Windows Security, Linux, other good stuff

2»

Comments

  • i think it means "to be decided"
  • Ah... so they even not sure if there will be SP3 for WinXP...
    Maybe they became more wise and understood that XP is ... [cs]
  • I don't know what they'll decide.

    We all know that 2000 has some deep, low-level differences that are always going to be present, but somethings might be added/updated via a new Service Pack. I'm still going to hope...

    -Q
  • Slash wrote:
    Ah... so they even not sure if there will be SP3 for WinXP...
    Maybe they became more wise and understood that XP is ... [cs]


    They *JUST* came out with SP2... why the hell would they start making SP3 if theres no reason to?
  • IIRC, SPs are just cumulative Windows Updates, so after they decide there are enough to justify it, they'll package them all in a SP, and maybe add some other stuff that they forgot. So it'll be awhile before SP3, and SP5 (I hope)....

    -Q
  • Q wrote:
    IIRC, SPs are just cumulative Windows Updates, so after they decide there are enough to justify it, they'll package them all in a SP, and maybe add some other stuff that they forgot. So it'll be awhile before SP3, and SP5 (I hope)....

    No. SPs are not cumulative Windows Updates. It has never been that way.

    Anyway, back-porting XP SP2's features to Windows 2000 is NOT going to happen. Anyone with half a brain can see this ...

    1. Not cost-effective -- who uses Windows 2000 that needs the features?
    2. Slow down sales/upgrades of XP. Microsoft doesn't want that.
    3. Would require major re-writes/updates of core parts of Windows 2000. (BTW Tim ... kernel doesn't need a 'complete rewrite' to support other CPUs more efficiently ... a re-compile with an updated compiler and a few code changes to the HAL I would assume is all that's need).
    4. Windows 2000 is more on security life-support rather than feature life-support.
  • Tomchu's right, 2000 is slowly fading. I guess the 2000 fans want 2000 to stick around longer. NT 4 lasted far beyond it's time, 2000 is starting to do that as it's supported technologies are being replaced by bigger and better things.

    Microsoft still sells 2000 in stores which is odd to me... I don't remember seeing NT 4 in stores 4 years after it's release. I don't expect them to update it like XP has. Instead of a service pack they will probably release a security rollup package containing all fixes after SP4. Although if you update regularly then you wouldn't even see this option on windows update....
  • I think most of us realize that 2000, like all other MS OSes that aren't 2003 or XP, are dying. However some of us have an almost kindred feeling towards certain things, which logically should be nothing more then inanimate objects, which disposes us to hope that they'll only get better, and that we'll only like them more. So, it's not surprising when we keep boosting them and pushing for them.

    Nothing wrong with that the last I knew.

    -Q
  • Your right Q, I feel the same way about 2000. I have it on my mini and any other system I can put it on. I don't want it to fade away. I make sure all my friends get it (instead of using 98). I've been using NT based systems since before I even knew much about computers. I'll never forget the program manager. I'll never forget NT 4's logon screen, and I'll never forget 2000's ability to run just about anything that older ones could. (It does run some dos things rather well, I'm sure there are others that just refuse to work.)

    I am too use to the non flashy designs of these systems, and seeing ME, XP, and LH (haven't seen 2003, don't know what it looks like) I don't think they have the same feel to them, and they definately don't have the same look. Even when turning everything as classic as can be, they still just aren't the same.
  • I am too use to the non flashy designs of these systems, and seeing ME, XP, and LH (haven't seen 2003, don't know what it looks like) I don't think they have the same feel to them, and they definately don't have the same look. Even when turning everything as classic as can be, they still just aren't the same.

    That is exactly it. I still can't put it into words as well as that, but that's about the heart of what I was stating, there's a subtle difference, that eludes all but the most skillfull description (Something far above me).

    Sorry for stealing yuor words.

    -Q
  • Well... we don't need to have a perfect description, all we need to know is that the difference is there.

    P.S you didn't steal my words... you quoted me.
  • Well, thanx anyway. That's EXACTLY what I feel about the subject as well. There's just a difference there. That's all I can think to write now, wow...

    -Q
  • Q wrote:
    I think most of us realize that 2000, like all other MS OSes that aren't 2003 or XP, are dying. However some of us have an almost kindred feeling towards certain things, which logically should be nothing more then inanimate objects, which disposes us to hope that they'll only get better, and that we'll only like them more. So, it's not surprising when we keep boosting them and pushing for them.

    Nothing wrong with that the last I knew.

    -Q
    Yup, Q's right...
    I wanna add that everyone waits for something completely new from microsoft.
Sign In or Register to comment.