Windows Longhorn and Drive Letters

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vertices

No one is continuing to shove new software down anyones throat. If you like Windows 95, then fine, use it. There is nothing wrong with it.

Just because MS says, "Ok, we are done with that, we are not going to devote any more resources towards improving it" doesn't mean you can't still use it. They are simply not going to provide FREE updates to a piece of software.

---

By dropping security patch support for older OS's, they are in fact forcing you to upgrade if you want to have security upgrades. Dropping security and patch support for Windows 2000 Pro seems silly. It is an NT level OS with a huge corporate presence. I'm not talking about FEATURES - I'm talking about patches for vulnerabilities.

Also, by pressuring vendors and software makers to drop support for earlier versions, they are putting the damper on maintaining those previous OS's. They don't want software makers to even compile a version that can run on 9x/ME systems. They don't want ATI or anyone else maintaining active driver support for 9x/ME, so they say "We just won't WHQL certify for those OS's any more, nor will we provide any developer resources or support for those seeking assistance in producing items for those OS's"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vertices

Hey BK, you bash MS enough and constantly discuss "corporate issues". Do you even work in the IT industry? Just curious.

---

Well of course I have extensive experience with the IT industry, and have actually worked both directly and in-directly with Microsoft on a number of occassions over the decades. :)

I like a lot of the products that Microsoft puts out and a lot of the engineers and employees are top notch folks and I've enjoyed working with them. But in terms of their corporate policies, decisions and actions, I have some serious reservations, as do many, many other people out there.

While I can understand Microsoft wanting to drop 9x support in favor of the NT platforms, I think their decision to kick Windows 2000 Pro to the curb is ill-advised and a slap in the face to those corporations that they lobbied so hard to make the switch in the first place. Windows 2000 Pro is worth keeping and supporting, imo, and I think their choice is short-sighted and selfish, frankly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pudad

Hey Vertecies, I agree with you for the most part. But I don't see why they are going to do that with 2000. Sure the os is about 6 years old, but their isn't a whole lot that sets it apart from xp (as far as running software, and drivers). I mean I think it is fine if they don't add any more noticable features or service packs, but I'd wish they'd just backport the latest security patches to it. There are still lots of 2k workstations and servers out there. At the place I work, almost everyone runs 2000. The newer machines are xp, but it is still almost totally 2000. I actually wouldn't even care if they say (well, your support is over but the security updates for xp should still work on 2000). Now I don't know the specifics of what is gonna happen, but I would be ok with that kind of compromise.

---

When product support ends, Microsoft usually offers an extended support agreement. Microsoft has a very clear policy about support for discontinued products. Many companies stop supporting products when they are discontinued.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ImaNihilist

Lol. See, the only reason for me to have a Mac is to use the latest Apple software. Most of the actually Apple software requires the latest version of the OS to run.

You can probably run non Apple branded software on OSX 10.0 and 10.1. I don't really know as it only says on the box. I don't know if that means it actually won't work on an older version of OSX or not.

---

I also realized that I was thinking of hardware too. The apple keyboards and mice and some of the wireless products claim they need 10.3 to work, but they do work on older versions of 10.x (according to some of our mac guys).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ua549

When product support ends, Microsoft usually offers an extended support agreement. Microsoft has a very clear policy about support for discontinued products. Many companies stop supporting products when they are discontinued.

---

I just heard about the new rollout package. So all you need to install is 2k+sp4+rollout and you got it all.

What I think would be good, is even though they drop support, they'll make security patches for xp available to 2000. I just never thought the stuff in xp was that significant. It would make sense if they'd eventually drop xp and 2k in favor of something much more advanced and different (longhorn, whatever), but I just think xp and 2k are so similar that it wouldn't be too much work to just make those patches work on 2k aswell.

It would seem to be a smart move to continue service pack development for Win 2K Pro, which includes functional/compatibility/security updates given that some 40+ percent of corporations still use it heavily, no?

If WinFS comes out just after Longhorn does, is it really that hard to issue a patch so that Windows 2000 Pro is compatible with it / aware of it? Or if someone finds an exploit in DirectX, issue a version that takes care of Windows 2000 Pro as well?

After all, it is based on the same NT core, essentially.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bearded Kirklander

It would seem to be a smart move to continue service pack development for Win 2K Pro, which includes functional/compatibility/security updates given that some 40+ percent of corporations still use it heavily, no?

If WinFS comes out just after Longhorn does, is it really that hard to issue a patch so that Windows 2000 Pro is compatible with it / aware of it? Or if someone finds an exploit in DirectX, issue a version that takes care of Windows 2000 Pro as well?

After all, it is based on the same NT core, essentially.

---

The code base is different for each OS prior to WinXP. That is why Win2k patches don't work on Win2k SBS, etc. WinXP and Win2k3 are the first to have a common code base.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bearded Kirklander

It would seem to be a smart move to continue service pack development for Win 2K Pro, which includes functional/compatibility/security updates given that some 40+ percent of corporations still use it heavily, no?

If WinFS comes out just after Longhorn does, is it really that hard to issue a patch so that Windows 2000 Pro is compatible with it / aware of it? Or if someone finds an exploit in DirectX, issue a version that takes care of Windows 2000 Pro as well?

After all, it is based on the same NT core, essentially.

---

no no no
winfs is added functionality, not security. Winfs is also as far as I know, a discontinued project. For now anyways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ua549

The code base is different for each OS prior to WinXP. That is why Win2k patches don't work on Win2k SBS, etc. WinXP and Win2k3 are the first to have a common code base.

---

Yeah, I had assumed that. I just thought it might have been similar enough. Either way they are giving extended support to enterprises, which is really all that matters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ua549

The code base is different for each OS prior to WinXP. That is why Win2k patches don't work on Win2k SBS, etc. WinXP and Win2k3 are the first to have a common code base.

---

However, given that Win 2K Pro is an NT platform, the adjustments needed to be made to help ensure compatibility would be negligible, would they not?

I guess what I'm trying to say is creating a patch that will allow both XP and 2K to work with changes in say Windows 2003 (isn't that just a server OS only?) or an update to Active Directory or something would be a breeze compared to doing the same with the old 9x codebase. At least it would seem that way to me.

All this to say, I would think Windows 2000 Pro would be worth investing in, especially given the huge percentage of corporations still using it.

I'm not saying that Microsoft should add stuff like Fast User Switching or what not. But patching it to fix security vulnerabilities, or to ensure that Windows 2000 Pro is able to read future MS file systems would seem reasonable, don't you think?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pudad

no no no
winfs is added functionality, not security. Winfs is also as far as I know, a discontinued project. For now anyways.

---

My bad. I chose a poor example.

Say that Microsoft made a change to NTFS that allowed for a new type of encryption. I guess what I'm trying to get at is that I think it would be good if Microsoft made an update/patch to Windows 2000 Professional so that it could read and write with that updated encryption.

Why? Because when 40% or more of your corporate user base is using Windows 2000 Pro and that OS already has NTFS support natively built-in, and it is on a very similar code base to XP already, it would make sense to invest that moderate amount of time to ensure that Windows 2000 Professional is not lacking the ability to interact with the tweaked file system.

Does that make sense? Or am I just explaining this poorly?

Bottom line - I think it would be a bad thing for Microsoft to suddenly make Windows 2000 Pro obsolete by deciding not to make such a simple patch. I think that would be unfair as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bearded Kirklander

My bad. I chose a poor example.

Say that Microsoft made a change to NTFS that allowed for a new type of encryption. I guess what I'm trying to get at is that I think it would be good if Microsoft made an update/patch to Windows 2000 Professional so that it could read and write with that updated encryption.

Why? Because when 40% or more of your corporate user base is using Windows 2000 Pro and that OS already has NTFS support natively built-in, and it is on a very similar code base to XP already, it would make sense to invest that moderate amount of time to ensure that Windows 2000 Professional is not lacking the ability to interact with the tweaked file system.

Does that make sense? Or am I just explaining this poorly?

Bottom line - I think it would be a bad thing for Microsoft to suddenly make Windows 2000 Pro obsolete by deciding not to make such a simple patch. I think that would be unfair as well.

---

Well they look like they will still provide extended support for 2000 for those corporations. What's your job anwyays?

My job? Well gee, couldn't you tell? I'm a hairdresser :rolleyes:

As for the topic, it's not like people are not going to move forward to the next platform. I simply feel that most would probably rather do it at their own pace and not be forced into doing it by some cheap gimmicky change that suddenly makes their huge investment in say Windows 2000 Pro obsolete.

Is that such an unreasonable stance?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pudad

Either way they are giving extended support to enterprises, which is really all that matters.

---

Extended Support is not the same as committing to providing compatibility and security patches.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bearded Kirklander

My bad. I chose a poor example.

Say that Microsoft made a change to NTFS that allowed for a new type of encryption. I guess what I'm trying to get at is that I think it would be good if Microsoft made an update/patch to Windows 2000 Professional so that it could read and write with that updated encryption.

Why? Because when 40% or more of your corporate user base is using Windows 2000 Pro and that OS already has NTFS support natively built-in, and it is on a very similar code base to XP already, it would make sense to invest that moderate amount of time to ensure that Windows 2000 Professional is not lacking the ability to interact with the tweaked file system.

Does that make sense? Or am I just explaining this poorly?

Bottom line - I think it would be a bad thing for Microsoft to suddenly make Windows 2000 Pro obsolete by deciding not to make such a simple patch. I think that would be unfair as well.

---

I know where you are coming from.

Ex. Windows NT4 only has NTFS v4.0 support, while Windows 2000 and XP use NTFS v5.0. While Windows 2000/XP can use both, obviously NT4 cannot. But I don't remember MS ever issuing a patch for NT4 users. Am I right in this example?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bearded Kirklander

Bottom line - I think it would be a bad thing for Microsoft to suddenly make Windows 2000 Pro obsolete by deciding not to make such a simple patch. I think that would be unfair as well.

---

Microsoft is not doing anything suddenly. The earliest Win2k support termination date was determined the day Microsoft stopped selling it. That was long ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bearded Kirklander

All this to say, I would think Windows 2000 Pro would be worth investing in, especially given the huge percentage of corporations still using it.

---

How would it be a good investment? The word investment implies some type of return. Microsoft isn't selling Windows 2000 anymore, so any "investment" they pour into Windows 2000 development will have zero monetary return. Since the sole function of any company -- including Microsoft -- is to make money, it doesn't make business sense to keep providing free updates to products that are past their agreed-upon support period.

The investment could be one intended to foster customer loyalty and good will. Investing time and energy to helping to ensure that 40+ percent of your customer base is taken care of is probably worth doing, no?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ua549

Microsoft is not doing anything suddenly. The earliest Win2k support termination date was determined the day Microsoft stopped selling it. That was long ago.

---

Perhaps I chose the wrong words to express my sentiment. Maybe using "effectively" instead of suddenly would have been a better choice.

BK you are missing the fact that the majority of corporations have licensing with MS that will allow them to upgrade their desktops to the newest OS as they see fit. If support is not there for Win2k, most companies can move to WinXp at no additional cost for the software. My company has been 100% WinXp on the desktop for at least a year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ksuohio

BK you are missing the fact that the majority of corporations have licensing with MS that will allow them to upgrade their desktops to the newest OS as they see fit. If support is not there for Win2k, most companies can move to WinXp at no additional cost for the software. My company has been 100% WinXp on the desktop for at least a year.

---

I don't believe I'm missing that point at all.

It is not the cost I'm even discussing. It is the fact that corporations that have a vested interest in Windows 2000 Pro may prefer to stay there as opposed to being forced to migrate to yet another platform. It was bad enough having to go from a Primary/Backup domain controller setup to Active Directory, why would they want to have to update their machines to an OS that is bloated with consumer niceties like Windows Movie Maker, MSN Messenger, a fancy Media Player and crap like that? Who wants to have to upgrade 5000 desktops with more hard drive space, more system memory and more intense video requirements when the NT platform you already have works fine for you?

It is very telling that such a high percentage of people prefer to keep their Windows 2000 Pro installations instead of moving to Windows XP.

As a customer, I'd prefer they don't spend a lot of resources on older OS's. Developers don't work for free, so Microsoft would either need to charge more for products currently generating revenue or remove programmers from current projects and assign them to revising older Windows versions. Either way, as a customer, I'm not too happy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bearded Kirklander

It is the fact that corporations that have a vested interest in Windows 2000 Pro may prefer to stay there as opposed to being forced to migrate to yet another platform.

---

We're not being forced. We just won't get updates.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bearded Kirklander

It was bad enough having to go from a Primary/Backup domain controller setup to Active Directory, why would they want to have to update their machines to an OS that is bloated with consumer niceties like Windows Movie Maker, MSN Messenger, a fancy Media Player and crap like that? Who wants to have to upgrade 5000 desktops with more hard drive space, more system memory and more intense video requirements when the NT platform you already have works fine for you?

---

As a network administrator, I thougt it was a GOOD thing to go from PDC's & BDC's to AD. It's a much more robust solution. And Microsoft allowed for all sorts of different migration scenarios and domain modes to ease the transition.

The items that get installed with Windows are customizable. I don't need to include MSN Messenger, Media Player, or a whole lot of other things in the desktop OS I deploy to my end users. Basically, it's just a matter of editing an INF for an unattended install. (Or manually removing 'em and using a cloning or deployment utility.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bearded Kirklander

It is very telling that such a high percentage of people prefer to keep their Windows 2000 Pro installations instead of moving to Windows XP.

---

That's not necessarily an endorsement of 2000 over XP. I think it's more a combination of a few different things:
* Desktop replacement cycles. Most companies plan to migrate en masse on set schedules.
* Custom application development and testing. Larger companies often have specialized apps written in-house. It takes time and manpower to test 'em on various OS's. Unless there's some return on investment, this testing usually isn't a corporate priority, so upgrades can take some time.
* Software licensing costs. If a company is a volume license customer, it costs to upgrade. If they're a software assurance customer, then the upgrade is covered by their licensing.
* "If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Personally, as a network administrator, I prefer XP to 2000. The functional differences aren't huge, but there are enough small things (like various Group Policy settings) that make XP easier to manage.

I don't think asking for continued security patches and key compatibility updates is in any way unreasonable.

That aside, the loss in production migrating to XP from 2K for so little gain could be and appears to be cost prohibitive for many large companies. If they choose to put off the migration even though 2K will lack those key updates, that should tell Microsoft a thing or two.

It's not ucnommon to run into entire offices still running NT4 SP6. Our customer still want our products to run on it, even though MSFT dropped support a while ago. Even though 2k isn't going to be fully support by Microsoft, don't expect it to disappear anytime soon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bearded Kirklander

I don't think asking for continued security patches and key compatibility updates is in any way unreasonable.

---

In a similar manner you must think it is not unreasonable to ask General Motors to add passenger airbags to a 2000 model year Blazer?

The agency I work for will no longer place Windows 2k systems back into service as of July 2. We'll still have about 100 systems running 2K and 4 or 5 on 98, but as they go down they have to be replaced, it will be with XP. And most if not all will cycle out of service late this summer. We will have gone from 85% 9x to 99% XP in less than three years. Time spent at local systems by techs is down 80+ percent. I seldom leave my office these days.