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
Printable View
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bearded Kirklander
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
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by ua549
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?
My bad. I chose a poor example.Quote:
Originally Posted by pudad
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
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?
Extended Support is not the same as committing to providing compatibility and security patches.Quote:
Originally Posted by pudad
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bearded Kirklander
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?
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bearded Kirklander
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?
Perhaps I chose the wrong words to express my sentiment. Maybe using "effectively" instead of suddenly would have been a better choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by ua549
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ksuohio
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.