectivly unsupported on July 14th.. --Denniss (talk) 15:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Denniss, read Quoladdie's comment for the clarification. Anyways, I want you to stop the edit warring on this Windows 2000 article by changing the end-of-support date and its wording. I forgot to edit and put a extra colon which is one of the reasons why I failed to reply to your comment. -- 74.42.188.45 (talk) 17:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/search/?sort=PN&alpha=Windows+2000&Filter=FilterNO, This link ahows you the lifecycle of Windows 2000 products. --Quoladdie (talk) 16:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the link. As this is not my article, no one wants to see people to change the wording or end-of-support date for Windows 2000 anymore.

64-bit

The history section claims Windows 2000 64-bit was codenamed "Janus". But according to Windows NT#64-bit, Windows 2000 never had 64-bit support. Note the reference for Janus just refers to a "64-bit successor". Could it be Windows 2003? Also see Talk:Windows NT#Windows 2000 and 64-bit. -79.179.200.231 (talk) 19:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

IA-64 version of W2k ? --Denniss (talk) 21:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

NTOS on DEC Alpha was 64 bit and development continued internally at Microsoft well past the Windows 2000 RTM. This work was never made public except the beta releases of Windows 2000 released previous. Neither IA64 nor x64 were developmentally ready during the Windows 2000 lifecycle. SchmuckyTheCat — Preceding unsigned comment added by SchmuckyTheCat (talk • contribs) 21:49, 9 January 2011

Then the section should state Janus was never released (e.g. "Windows 2000 had no 64-bit support. There was an attempt of a Windows 2000 64-bit version codenamed "Janus", but it was never released"). I'd write it myself but I don't have a reference. -79.179.200.231 (talk) 00:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The existing reference to Janus is so poor I don't know it should be used at all. The reference article does state that it is targeting IA-64, not Alpha or x64. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Further ref added. _wjemather^bigissue 09:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

So now there are 2 refs that anticipate a 64-bit version! Is there a contradictory ref? -79.179.200.231 (talk) 15:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

There were actually at least two releases of "Windows 2000 Advanced Server Limited Edition" for Itanium [1] [2]. Letdorf (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC).

Which was actually the IA64 release of XP. The second "release" was some kernel patching for architecture on Lion. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

If you are going to contradict reliable sources (which in this case clearly state it was Windows 2000), then you really must provide some evidence to back your comments up. _wjemather^bigissue 00:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The server edition was called Win2000, I'm not contradicting that. It sim-shipped with XP, which had a 64 bit "Professional" edition for IA-64. The IA64 server release was just not named XP because there was not a x86 server release to co-market.

If we do want to consider sourcing, this is an unreliable article [3] although it may be from a reliable source it is quoting unreliable sources (the Y2K equivalent of a fanblog), while adding obviously untrue information (WinME does not have a hybrid kernel). As editors, it is our job to assess the quality of sources and not just blindly trust them, and that article isn't quality. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

But you stated that 64-bit Win2K Server was "the IA64 release of XP" and now that "the IA64 server release was just not named XP because there was not a x86 server release to co-market." – where are the souces to support those assertions? Of course it was released at about the same time, but it is still a jump to make that connection, and given few other features of XP were in Server it looks like a blind jump at that.

BetaOS is only referenced (and clearly so) for a single sentence of that article, so I hope you are not dismissing the whole thing on that basis. Of course, being written and published early in the development stages it can not, and does not, accurately describe the finished/released products. But as a source for what was known/reported/expected at the time Computergram International (and this article) is a reliable source. _wjemather^bigissue 09:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The PCWorld reference states it is the Whistler codebase. Whistler=XP. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

It actually states it was "built on the Windows.Net code base, formerly code-named Whistler". I assume it means NT rather than .Net, and they specifically do not refer to it as the XP codebase. _wjemather^bigissue 09:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

"Windows.NET" was what "Whistler Server" was called before it became Windows Server 2003[4][5]. However, regardless of which generation of NT was used in Windows 2000 Advanced Server Limited Edition (it would be interesting to find out what its internal version number was - if used the Whistler codebase, I expect it would be 5.1), Microsoft still called it "Windows 2000" and there's no point denying that. Regards, Letdorf (talk) 23:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC).

Right, of course. I knew that. I even referenced it elsewhere only last month! Memory like a sieve sometimes. In which case "built on the Windows.Net code base, formerly code-named Whistler" should be read as "Whistler Server" (not XP). _wjemather^bigissue 23:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Just Wondering

I have installed and used Windows 2000 Pro on a few 486SX, 486DX, 5x86, and 6x86 systems. And one Winchip system. I'm curious why the system requirements in this article has the wrong system requirements. Yes, I understand if somebody runs off and installs something modern on 2000, but I'm referring to the servers or "Office" computers I've worked on. The boxes I have state that all I need is a 486 CPU and 32 MB RAM minimum, and it's installed on such systems just fine, and, if the user isn't on the Internet and running Office 4.2, it's the perfect OS, or only uses the Internet via something dinosaur like AOL 2.5.

Just thought I'd bring it up. No citations or anything, just pointing it out from personal experience. 68.96.214.115 (talk) 17:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The system requirements come straight from Microsoft documents and is properly sourced. That's why it's in the article. Personal experience is original research and can not be included in the article. SpigotMap 17:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

68.96.214.115 wrote "The boxes I have state that all I need is a 486 CPU and 32 MB RAM minimum." I checked a win-2000 Pro box and the wording of both the box and the Getting Started book (page 19) match System requirements for Microsoft Windows 2000 operating systems from Microsoft. I updated the article to include the " (or equivalent)" that Microsoft used after the processor requirement and presumably allows for operation on the machines 68.96.214.115 has used. The win-2000 Pro CD has \SETUPTXT\PRO1.TXT dated 12/07/1999 which states "133 MHz Pentium or higher microprocessor (or equivalent)."

68.96.214.115, a manufacturer often overstates the minimum requirements as they also want to ensure the user has a usable system and to provide a baseline that applications can rely on. While Windows 2000 itself may well work on a 486SX a "Windows 2000 compatible" application may not run.

I did not have the box handy but also looked at a win-2000 Server CD. That has \SETUPTXT\SRV1.TXT dated 12/07/1999 with the requirements stated as "133-MHz Pentium or higher central processing unit (CPU)" meaning Microsoft dropped "(or equivalent)" for the server edition. This is reflected on the System requirements for Microsoft Windows 2000 operating systems article.

I saw that Wikipedia article's Infobox has "Platform support: IA-32, Itanium" and so update that to use Pentium. We'll ignore the fact that the operating system software installs from a directory named "I386" and presumably works on the i386 processor. --Marc Kupper|talk 18:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)