Microsoft Tells Win2k users "Too Bad"

And why are you using 2000? That is why XP exists, it is better.

Uhh no it isn't. XP is a stain on the road compared to 2k, anyone who's in IT will say the same. It is by far the best OS Microcrap ever came out with(and even that isn't saying too much) 2k with SP2 is the most secure M$ product EVER! Just because something is newer doesn't make it better...

[edit on 4-6-2005 by sardion2000]

Originally posted by minority2000uk
Also they were not the first to make a icon based operating system think it was linux based that did it first but might be wrong.

Xerox was the first to create a mouse "point & click" input. I'm not sure if that is what you mean by "icon based" or not but I thought I'd throw it out there anyway. Linux came much too late in the game for it to be the first Icon Based OS.

Originally posted by sardion2000

And why are you using 2000? That is why XP exists, it is better.

Uhh no it isn't. XP is a stain on the road compared to 2k, anyone who's in IT will say the same. It is by far the best OS Microcrap ever came out with(and even that isn't saying too much) 2k with SP2 is the most secure M$ product EVER! Just because something is newer doesn't make it better...

[edit on 4-6-2005 by sardion2000]

THANK YOU!!!! SARDION2000. Ironic name BTW.

2000 is the best OS MS has put out to date. XP SP1 is seriously bloated and full of holes, however, it is very compatible with hardware/software. XP SP2 is IMO just more additional Bloat added to an already "Foofy" OS.

Sardion, are you serious that Win2k w/ SP2 is the most secure OS ever? I do work in IT and I can say from firsthand experience that XP is the most stable OS that Micro$oft has released so far. It works on laptops and PCs with none of the old crashes and bluescreens. I've run XP for months without reboots and without BSODs.

What's funny to me is that non-computer literate people are always bellyaching for the next upgrade or piece of spackle, but few of them really want to actually know how insecure they are. How much energy should M$ expend supporting their legacy code? What's the point? In the end, a stupid user will ALWAYS compromise effective security. Read Kevin Mitnick's book if you want shocking examples of how utterly dumb some employees can be. Even if you built the best web browser on the planet, it won't stop people from accepting trojans, leaving ports unblocked, using crap programs like Outlook, etc. Security on computers is a lie unless you turn the wrench yourself, and even then, it's iffy.

I'll agree that M$ is a soulless corporation, but to say that they should hang onto Win2k because it's better than XP is nonsense.

smallpeeps, did you do acid testing on 2k SP2 versus Xp Pro Sp1? I cannot remember the exact results but the XP Pro results were atrocious. I worked for a Payroll firm so stability wasn't a real consideration, the primary consideration was security. We did have some issues with 2k Sp2 on laptops but that was easily remedied by turning off a few .ini options(sry I forget which it's been a few years)

[edit on 4-6-2005 by sardion2000]

Originally posted by James the Lesser
And why are you using 2000? That is why XP exists, it is better. I know, lets upgrade all cars by removing the tires on the left side. What, you don't like it? Well, to bad, we wanted to upgrade it, but people kept saying if you upgrade it my 50 year old car won't work so we just made the same crap as always since people whine if you make something better.

Windows 2000 pro is the best Micro$oft OS out there period. Have you went out and tested W2K vs WINXP pro? If not I suggest you keep your mouth shut when spewing accusations you have no frame of reference in.

And your example of "removing tires on the left side of a car" makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. BTW Windows 2000 is a little over 5 years old, and your extreme over exemplified example (50 year old car) is only about 45 years off.

I'll jump on the 'win2k rocks!' bandwagon as well. I've been using it for so many years. It's a great OS. It uses half the ram and takes less disc space. What's not to like? XP is bloated compaired to win2k.

I'll use win2k for as long as I can. I could care less abou IE7. Firefox works great for me.

smallpeeps, did you do acid testing on 2k SP2 versus Xp Pro Sp1? I cannot remember the exact results but the XP Pro results were atrocious. I worked for a Payroll firm so stability wasn't a real consideration, the primary consideration was security. We did have some issues with 2k Sp2 on laptops but that was easily remedied by turning off a few .ini options(sry I forget which it's been a few years)

I never worked for a payroll firm or in finance, so I suppose I could see how 2K may have looked that way. I am sure you know what you're talking about for that situation. Win2K SP2 was the release that really made Win2K a viable product but for actual security, NT would still have been better. Windows NT became XP as you know.

I did roll-outs where we loaded hundreds of machines with Win2K when it was fresh, and I also did rollouts last year where those old machines were not re-imaged but replaced by new ones with XP. This process, as APC points out, is what M$ plans on. They know you will replace the old with the new.

In Gates' favor, he does give billions to charity, so what can I say? I don't think he's doing anything evil with this move. It's been in the wings for a long time. They tried to pull the craptastic Win98 once before only to have users complain. Why anyone would want to preserve Win98 is beyond me, but there were enough complaints that M$ had to change the schedule.

NT would still have been better.

Tests we did said otherwise, but that's besides the point as SAS didn't work properly on an NT platform for some reason and according to my friends who still work their it still doesn't for the stuff they need to do, but that is all french to me(eg Programming isn't my forte) *shrug* I guess it comes down to what you need it to do and personal preference and in this case the SAS Programmers demanded 2k with SP2.

EDIT: On a side note there is supposedly a huge movement at my old job to convert over to Linux(most of the servers are already converted over already) of which the SAS programmers are demanding yet again. Man they can be really demanding when they want too.

[edit on 4-6-2005 by sardion2000]

I've used both, and know what I am talking about. 2000 sucks, XP rocks. I mean, it's like saying Macs are better cause they suck more. It doesn't make sense.

Originally posted by James the Lesser
I've used both, and know what I am talking about. 2000 sucks, XP rocks. I mean, it's like saying Macs are better cause they suck more. It doesn't make sense.

XP Home is utterly useless... It is for people with absolutely no knowledge of how a computer operates. XP Pro on the other hand is a bit better, but all in all WIN2K Pro beats all the rest heads down.


BTW I use win2k pro SP4

What M$ is doing amounts to nothing more than extortion. They sell you a sh*tty product loaded with security holes... they give you some fixes to get you somewhat locked into the OS but leave the browser full of security holes. They then promise to fix this but in order to get a working copy of the free product you have to buy yet ANOTHER operating system. Basically they are telling you that you have to buy another operating system or suffer with security holes. Frankly these holes are so obvious that I believe M$ is deliberately releasing defective software in order to extort more money from you down the road. The fact that the government hasn't shut them down for being an organized crime ring amazes me.

The government (any government) is rather limited to what they can do to MS. Simply put, MS is in the position it's in for a reason.

If a government was to break MS down (similar to the Bells) they would accomplish nothing. What you would have then is a whole bunch of slightly smaller companies each doing an IT customer's nightmare saying "Oh it's their fault not ours" or "Oh it's something related to what the company did before the breakup and that's not our branch now". If MS was to be altered in any way from a corporate standpoint the main people who would suffer would be the customers.

It's true, MS gets away with a lot, but think of it from a business perspective, in any other industry in the world if a company controlled 90% of the products out on a market they would exert just the same influence that MS does now.

They didn't become the overwhelming number 1 by accident. From a gambling perspective if you see a computer in front of you, you can safely place a bet that it runs on an OS made by Microsoft. I'm not speaking specifics, I'm saying as a general rule the overwhelming majority of computers on this planet run MS products. At that point it is irrelevant which browser or OS is better. MS can get away with things like this press release because they are everywhere. I don't foresee that changing within the near future.

Originally posted by James the Lesser
I've used both, and know what I am talking about. 2000 sucks, XP rocks. I mean, it's like saying Macs are better cause they suck more. It doesn't make sense.

People generally do say Macs are better cause they suck more!

Originally posted by CPYKOmega
XP Home is utterly useless... It is for people with absolutely no knowledge of how a computer operates. XP Pro on the other hand is a bit better, but all in all WIN2K Pro beats all the rest heads down.

How can you say XP is for people with absolutely no knowledge of how a computer operates? What difference does it make if you know how it works?!

Tests we did said otherwise, but that's besides the point as SAS didn't work properly on an NT platform for some reason and according to my friends who still work their it still doesn't for the stuff they need to do, but that is all french to me(eg Programming isn't my forte) *shrug* I guess it comes down to what you need it to do and personal preference and in this case the SAS Programmers demanded 2k with SP2.

Yes, I had friends who worked with SAS and I'd heard similar issues. I could see how a properly patched 2000 machine with SP2 would provide better security at that time. I don't think that same security exists today tho' because 2000 has been beat on by every hacker in the world. By beating on the OS, one can find bugs in it and exploit them. There's holes and buffer overflows in Win2K that are not public, of course.

I am not mocking 2000 because I have used it and liked it. Back in the day, Windows was 16 bit. When they went to Win95, they tried to fake it, but until Win2000 and Windows NT (stands for New Technology), M$ didn't have a true 32 bit OS. When NT and 2000 were set up as sort-of competing OS's, the kinks got worked out. Within M$ there were people with strong loyalties on both sides of the 2000 vs. NT issue. NT offered individual user rights on directories and was more secure in networked form. 2000 had USB support and better visuals and was more user-friendly. Both of these OSes crashed regularly and required multiple patches before they were truly viable.

XP is like Windows NT version 6. I don't understand what is meant by 'bloated'. I know it takes up a honking mess of disk space, but who cares when hard drives are costing pennies per megabyte?

Anyone who's been on the Internet knows how silly it is to argue about operating systems or whatever. Mac users get a superior product in many ways. Windows XP users get a larger library of software and better gaming. It's like saying Ford is better than Chevy. It's all subjective when it comes to what you like to use, I'd say. All computers can get you on the web, which is the best thing about them, right? Actually, now that I think about it, this discussion is similar to the "They don't make cars like they used to!" discussion which everyone has had at one time or another. Yes, there is a reason for that, and it is called planned obsolescence, but it is only done in the PC world at the hardware level. It doesn't work with software because software is fluid and developed on the fly.

But no, this is not a conspiracy. To fully test Windows so there's no errors or bugs would create a situation where testing would go on for too long and we'd still be using Windows 95 while NT was just now finishing testing. It's not realistic. The process of downloadable updates, while flawed, does work.

Originally posted by phixion

How can you say XP is for people with absolutely no knowledge of how a computer operates? What difference does it make if you know how it works?!

Just saying that I don't like XP Home Edition. It is too user friendly for me as I have had a lot of experience with computers. Just wanted to prove James the Lesser Wrong as his analogies made no sense.