Jump to content

Talk:Windows 2000/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Old, unsectioned comments

Actually, it isn't completely correct to say that XP is the successor to 2000. XP is the successor to 9x/Me and NT Professional, but there is currently no successor to the Windows 2000 server products. "Windows Server .Net" or some similar foolishness, is currently, I think, in beta 3. To say that XP is the successor to 2000 over-emphasizes the role of 2000 as a desktop operating system and under-emphasizes it as a network operating system. - 9jack9.

In the sense that XP was built upon 2000, you could say that it is the successor. I think that XP was supposed to replace *both* 2000 and ME, by making 2000 easier to use for desktop but keeping it powerful enough for networking. Also (I think) that .net isn't itself an operating system, but a programming-design protocall or something like that. -- sodium

Well, it's reasonable to say that XP is mostly built on the code of W2K, so in that sense it's the successor to W2K. However, it's supposed to also be the successor in the sense of "migration path" from all Windows desktop operating systems. So, does that make it the successor to W2K Pro, 9x/Me, or both? I dunno. Also, there are two versions of XP, XP Home and XP Professional, so you could say that XP Home is the successor to 9x/Me and that XP Pro is the successor to W2K Pro.

Microsoft says that the "next generation of the Windows Server family" is "Windows .Net Server Beta 3". They also refer to "Microsoft's .Net vision", which includes pretty much everything, including Windows server versions, server applications, programming platform, and Internet-based services. - 9jack9.

This article comes across as biased towards microsoft, particularly on the issue of TCO.

... does that make it the successor to W2K Pro, 9x / Me, or both?

My understanding was that it was both, including large-scale networking. I suppose .Net must be the next generation of windows, but I think it will be a few years before it comes out (whatever Microsoft claims). -- sodium

Which leads me to the conclusion that brief discussions of successor in the article doesn't add a lot of value, unless it tries to detail all of these things. -9jack9.

Windows XP was defined by microsoft as a "convergence". The difference between home and professional seems to be an artificial contrivance by microsoft like the NT4 server workstation difference. They simply made two versions of the same product, but they are the same underneath. I would be more prone to define "successor" by kernel rather than by whatever functionality microsoft chooses to add as a package, so in that sense it is true successor to both 2000 and 9x regardless whether its targeted to server or desktop.

--Alan D

I don't see that it is more reasonably correct to consider successor to be defined by kernal rather than by intended use. If XP Home is marketed as the upgrade to 9x/Me and XP Pro is marketed as the upgrade to Windows 2000 Pro, but .Net Server is the upgrade Windows 2000 server products, I don't see how it's correct to simply consider XP the successor to 2000, and consider that the end of the story. -9Jack9

Fair enough, but I personally don't see the superior value in chronicling the marketing strategy of microsoft rather than the evolution of their products. Name distinction is important to them as a tool to make money. If they are the same kernel underneath, that is at least notable for us. How the different products are marketed is important I agree, but I personally find this less important than how the product actually works. On the other hand, maybe this is because of the profession I am in. I'm not going to mess with the page because I think you are doing a good job, but just wanted to add my two cents.

Cheers, Alan D

Hmmm, actually, I'd think that in a comprehensive article, both the marketing strategy and the kernel evolution would be important topics. Thanks for the compliment, but actually, all I did was start the page, with about a third of what is now there. This is my first Wikipedia article, and it's a pretty amazing process. And, fwiw, professionally, the kernel impacts me a great deal, but I would think that a general-purpose encyclopedia article should perhaps include social/marketing aspects as well as technical details.

-9Jack9.

Boot disk nonsense

The page you just linked to doesn't tell you how to create a DOS boot disk. What was your point? That just tells you how to create a floppy disk that will be able to locate a Windows NT or later installation on a hard disk and boot from it, when the partition table is fucked up.
The "Emergency Repair Disk" option under the Tools menu of the version of Backup included with Windows 2000 creates DOS boot disks. Just incase you aren't clear, the easiest way to tell is to look at a floppy disk for a file called COMMAND.COM and a file called MSDOS.SYS. If it includes those files then you can be pretty certain it is an MS-DOS boot disk. AlistairMcMillan 23:15, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Alistar, please do accept the fact that the procedure you outlined, does NOT produce the results you say it does. Indeed, after lauching NTBACKUP.exe, one is able to use the "backup" utility and one is indeed able to create an Emergency Repair Disk, however, the only files Windows 2000 puts on that diskette are:

  1. NN.exe
  2. setup.log
  3. config.nt
  4. autoexec.nt

Even looking for hidden and system files reveals no COMMAND.COM and MSDOS.sys. I am in USA. Perhaps the Europeon version differs, but USA Win2k with all latest fix paks and services gives the result I describe. Reverting you. 216.153.214.94 01:42, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sorry. Don't know what I did this morning but I'm sure (well 90% sure) I managed to create a boot floppy in Windows 2000. Tried again just there and only got three files (setup.log, config.nt and autoexec.nt). Didn't get the nn.exe file. I've left your edit in with some modifications. I hope they are not too disagreeable. Again, and I think for the first time, I admit Rex you were right. AlistairMcMillan 03:33, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

While I admit no relation to this mysterious "Rex" that you keep referring to, thank you. 216.153.214.94 04:08, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I still don't think that it's a valid concern. First Windows 2000 was designated as a business operating system, so any user should either have some sort of IT support, or be knowledgeable enough to use obtain another one. Second it's only a valid criticism for the first year or so IMO, because after that it's simply bad support from the companies that require the boot disks, not to provide an alternate source such as PC-DOS, or to use BSD or Linux and re-write their tools. PPGMD

Good Morning Travellers

I have Win 2000 Pro and would like to learn more about it, some of the ins and outs. Anyone able to recommend a good book other than the help files which are a bit limited? I knew 98 and 95 like the back of my hand but 2000 is so expansive. I've learned a few things about how to use the USB effectively with a laptop and DVD drive (I need to upgrade the USB port - but that's a side issue.) What I'm most interested in are the server aspects of the OS, and it should be just about time for those old 2000 books to start filtering into the outdated bin at B&N. Any expert blogs on the web I might look to for tips?

Most Stable of Windows OS

I removed this line "Windows 2000 has the reputation of being the most stable of the entire line of Microsoft operating systems after Windows NT 3.51." And I move that it stay removed unless we get some hard and current facts that back it up. As an IT consultant I know that the stability of an OS has more to do with the administrator, but I have yet to see any real facts on this line. In fact I know many that think that NT 4 was more stable than NT 3.51. PPGMD 20:15, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Well obviously you don't want to accept this if you're Windows XP fan, but rest assured Windows 2000 *is* the most stable of the current (read: still supported by Microsoft) NT based OS'es. Windows XP could have theoretically been better than Windows 2000, but they blew it by incorporating more and more unneeded features that would be sure to break down the first chance they get. Anyone who's someone (and has worked in the "field" long enough) realizes Windows XP is nothing but Windows 2000 layered with candy. I would say the proper comparison would be between a Harley-Davidson and a Japanese motorcycle. Sure the Japanese motorcycle is fancier but will it last longer, no. Will it break down sooner? Sure, because it's mostly plastic. That's Windows XP for you, pal. Added complexity always equals less reliability, don't forget that.

Sorry it's not common knowledge, it may be true, but we need proof for a wikipedia article. I also have years of expirence in the field, and have gotten long uptimes with all NT based OSs since NT 4, it's all in the administrator. PPGMD 02:08, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Added complexity does not necessarily equal less reliability. Besides, the XP vs. 2000 discussion is moot -- it would be more relevant to compare 2000 and 2003. I think 2003 is definitely more stable, but if you have any evidence, please cite away... Neilc 11:06, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Windows 2003 is Windows XP+IIS and that IE security thing with a few things turned off by default.—Kbolino 04:49, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Windows 2000 architecture

I see this article doesn't deal with the Windows 2000 architecture. I have made a diagram based on two block diagrams I've seen from various sources (one is from my MCSE Win2k server book). Hope this is useful! - Ta bu shi da yu 05:16, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Criticism of Microsoft

In all that criticism, I'm surprised noone has brought up their problems with RPC vulnerabilities. Have a look at [1] if you don't believe me! We have:

  • Microsoft Security Bulletin MS03-026: issue with a vulnerability in the part of RPC that deals with message exchange over TCP/IP. The failure results because of incorrect handling of malformed messages. This particular vulnerability affects a Distributed Component Object Model (DCOM) interface with RPC, which listens on RPC enabled ports.
  • Microsoft Security Bulletin MS03-001: A security vulnerability results from an unchecked buffer in the Locator service. By sending a specially malformed request to the Locator service, an attacker could cause the Locator service to fail, or to run code of the attacker's choice on the system.
  • Microsoft Security Bulletin MS03-010: This particular vulnerabilty affects the RPC Endpoint Mapper process, which listens on TCP/IP port 135. The RPC endpoint mapper allows RPC clients to determine the port number currently assigned to a particular RPC service. To exploit this vulnerability, an attacker would need to establish a TCP/IP connection to the Endpoint Mapper process on a remote machine. Once the connection was established, the attacker would begin the RPC connection negotiation before transmitting a malformed message. At this point, the process on the remote machine would fail. The RPC Endpoint Mapper process is responsible for maintaining the connection information for all of the processes on that machine using RPC. Because the Endpoint Mapper runs within the RPC service itself, exploiting this vulnerability would cause the RPC service to fail, with the attendant loss of any RPC-based services the server offers, as well as potential loss of some COM functions.
  • Microsoft Security Bulletin MS04-029: This RPC Runtime library vulnerability was addressed in CAN-2004-0569, however the title is "Vulnerability in RPC Runtime Library Could Allow Information Disclosure and Denial of Service".
  • Microsoft Security Bulletin MS03-039: "There are three newly identified vulnerabilities in the part of RPCSS Service that deals with RPC messages for DCOM activation- two that could allow arbitrary code execution and one that could result in a denial of service. The flaws result from incorrect handling of malformed messages. These particular vulnerabilities affect the Distributed Component Object Model (DCOM) interface within the RPCSS Service. This interface handles DCOM object activation requests that are sent from one machine to another. An attacker who successfully exploited these vulnerabilities could be able to run code with Local System privileges on an affected system, or could cause the RPCSS Service to fail. The attacker could then be able to take any action on the system, including installing programs, viewing, changing or deleting data, or creating new accounts with full privileges. To exploit these vulnerabilities, an attacker could create a program to send a malformed RPC message to a vulnerable system targeting the RPCSS Service."
  • Microsoft Security Bulletin MS01-041: "Several of the RPC servers associated with system services in Microsoft Exchange Server, SQL Server, Windows NT 4.0 and Windows 2000 do not adequately validate inputs, and in some cases will accept invalid inputs that prevent normal processing. The specific input values at issue here vary from RPC server to RPC server. An attacker who sent such inputs to an affected RPC server could disrupt its service. The precise type of disruption would depend on the specific service, but could range in effect from minor (e.g., the service temporarily hanging) to major (e.g., the service failing in a way that would require the entire system to be restarted)."

Perhaps we could summarise this and put it into that section? - Ta bu shi da yu 12:33, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Getting there...

... almost done with the Executive, haven't covered the object manager however. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:19, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Finished the object manager! - Ta bu shi da yu 08:09, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
Have dealt with the whole architecture now! woohoo! - Ta bu shi da yu 08:17, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Kernel mode and User mode

We need a brief description of this I think. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:56, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Aargh!

Footnotes are stuffed. Then again, so am I, so will look into resolving this later. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:54, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Footnotes fixed. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:06, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Hybird-kernel

A query about this sentence:

Windows 2000, like other modern operating systems is classed as a hybrid-kernel operating system, as its architecture is divided into two modes, a user mode and a kernel mode.

As I read that sentence it makes it sound like "hybrid-kernel" refers to the user/kernel split. AlistairMcMillan 03:03, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Good point. Fixed this! - Ta bu shi da yu 05:05, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Microsoft notice board

Note: to start this off I'm posting this to a few Microsoft articles.

I have kicked this off as I think we can do a lot better on many of our Microsoft related articles. Windows XP is just one example of a whole bunch of people getting together to fix up issues of NPOV, fact and verifiability of an article. I think that no matter whether you like Microsoft or not that we could definitely do with a review of: a) the articles that we already have, and b) the articles that we should have in Wikipedia! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:06, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Argh!

Why do people keep removing my div tags? Notes should be, at best, smaller font size. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:37, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Try <small> instead. It's an HTML 4 tag.—Kbolino 04:50, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
OK. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:54, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Doesn't work. See this edit. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:55, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, the tag only applies to a block of text, like <strong> or <em>—it's overridden when the list begins a new block. I had not noticed where your tag was before I responded (I've tried it in the past and know it doesn't work). The only other way (besides <div> or <span> tags) would be with manual <ol> and <li> tags (applying the style to the <ol> tag).—Kbolino June 30, 2005 14:00 (UTC)

Update Rollup 1

Information on Update Rollup 1 should be added. See http://support.microsoft.com/kb/891861

Something else that should be added

Offline files (caching files in other words). Anyone game to give it a shot? Should go under common functionality. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Recovery Console

Nothing on this in the article. Unless anybody else really wanted to start it, I've put up a draft in my userspace. Yeah, I know ATM it feels a bit like a list or similar, but hey, it's better than nothing. --Niteice 01:46, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Odd, it seems to have disappeared, at any rate, the new section is better than my draft. Also, my changes to the todo list (stating the recovery console part is pretty much done) don't seem to be showing up? --Niteice 04:44, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Much more to be done

I'd like to add a table of all the security flaws that affect Windows. Also, any info on Windows network should probably go in to this article also: I realise that it's getting large but it's important stuff. - 203.134.166.99 08:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Very good article

This article is much-better than my original text-book which was about W2K. --190.55.16.152 12:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)AndresArce

Thanks! - Ta bu shi da yu 15:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

No criticisms section?

In my experience, Win 2000 was MUCH slower than Win NT, or even Win 9x for that matter. It also crashed a lot more. Lengis 01:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

IME 2000 needs more memory than 9x. If you run any of them in more than about 128Mbytes I found that Win 98 and Win 2k were about the same speed, Win 2k often felt faster but usually wasn't. OTOH if I run Win 95 on a 600MHz machine WITHOUT "Active desktop" explorer is so very much faster it's still horrible to go back to a modern windows OS and machine. As for crashing 95 (no active desktop) was stable if you didn't mess with it, and didn't use MS-Office; OTOH, Windows 2000 didn't crash unless the video driver was crap. 86.16.135.53 07:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
windows 2000/xp never crashes, windows 9x crashes a lot. so yea, stop being silly 86.135.49.223 23:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that Windows 2000 and-or Windows XP never crashes. Win2k has limits and restrictions with devices and would sometimes freeze or crash when the kernel is loading (splash screen). User:A Raider Like Indiana|A Raider Like Indiana]] 22:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, this is all very silly. Define a "crash"? The Windows 2000 architecture is much better than the Windows 9x architecture, and most crashes that I've seen have been either hardware failure or buggy hardware drivers. With Win9x, you could write a user-space app that would take out the OS. A "criticisms" section, incidently, is not needed as we've incorporated criticisms into the main text. Much more NPOV that way. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Discontinued.

This comes up from time to time, where people insist on removing the Category:Discontinued Microsoft software category from the article. Nobody ever explains why they're removing this, but my guess is that people are making a faulty assumption that somehow Windows 2000 is still somehow current. Let's get this straight: Microsoft does not market, sell, plan to improve upon, or provide support for Windows 2000 anymore, except for critical security updates, self-help via their web site, and paid, per-incident support. Now on Wikipedia, we have this category for software that Microsoft isn't continuing to update, hence the term "discontinued". Wiktionary defines "discontinue" as To stop a process; especially as regards commercial productions; to stop producing, making, or supplying something. ... dictionary.com gives To stop doing or providing (something); end or abandon: discontinued her visits to the museum; discontinued ferry service to the island. and To cease making or manufacturing: discontinued the sportscar in the 1960s.

Frankly, that sounds precisely like Windows 2000 to me. I am fully aware that there are fans of Windows 2000 who hate Windows XP and later products (for whatever reason), and I suspect it's people from that crowd that are somewhat in denial about the fact that Microsoft has pretty much completely moved on from Windows 2000, and are thus changing this article to suit their view. Now if someone wants to argue that "discontinued" in Microsoft parlance means something other than discontinued does in English, then feel free to make a case of it here. In the meantime, I'm going to revert removals of this category and treat it as vandalism. -/- Warren 06:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Proof that Windows 2000 is not Discontinued

Warren, here is a link that supports my reason for taking the Discontinued Microsoft software category off of the Windows 2000 article.

64.126.42.123 00:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Dude, that page is over five years old. Windows XP and Server 2003 weren't even out when it was published, and if you actually try to follow through on any of the information on that page, you only get access to Windows XP or Server 2003. You cannot purchase Windows 2000 on a volume license agreement these days, nor does Microsoft offer Windows 2000 to OEMs, system builders, or retail channels. What you can do, however, is purchase Windows XP or Server 2003 licenses, and take advantage of downgrade rights to run older operating systems, including NT4, Windows 98 SE, and Windows 95 (but not ME or XP Home) .... but see, that doesn't count; that's there to support people who already have these operating systems and want to be covered by Software Assurance. Read carefully my message above about what "discontinued" means as a word, accept that you're wrong, and move on to something else. -/- Warren 01:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Windows 2000 is not discontinued. It is currently in its Extended Support phase, which means Microsoft is still helping out other users for support. However, Windows 2000 will become discontinued in 2010. A Raider Like Indiana 11:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Overall, the article looks very good to me as it is now. I suggest quit using the word discontinued even though it is correct in it's useage (under one of five definitions of the word.) Instead clarify by using Microsoft's system of "Support Lifecycle" as per: http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?LN=en-us&p1=7274&x=9&y=12 AND http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifepolicy. Microsoft does not use the word discontinued, which is why these other people are moaning (or confused?) It's a silly semantics arguement. The word discontinued sounds a bit "fuzzy" to me considering Microsoft's 3 more years of extended support. Yes, "discontinued" from being able to buy it ( a point easily added to clarify) but not discontinued by Microsoft to the point of no support at all. After all the idea is to create a beautiful www encyclopedia that is as lucid as possible to readers of all walks of life. At the very least the word discontinued should be defined or clarified within the article-as a footnote or between commas within the sentence etc. My 2 cents worth, Lance May —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lance may (talk • contribs) 04:10, May 17, 2007

DirectX and games

I'm surprised this article does not even mention DirectX. Windows 2000 was the first NT-technology operating system widely adopted by power users partly because of its greatly improved support for DirectX based videogames, which NT 4.0 did not work very well with. Windows 2000 was the first NT-technology operating system to reach near-parity with the non-NT operating systems, in compatibility with the latest videogame releases of the time (even if not always games released before Windows 2000), where power users were holding back from NT 4.0 and other operating systems because of the lack of videogame compatibility. New DirectX updates was now finally being released much more quickly (or simultaneously?), very shortly after the updates released for the non-NT based Windows. Mdrejhon 15:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I added a brief section about this. It's not worth writing too much about it though, since Windows 2000 was primarily a business operating system. I'm pretty sure those features were only added for the sake of Windows XP. Redquark 03:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Ta bu shi da yu 06:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

added criticism section

Was surprised to see this article made it to FA status without containing a "criticism" section; I've made a start on one. Sdedeo (tips) 01:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I renamed the section to "security flaws", since that's what almost all the criticisms were about. As for the Scientology investigation thing, I don't think that's notable enough to mention since nothing came out of it. Redquark 03:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
How is that note about scientology possibly a CRITICISM of Microsoft?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.128.95 (talk • contribs) 13:40, September 17, 2006

Sure, np. It would be nice to get some statistics on patches, etc. Sdedeo (tips) 04:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Market share?

Just how dominant was Windows 2000 during its heyday compared to its competitors (Novell, Linux and commercial Unix I guess)? It would be relevant to have some market share percentages in the article. Redquark 03:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

No information on source leak?

This article doesn't have any information on the Win2K source leak which took place withink the past two years or so- I don't know enough offhand to edit, but this should be fixed by someone in the know. Scott! 10:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe that should be in a separate article, if it isn't already. It's newsworthy, but I don't think its central enough to be in the main article. Oh, and I'm not in the know...Ojcit 02:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
"Windows 2000 Source Leak" redirects to this article. If this article contains no information about it, the redirection should be elimintated. 68.102.127.239 17:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I added a short section on the source leak under "History". Wesha 18:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

History

"The only elements of the Windows project which were included in Windows 2000 were the ability to upgrade from Windows 95 or Windows 98, and support for the FAT32 file system." What does this actually mean? 'the Windows project' is vague and odd - is it calling Windows Neptune 'the Windows project'? It seems erroneous in that case, as Windows 2000 is just as much a Windows project as Neptune was, surely? And I didn't get the impression that Windows 2000 was developed from Windows Neptune from the article, so why would elements of Project Neptune be included in Window 2000? Does it in fact mean to say 'The only elements of Windows Neptune that were included in Windows XP were...'? Whatever it is, I think it needs clarifying. Scatterkeir 21:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


I also assume that neptune is the windows project that sentance refers to. Also, Neptune came after Windows 2000, designed to be the successor to ME, using Windows 2000 as its base to prevent stability issues. And also, it can't be XP, as included more elements from netpune than is listed. -- From derangedfirewire --- 17:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I have removed this material. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Why is this article semi-protected? Per Semiprotection#When not to use semi-protection, the FA should almost never be semi-protected. I suggest the tag should be removed. --Richardrj talk email 10:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, except that people evidently aren't watching the page carefully enough. A huge bit of vandalism escaped for several hours. Maybe if admins or others can be more diligent? And besides, as this is semi-protection I am not stopping vandals. You should also be aware that this article was on the main page and was being attack via a concerted effort. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
OK. Sounds like you were unlucky if vandalism wasn't spotted for several hours; normally vandalism to the FA gets removed in a matter of minutes. I realise it was on the main page - more than that; it was the FA - that was my point. Semiprotection of the FA is normally frowned upon because:
  • the FA is invariably improved by being the FA;
  • vandalism is normally spotted and removed quickly;
  • it goes against the WP ethos - first-time visitors should be able to come to the site and see how easy it is to make constructive changes.
However, I don't have a stake in the article like you do, so I'm relaxed about your retaining the tag. Now that it's no longer the FA, though, the vandalism will surely abate. I just thought I'd better make you aware of the semiprotection policy, in case you weren't already. --Richardrj talk email 13:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Richard, I realise you probably didn't mean to do this, but it seems to me you're lecturing me about semi-protection and FA articles! Believe me, I'm well aware of when and when not to apply protection to articles. I've placed the article under semi-protection for a few hours, I'm about to go to bed however. If someone wants to remove it while I'm asleep, that would be fine. If people could watch it after it is unprotected, that would be great. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
You're right, I'm not lecturing you at all. Sleep well :-) --Richardrj talk email 13:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Subsystems

It says there are 3 subsystems in user mode, but then lists a fourth, the integral subsystem. Might that information be better listed elsewhere? I'm not qualified to judge its notability. Ojcit 02:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there are two main subsystems of user mode Windows 2000: environmental and integral. It actually says that the environmental subsystem has three subsystems of its own. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Development of Windows 2000

I created the article, Development of Windows 2000, but is incomplete yet. Please help to retrive from SuperSite: http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/win2k_gold.asp

--Jigs41793 12:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Um, I noticed the page is a red link.. FYI

--Illyria05-- 00:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

217.235.244.45's Recent Edit

Hi, I was just now correcting some grammar errors, and I was curious as to what 217.235.244.45 added, as the person did not include an edit summary (this is their edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Windows_2000&oldid=98656925), and I noticed that NTFS 5 was changed to NTFS 3, I do not know anything really about that, but I thought it was noteworthy to talk about here.. You decide.. --Illyria05-- 00:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The NTFS versioning thing is a bit of a pain. It's mostly explained in the NTFS article, but to summarise, calling it version 3 (for the on-disk format) and version 5 (for the OS it ships with) are both correct. We should go with whatever is most prevalent in the sources we use. -/- Warren 01:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
This is correct, and why I didn't revert (I have a watch on this article). --Ta bu shi da yu 20:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, okay, thanks, I just was not sure, and I do not know much about NTFS versioning anyway.. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 01:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Service packs?

Ive heard people say that windows 2000 SP2 and 3 ran faster than SP4. Someone even said they were more secure than SP4. Is there any truth to any of this? Just curious. Mr toasty 21:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


Windows 2000 SP4 is said to be slower than SP3 as well as less stable. However, SP4 allows for some new security updates not avalible to SP3 such as the Update Rollup 1. This update includes some final bug fixes and security updates to Windows 2000 and can only be downloaded on machines running the SP4. Further more, June 30th 2005 marked the end of support for SP3. Because of this, all current security hotfixes install only on Windows 2000 SP4. This means that SP4 is probably more secure overall. Jdlowery 04:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
It is prehaps worth noting that the first (and currently only) non-microsoft service pack is for Windows 2000 (Unofficial Service Pack 5, and then 5.1). The project was put together by Gurgelmeyer, the main support at Microsoft Software Forum Network http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php . The project is currently on hold at this time, due to the disappearance of the author. The last build on general release is 21, although build 24 is circulating. --Wendy.krieger 10:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
No, there's no real relation between Windows and Unofficial Service Pack, other than that Unofficial Service Pack is designed for Windows. There have been plenty of unofficial patches for Windows and I'm sure some of them are dubbed service packs. Josh (talk | contribs) 07:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Did window 2000 have a firewall and how can I access it?

I have looked around for a firewall for one of our server without success. It runs 2000, and haven't thought of messing around with firewall till today. On XP, this is obvious, which make me suspect 2000 may not have had a firewall. Is this feeling correct? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.128.164.51 (talk) 14:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

First, this is not a question/answers forum. Please don't post such questions on here.
In response to your question, the answer is yes and no. There is no 'simple' interface for configuration, but you can craft IPSec rules - take a look at this.-Localzuk(talk) 16:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

"Discontinued" status

If a product is still being supported (even though extended support), then how can you call it discontinued? - Ta bu shi da yu 01:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Microsoft no longer markets, sells, or fully supports Windows 2000 any more. Extended support is provided, but you can no longer go to a computer store and purchase Windows 2000 software from a shelf, let alone order it from Microsoft. Extended support is given as a second phase of support giving large businesses more time to migrate from a product.See Microsoft Lifecycle Policy for more details. Jdlowery 04:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
What I am trying to say is: it is not entirely discontinued if it is still being supported. I'm not sure what part of the product you can call discontinued if you can still continue to get support for it. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Look up "discontinue" in the dictionary... you're going to find definitions like "to stop manufacturing something, usually a particular model or type of product". The way we're using the word here is correct. Leave it alone. -/- Warren 09:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Ah yes, manufacturing. "Manufacturing, a branch of industry, is the application of tools and a processing medium to the transformation of raw materials into finished goods for sale." Given that if extended support is provided for a product, which means bug fixes (mostly security fixes, granted), then I believe that this would fall within this definition. Technically they are still developing the product. Incidently, do you feel like a big man by trying to belittle me? - Ta bu shi da yu 08:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
The last two words, "for sale", are the key here. Microsoft is no longer selling Windows 2000. -/- Warren 22:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Sigh. This is a stupid argument. They still sell support. But hey, if you want inaccurate information in Wikipedia (and on an article I worked bloody hard on) then you go right ahead. If you want to belittle me in the edit history, you go right ahead. Bloody Wikipedia. I'm getting quite disillusioned. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Selling support for a product is not the same as selling a product. Anyways, you've been reverted multiple times by multiple people. Doesn't that tell you something? If you'd rather blame "bloody Wikipedia" than accept that you're wrong on this issue, that's fine... just remember to hand in your mop before you leave. -/- Warren 16:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
No problem, happy to do so. Hope you enjoyed your fun, I'm leaving. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Discontinued is not the same as unsupported. — Alex(T|C|E) 09:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Prove that. They are continuing to support Windows 2000, therefore it is not a discontinued product! Sheesh. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
wiktionary:discontinue: To stop a process; especially as regards commercial productions; to stop producing, making, or supplying something.
They're not supplying Windows 2000 anymore, are they? — Alex(T|C|E) 07:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
The process is support of Windows 2000. They are supplying things like bugfixes for those who get extended support. Sure, they aren't selling new copies anymore, but it's the process of supporting the product in the extended lifecycle that makes it a continued product. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
No, for example, parts for a car are available for a while after a car is discontinued. Not the same but still... Supported? In a way. Discontinued? Yes. — Alex(T|C|E) 09:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Can I just point out that if you have access to the MSDN Academic Alliance, Windows 2000 with SP4 is stil available for download. So Id say its not quite discontinued Ludicro 23:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

System Requirements

I'm having a bit of trouble finding this, what are the requirements for Windows 2000:Server? Peachey88 05:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Same as they are for Windows 2000 Professional. However, it's tough to say what is recommended, as it depends on what you are doing with the server. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking about just running a couple of brief roaming profiles (maybe six/sevenish at the most) just to try out and muck around with —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peachey88 (talk • contribs) 06:23, June 24, 2007

Common functionality section

Image:Win2000 logo.png is common to all versions of Windows 2000. I don't see what the harm of having this there. To be honest, I think the whole screenshot debacle is ridiculous. I can understand the valid controversy over the category, but the logo? Come on! Perhaps we could all do so some real and productive work on articles? - Ta bu shi da yu 03:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, I was a bit out of line with the last comment. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Even though the logo is common to all versions of Windows 2000, it still has nothing to do with their common functionality. (Isn't that obvious?) If it's considered an offense even to relocate an image from one irrelevant section to another, then I'm giving up. --tyomitch 21:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Please don't give up. I was a little too harsh (annoyed!). I apologise if I've caused you too much grief. My intention wasn't to cause you to stop editing the article! - Ta bu shi da yu 14:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Common functionality

Currently the introduction states that "All editions of Windows 2000 have common functionality". I think I understand what this is trying to say, but it could be read to imply that all editions of Windows 2000 are identical. Perhaps it could say "a core set of common functionalities", or "a certain degree of common functionality", but as I am not an expert on Windows 2000 I would prefer an expert to make that edit. -Ashley Pomeroy 20:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

No, that sounds reasonable. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Screenshot... again

I'd really like to hear a good reason as to why a 1024x768 screenshot is better than an 800x600 screenshot for demonstrating the basic Windows 2000 desktop. We have a tendency on other articles to show the "first use" screen, and the screenshot with the Windows 2000 welcome screen does this ably and clearly. It should not be replaced. -/- Warren 04:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, it's a fair use image and should be lower resolution. Nevertheless, I don't see what the argument is, whether it is 1024x768 doesn't matter. So what if it is 1024x768 or 800x600? Secondly, we don't have that tendency at all. Please see Windows XP, Windows NT 4.0 and Windows Vista. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

What exactly are the advantages of Image:Win2000.PNG over Image:Windows 2000 Professional.png? The disadvantages are already listed (high resolution, mostly empty). --tyomitch 14:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Now look here, this isn't a contest, I only changed the picture twice! And the advantages of a higher, less detailed screenshot? For one thing, it's cleaner, and 1024x768 was the recommended resolution at the time. 800x600 is the default, true, but that applies to all Windows 95-xp systems; it is also alot less pleasing to the eye, as it has a cluttered look. Astroview120mm 23:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Darn it, you guys. There was a previous discussion about it and consensus was reached. In addition to that, the default resolution of Windows 2000 is 800 by 600, not 1024 by 768. Would you give it a rest and leave the screenshot per previous consensus? I'm reverting to User:tyomitch's version because it was previously agreed on. This one is still disputed. Discuss it here. — Alex(U|C|E) 00:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
No, darn it yourself. There are three editors here who don't like the screenshot, mainly because it's cluttered. Consensus has not been reached! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I never said it was 1024x768. I said it was recommended. Where's the other discussion?Astroview120mm 01:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

If that was indeed the "recommended" resolution, do cite the source for this "recommendation"; it could possibly make a valuable addition to the article. --tyomitch 07:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
To me, Tyomitch's screen shot isn't a good. It's not a default installation of Windows 2000. Service Pack 4 was not integrated with any Win2000 CD. Windows XP, however came with their service packs integrated in its CD. The "Make Program Default" option in the start menu wasn't added until SP4. I think it should be reverted back to its original state. A Raider Like Indiana 01:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Why nitpick on something that small? Not all screenshots are taken this way, loads of screenshots on Wikipedia have something like Messenger running in the system tray. Does anybody complain about that? I don't think so. Just leave this issue alone, it is a good screenshot. — Alex(U|C|E) 02:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Totally agree with Raider. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Right above on this talk page, User:Ludicro noted that Windows 2000 with integrated SP4 is available for download under the MSDNAA program. And in fact, they sent out very physical discs with Windows 2000 SP4 to MSDNAA subscribers; and that's exactly the way how I obtained the OS for the screenshot. Even if Windows 2000 SP4 wasn't sold in retail boxes, my screenshot does show the very friggin' default installation of Win2000. --tyomitch 07:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
They also sent out discs with 2k+SP4 to volume license customers such as businesses and schools.-Localzuk(talk) 07:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I would prefer the version uploaded by Tyomitch. While the other screenshot is less populated, it is a bit too sparse. Much of the shot is nothing but a blank stretch of blue. Why waste so much space? Instead having something which is unique to Win 2K is better. And the welcome screen is such a thing which adds to the identity without resorting to any application included with Windows 2k. As for the resolution, we are trying to show how Windows 2000 looks like without being modified to the likes (or needs) of the user. So, we should prefer the default resolution, though I would not object to a 1024x768 one. --soum talk 10:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Sigh. OK, I'll rollback my change. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Sigh... I guess I'll have to admit defeat, don't I? Astroview120mm 00:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

If you disagree, then put the original image back. Just because Warrens wants to bully, doesn't mean he's right. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Not a lot of people have are subscribers to MSDNAA. I recommend Windows 2000 without its service pack installed (for the screen shot). Meaning, revert the screen shot back to its original state. A Raider Like Indiana 13:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
But a lot of people are VL customers (see above). And Win2000 SP4 was available to OEMs. [2] [3] [4] (Couldn't you do a Google search yourself?) --tyomitch 04:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Feel free. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Ta bu shi da yu, what's up with the aggression toward Warren? If you don't agree with something I suggest you resolve things peacefully and without edit warring. If Wikipedia is stressing you out, go take a Wikibreak. Nobody's forcing you to stay here if you don't want to. And I don't see how one window could be considered cluttered. You guys are using the argument I used a while back, and it's a bit fishy. — Alex(U|C|E) 02:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Aggression? What aggression? I'm going to ignore this comment. I should point out that Warren has battled with me over many aspects of this article. As for being fishy, ah well, that's up to you if you think that. So much for WP:ASSUME though. And I do consider the window to be cluttered - so do others. Unless you think that this is fishy also. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I've rolled out my next version of Win2000.PNG; it is now Win2000.png and desplays Welcome.exe, the start menu, desktop, and an explorer Window. Should we try that one? - Astroview120mm 05:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I still don't understand why we're stepping away from 800x600. — Alex(U|C|E) 07:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Here are my reasons for liking Tyomitch's screenshot better: first of all, it displays Windows 2000 at the default resolution. All of the windows are sized for that resolution, as you can see in Astroview's screenshot (the window doesn't take up the whole desktop but sits in the corner). In addition to that, At a higher resolution, Windows 2000's windows tend to go a bit off-center, making the screenshot look a bit weird. Tyomitch's screenshot only has one window open, and demosntrates the start menu. Many people have more than one window open at a time, and use the start menu repeatedly. In addition to that, the Windows Vista screenshot has a similar layout while drawing no complaints from anybody. That doesn't make too much sense to me. — Alex(U|C|E) 07:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to know why an 800x600 picture is better than a 1024x768 one. I mean, it's more detailed and includes an explorer window. I know 800x600 is original, but... yeah. I've probably said this tons of times, it's way to small and cluttered (that's because the small size combined with the large start menu and welcome screen makes the picture look a bit messy.) Astroview120mm 03:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  1. High resolution screenshots produce blurry detailless thumbnails. Besides, the fair-use policy presumably requires us to use as little unfree content as possible, and stuffing too many objects into a screenshot goes against this guideline.
  2. The Explorer window has been rejected by what seemed to be consensus a while ago. See the image talk page that I referenced earlier.
  3. Whether or not SP4 is "original" does not matter. The article covers all versions of Win2000, not just the RTM release. The Windows XP has a screenshot of SP2 (with the Media Player version even newer than SP2, btw), and noone objects. --tyomitch 07:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that is very true, but we need a more classic, more original look. We also need the explorer window to show readers what an Windows explorer looks like in Windows 2000. Astroview120mm 06:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Break

Mediation-style: I'd like to know where everybody stands. People who oppose the current screenshot (A Raider Like Indiana, Ta bu shi da yu, and Astroview120mm), please list your criteria for a good screenshot below, including what you consider is important (such as resolution or what makes a screenshot look less cluttered). — Alex(U|C|E) 07:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

User:A Raider Like Indiana
User:Ta bu shi da yu
  • It's ridiculous to say that 800x600 is any better than 1024x768 when it comes to fair use. If you look at the screenshots, they are the original resolutions. Fair use implies that the quality will be lesser than the original. Fundamental misunderstanding of how fair use works. If you want to use that argument, then you'll shrink the image to something like 400x300.
In my comment above, I noted that (as far as I understand) the fair use requirement is to use as little unfree content as possible, and going up in resolution just as means of stuffing more objects into the screenshot violates this requirement. It has nothing to do with the resolution per se. IANAL, but anyway. --tyomitch 06:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
In that case, please review fair use for the criteria. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
In case you actually meant WP:FU, then I'm referring to the item 3(a) now. --tyomitch 06:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Nope, I'm talking about fair use. In particular, the 17 U.S.C. § 107, item 3 "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole". Like I say, it doesn't matter it if is 800x600 or 1024x768, the amount is practically the same! - Ta bu shi da yu 09:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I believe that "the copyrighted work as a whole" in this case means Windows 2000, whose copyrighted GUI elements got captured, and not just the single screenshot as an indivisible item. (But once again, IANAL.) According to my interpretation, a screenshot with (for example) 20 icons has twice the "amount of the portion used" compared to a screenshot with 10 icons, regardless of their actual resolutions. --tyomitch 09:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Are you saying that an 800x600 screenshot with 10 icons is more legal than a 1024x768 screenshot with 20 icons? Come on! That's ridiculous. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, exactly like that. (I think the whole FU policy is ridiculous when applied to self-made screenshots, but we nevertheless have to comply.) --tyomitch 11:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
The thing is, I don't think this matters. At 800x600 you haven't sampled it at a lower resolution, you have still sampled it at the same resolution as the original! - Ta bu shi da yu 10:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
(indentation reset) I have sampled less of it. Should I repeat the whole story again? The screenshot is not the "original copyrighted work"; it's Windows 2000 which is the "original copyrighted work".
(Microsoft doesn't own copyright to our screenshots of their software. They only own copyright to the bitmaps, icons and text that got captured. If there's none of their IP, such as icons, in the screenshot, then I'm free to release it as PD-self even though it's technically a Windows screenshot.) --tyomitch 17:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
And where, exactly, are you getting that legal information from? However, following your logic, what, pray tell, do you think the start taskbar is? And the Windows logo in the start button? As for "less of" the information due to getting a screenshot of a higher resolution, rubbish: like I say, the amount of information captured will be the same. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
The Windows logo icon in the taskbar is a copyrighted icon. The taskbar by itself (just a gray rectangle) is PD-ineligible. The amount of information in a screenshot doesn't necessarily correlate with its size. It's the number of windows, icons and other UI objects that matters. (I feel like a broken record by now. If you make me repeat all this stuff once more, I'm gonna just ignore it. This is not the place for a legal argument, anyway.) --tyomitch 07:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
You think that you feel like a broken record? If you feel like one, fancy how I feel! And if you decide that you just want to ignore me, feel free - but I will continue to make valid points and edit this article as necessary. Ignoring me won't get you terribly far, as cutting off debate through such means isn't particularly conducive towards reasoned argument.
I maintain that your argument "the number of windows, icons and other UI objects that matters" is entirely missing the point as, funnily enough, I never wanted all that clutter in the first place. Sheesh. Unless you have forgotten, you at one point changed the original screenshot from this to this!!!! So I'm sorry, but you can't have it both ways. I say: revert the image back to Warrens original image. I should also point out that I never started this "legal argument", others started prattling on about fair use and I'm just responding. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
It's not a duel. If I withdraw, others will evaluate the arguments that I have put forth. Furthermore, the very fact that my over-cluttered desktops are reverted and I'm not reverting them back certifies my disillusionment with them.
Concerning legal stuff: you can see a PD screenshot of Microsoft software at Image:PC-DOS 1.10 screenshot.png (discussed). Even if you're aware of that precedent, it might be helpful to the other participants of this debate. --tyomitch 10:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Sigh. I am aware of this fact, and I never wanted it to get to this point. It doesn't help when you tell me that you aren't going to listen to me (yes, you wrote that), and say things like "I feel like a broken record right now" - with the implication being that I'm not listening and that my comments are worthless. Saying that I'm "duelling" also seems to me to be implying that I'm deliberately being obstructionist. I can assure everyone I'm not. I'd just like to point out that I basically wrote most of this article and I was the key driver in getting this to FA status (along with Mav, who I'd like to point out did a fantastic job in splitting the article), and in my opinion a cluttered screenshot at the top of the article isn't appropriate. IMO Warrens, who I have disagreed with vehemently in the past over other aspects of this article, basically uploaded the best screenshot, which was uncluttered, 800x600 (not that I terribly care about the screen resolution) and is a default screen when a user logs into Windows 2000. As has been pointed out by others, if you need things like calculators and Windows Explorer, then put it in the appropriate place, which isn't the main infobox! - Ta bu shi da yu 12:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Original theme, on top of this it doesn't have SP4 features in it.
  • Prominently branded as Windows 2000 Professional in the start bar.
  • The compromise image has windows open in it. Shows blue screen, but also has Windows explorer in it. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
User:Astroview120mm
I have changed the picture for now so you guys can see what it looks like with the article.

The old image was too small and I think a change would be nice. - Astroview120mm 06:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Please don't put the screenshot into the article, disucssion isn't over. — Alex(U|C|E) 01:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
All right, fine. I'll just give you my point of view.
  • It's got a higher resolution, meaning there will be better detail on close-ups.
  • The new picture has both the welcome screen and an explorer window.
  • It has prominent "Windows 2000"s in the picture, on the Start Menu, and on the Welcome window.
  • No traces of SP4 (No set program defaults). It's more original.
  • Has a large, clean look and feel. Not small and/or messy.

Astroview120mm06:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Warren
  • Arguments along the lines of "better detail on close-ups" are completely invalid. There aren't any more details to show after 800x600 with Windows 2000!
  • 800x600 also looks better when resized to thumbnail size than 1024x768. How the screenshot looks within the article is extremely important.
  • Arguments along the lines of "Set Program Access And Defaults doesn't belong" are also completely invalid. We tend to show the latest version or service release on other operating system screenshots -- Windows XP's screenshot shows SP2, Mac OS X v10.4's has been routinely updated with newer versions, and so forth. OEMs most certainly did sell machines with the extra menu item: SP3 and SP4 were also available as an install option for years from vendors like Dell to users that weren't ready to move to Server 2003 or Windows XP. Just so we're clear about something here, this menu item was added in service pack 3, not 4.
  • Windows Explorer doesn't belong in the default screenshot. We can use multiple screenshots to demonstrate specific applications if need be... there's absolutely no need whatsoever to complicate the default screenshot with additional applications. The subject matter is complicated enough as it is without also using complicated screenshots.

-/- Warren 09:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

What I mean by close-ups is when you zoom in on the the 1024x768 image, it will be more focused and not blurry or anything. Astroview120mm 03:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Another thing -- it could be argued that the Getting Started screen shouldn't be included at all, because it's only included with the Professional edition of Windows 2000. The server editions don't have this screen.[5] Likewise with Set Program Access and Defaults.[6] If both these things are left out, we'd have a screenshot that fairly reasonably represents all editions of Windows 2000. Which, by the way, describes the screenshot we had for quite some time. I should know -- I uploaded it a year ago.[7] -/- Warren 10:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I largely agree. I never agreed with the getting "start" screen on that new screenshot, or on the old one! - Ta bu shi da yu 11:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Just so we are clear, do you mean a screenshot like this one? - Ta bu shi da yu 11:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
We need more things in it, like an explorer window or a scene from a regular session like My Documents, CMD.exe,NTbackup, Wordpad, WMPlayer, etc. BTW, the caption says "Screenshot of Windows 2000 Professional", not Windows 2000 server, advanced server, etc, then there would be no need to change it.Astroview120mm 01:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


User:Akhristov
Well, I generally think that screenshots should be taken at the resolution which is set by default right after Windows installation (800x600 for Windows 9x/NT line, 1024x768 for Windows Vista and up). This is because when a thumbnail is created for higher resolution screenshots, detail is lost (unless it is higher than 96 DPI, but that's not the case this time). And, of course, something to make the screenshot look a bit professional; lots of randomly opened windows won't do the trick. I guess I wouldn't mind an empty desktop in this situation, just to resolve the dispute. P.S. sorry for taking so long. — Alex Khristov 07:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
User:tyomitch
  • Low resolution (otherwise the thumbnail is too blurry, and stuffing too many objects into the screenshot makes the fair-use claim fainter)
  • Default appearance scheme, no additional software visible
  • Prominently branded as Windows 2000 (either Start menu or System properties or About Windows visible)
  • A window or two open, to avoid the solid blue background occupying most of the image area —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyomitch (talk • contribs) 05:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


User:Soumyasch

Another break

Actually, how about we also list those who oppose our screenshot? Mediation requires the feedback of all parties. Why should we be the only ones to justify ourselves?!? No offense, but you make it sound like we are the ones causing all the problems. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to do that a tad bit later. I want to hear out the people who oppose the new screenshot first. — Alex(U|C|E) 07:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, what are you waiting for? You're telling me to hear out your point of view and you seem a bit reluctant to show it. — Alex(U|C|E) 01:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
What about you? At least one of us has made our move; why don't you guys go ahead? Astroview120mm 01:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, what about it Alex? It's all very well for you to demand that I respond in a manner that suits you, but I don't see Warrens or any other party adding their comment. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I will comment soon. I'm waiting for everybody to get their comments in before I'll proceed, but I might comment before then. I'll see. But I won't be the one holding this up. — Alex(U|C|E) 09:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
By the way, I'm thinking about having involved people (who made a statement) comment on other statements after everybody's done. After that, we'll work on a compromise. — Alex(U|C|E) 09:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I have now. -/- Warren 09:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Am I the only one that thinks the discussion stalled? — Alex Khristov 02:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Actual work

Can I do some actual work on this article? I want to cite something. http://www.microsoft.com/Presspass/press/2000/jul00/itaniumpr.mspx for the unrefernced lead fact. - Ta bu shi da yu 17:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought you were an administrator.

24.6.156.190 20:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

A mention of some more features

  • Windows 2000 introduced the nice fade-in/out menus with alpha blending introduced in the GDI.
  • Indexing service

Any administrator will mention this? -Xpclient (talk • contribs) 20:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Typo.

Since this page is protected, I can't edit typos I find. I'll point out one now so somebody else can fix it. The sentence "More than seven years after its release, continues to receive patches for security vulnerabilities on a near-monthly basis." should read "More than seven years after its release, it continues to receive patches for security vulnerabilities on a near-monthly basis." HoCkEy PUCK 18:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Requirements

I remember that PCWorld's December 1999 issue stated that Windows 2000 Professional needed just 32 MB of RAM with a Pentium 133 MHz processor to run, with 500 MB of disk space (though 1 GB was recommended). I even got Windows 2000 Professional to run on my grandfather's AMD 486 DX4-120 at 120 MHz with just 32 MB of RAM... perhaps the requirements should be updated? RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 01:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Those are Microsoft's published requirements. SchmuckyTheCat

Long, splitup?

This article is really long. Even longer than the MS article. Shouldn't we good ppl split it up? 1() 19:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm interested in what sections you'd split, as we did this already. We don't want to lose important information in the split. As for the MS article, well, I don't like comparing articles. This is about a technical topic, while Microsoft is about a company. I feel that this is a false comparison. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
The article length is fine as it is. Our articles on Windows XP and Windows Vista are of comparable length and scope in their coverage. -/- Warren 03:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Is vs was?

The article currently starts with "Windows 2000 was a..." But all the other windows OS pages use "is" instead of "was", I'm going to change it if only for the sake of having them all the same —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.12.138.36 (talk) 05:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Although this is a disucssion about T.V. it might help. Talk:Veronica Mars - Is vs. Was

Peachey88 (Talk Page | Contribs) 09:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Discontinued Status

This is starting to get very irritating. Appearently, you are very mistaken about this whole thing. First of all, Windows 2000 is still a supported operating system. This means that it still is still recieving security updates and phone support from Microsoft. An example of a "Discontinued Product" is one like Windows 98. Not only is Windows 98 no longer sold in stores, but it is also no longer supported by Microsoft. We had settled this during the summer, however, Warrens still does not seem to listen nor care. I seem to recall that we had settled on the fact that Windows 2000 is still considered a supported product, thus it is not discontinued. I also do not agree that this product is no longer available on the retail market. I recently have come across several copies of Windows 2000 Pro for sale in a few local computer shops in my area including Micro Center, don't know if you have ever heard of it, but it is a well known store. It is also is still avaiable from Microsoft as a download for subscribers of the MSDN Academic Alliance, so I really do not think it is discontinued. Also of note, I think we should stop using the term discontinued. Yes, it is correct in its usage which is what you seem to be stuck on. Yes, you are using the word correctly, but it is not the correct word to use in an article like this. Microsoft themselves do not use this term. Look at the Lifecycle Website. They do not even use this term. To Microsoft, a product is either supported, whether that is mainstream or extended, or end of life (unsupported). This term is really of little relavence, Microsoft still provides some support for the product and it is still avalable in limited quantities. Can anyone else help back me up on this one. if so, lets discuss it here. Jdlowery (talk) 23:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on finally, after over a year and a half, choosing to use the appropriate avenue to discuss this issue!
Now, let me explain this to you from the beginning:
  1. "Discontinued" and "supported" are not the same word. They do not have the same meaning. They do not address the same facets of an operating system. Look them up in the dictionary for guidance as to the meanings of the words in a general sense.
  2. A discontinued product may or may not be supported, but it is safe to infer that an unsupported product is discontinued.
  3. To further complicate things, support of a product may be discontinued.
  4. The category doesn't address the support status of the operating system. It addresses whether Microsoft continues to manufacture, sell, or market a given operating system, which is a continuance of its original status in the marketplace.
Two examples to clarify this:
  1. Auto manufacturers routinely discontinue the manufacture of their older models in favour of new models, but they will still provide parts, technical manuals, warrantee and other help for many years to come.
  2. Closer to the computing industry, consider ATI's list of discontinued video cards; they don't manufacture these anymore. They use the word "discotinued" explicitly. Hoowever, many of the cards are still fully supported by ATI with new Catalyst drivers. Look at ATI's Catalyst driver page and you'll see a lot of discontinued cards.
You should have done a routine search before trying to make a statement like "Microsoft does not use the term". The word "Discontinued" is used by Microsoft in various ways; the #1 Google hit on their web site is this page, which reads:
Microsoft has discontinued its line of Digital Image Suite products .... These products will be available in retail outlets while supplies last. Customers will receive product support for up to three years from purchase date or through April 30, 2010, whichever date is reached first.
They also use the word "discontinued" to describe features that have been removed in newer versions of products. Those older versions remain fully supported. Explore this for yourself.
This bears out the point I'm trying to make. Discontinued != unsupported. It is a fine word to use to describe products no longer sold or marketed by Microsoft. -/- Warren 03:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
It does seem "discontinued" may be a word to avoid as the product is still supported. Wageslave (talk) 22:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the WGA edit war

I don't wish to argue but I feel that since Windows 2000 does not have subarticles, somewhere it should be mentioned that WGA is required for select downloads in spite of no such anti-piracy measure when it was initially released. If not as part of current status, it will definitely fit as part of a Criticism section. In that case, it would be appropriate to change "==Security criticisms==" to "=Criticism=" and include it there. Even XP's article mentions WGA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.128.181.99 (talk) 18:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Criticism sections are frowned-upon, they become dumping grounds for neg-pov attacks without context. For instance, why would WGA be included in a "criticism" section?
Wageslave (talk) 22:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

On the assumptions here

This article seems to assume that Win2K was (is) significant in itself and in distinction to its Microsoft predecessors, period. And a very high percentage of the sourcing is to Microsoft.

Cumulatively, the article comes to be something like a summary of what Microsoft wrote about its own product.

I don't think that such an approach would go down well in other areas of Wikipedia. While I'll concede that most (all?) of what Microsoft says about its own products is true (if only because many people are ready to pounce otherwise) and that a very large percentage of Win2K's users and potential users would never have considered any non-Microsoft alternative and that it would therefore be a bit "pointy" to have long comparisons of Win2K with the Mac OS, OS/2, Linux distros etc of the time, this article does seem to be rather too "in-universe". Presumably people at Microsoft were keeping an eye on developments in Linux, (pre-Unix) Mac OS and so forth while planning and working on Win2K, and borrowing certain ingredients from those competitors. But as far as I can see Linux goes unmentioned other than for an overall price comparison, and Mac OS isn't mentioned at all. Is this right in a featured article on an OS that presumably has some significance in software (and not just marketing/Microsoft) history? Morenoodles (talk) 06:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I find this strange. Microsoft is the owner of the OS, also the creator. Why shouldn't a large amount of material be referencing Microsoft? Also, why should we be mentioning Linux other than the TCO stuff? And why mention Mac OS? I fail to see how any of that is relevant to the article.
I would like to see what references you feel we are missing. Could you please be more specific. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 16:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Tbsdy lives. Besides, the article contains several "negative aspects" on Windows 2000, things which Microsoft would never write about. - xpclient Talk 20:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't say that the article presents an excessively sunny picture of this OS. Neither do I want more criticism.

The last article that I spent a lot of time on was Wal-Mart. This has plenty of citations, but most aren't to Wal-Mart. Today's featured article is Weymouth; it has a lot of sourcing to Weymouth, but more elsewhere.

Is Microsoft the best source for Microsoft?

I bought a laptop that had Win2k on it. Win2k was new at the time and I could instead have chosen NT4 or Win98 on that or a similar computer, or Mac OS on a computer costing a similar amount. Or I could have been enterprising and looked for a computer with no OS, or one with this or that Linux distro installed. I gave at least a little thought to all of these options. I have no reason to think that I was very unusual here: I may have been in a minority, even a small minority, but not a negligible minority.

Major advantages of Win2k over Mac OS and Linux included (1) its familiarity to that huge percentage of computer users who were used to NT4, 98, or both, and (2) its ability to run the software they were already running under NT4 or 98. Win2k was a stage in the development of WinNT, yes. But it was also a stage in the development of OSes. Did it advance over NT4 or 98 in its adoption of or competition with anything in Mac OS or Linux? Does it seem as if its designers were looking over their shoulders at either? For that matter, would any Win2k novelty later have any influence on Mac OS or KDE or whatever?

Maybe Tbsdy lives is asking me about what, specifically, I have in mind. Nothing. I just don't know. I had no experience of Mac OS until Mac OS X, and none of Linux until 2003 or so. You're the OS people, I'm just a reader of the article who's surprised by its apparent unconcern with anything outside Microsoft. Morenoodles (talk) 07:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Limitation

We read:

Limited copies of an IA-64 version, called Windows 2000 Advanced Server, Limited Edition were made available via OEMs. [...] Limited copies of an IA-64 version, called Windows 2000 Datacenter Server, Limited Edition were made available via OEMs.

I'd guess that "Limited Edition" means nothing, and instead was added to make the product sound grander and help justify a higher price. But yes, this is just a guess. If my guess is right, then plain "Copies"; if this actually was a limited edition, then "A limited number of copies", or better, "Five thousand copies" or whatever the number was. Does anyone here know? Morenoodles (talk) 05:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Is, or was?

My one computer that runs Windows runs Win2K. So I know that Win2K exists, present -- just as King Lear exists. So I'd tend to put the whole thing in the present tense.

However, I appreciate the logic of saying that Win2K is a dead operating system and that a description should be in the past tense.

So I don't know for sure and don't really care. But I'm sure the article should be consistent, and it isn't. Present or past? Morenoodles (talk) 06:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Excessing use of non-free images?

As of May 2008, the Windows XP article contains 14-15 images and the Windows Vista article contains 11. Comparitively, this article now only includes 9 images, after the recent "trimming". Is a raw figure specified in "WP:bla bla excessive use of non-free content"? How many images is "excessive use"? - xpclient Talk 18:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean Wikipedia:FAIR#Images, which does not mention number. However, most of the images in this article are screenshots, and Wikipedia:FAIR#Images does say that Screenshots from software products [are] For critical commentary. I can see very little critical commentary in the article. For example, Image:Windows 2000 Explorer.png, Windows Explorer had a built-in media player in Windows 2000; I see that the image illustrates what's said, but one could also say that there's no discussion of the visual representation of the media player, and therefore no reason for this screenshot. Morenoodles (talk) 06:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
PS I'm trying to summarize what I see written, that's all. (If you want my legally-uninformed opinion, it's that the very notion of copyright restrictions on screenshots such as these is ridiculous.) Morenoodles (talk) 08:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Family

We read:

  1. "Windows 2000 (Part of the Microsoft Windows family)"
  2. "The Windows 2000 Server family has additional features"
  3. "Windows 2000 is a continuation of the Microsoft Windows NT family of operating systems"
  4. "Server family features / The Windows 2000 server family consists of Windows 2000 Server, Windows 2000 Advanced Server and Windows 2000 Datacenter Server."
  5. "A DFS root can only exist on a Windows 2000 version that is part of the server family"
  6. "the server family of Windows 2000 also supports fault-tolerant volume types"
  7. "The Windows 2000 family of operating systems moved from mainstream support to the extended support phase on June 30, 2005"

The reader therefore infers that:

  • MS Windows is a family (1)
  • MS Windows NT is a family (3)
  • MS Windows 2000 is a family (7)
  • MS Windows 2000 [wildcard] Server is a family (2, 4, 5, 6)

Clearly this is metaphorical language and there's nothing necessarily wrong with metaphor. But is this use of "family" informative? (My own guess is that it's carried over from copywriting, where it's designed to vaguely reassure, suggesting but not stating directly that if you're used to product X and if product Y is in the same "family" as product X.) And if it is, are there really this number of relevant "families"? Morenoodles (talk) 06:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

One of the English dictionary definitions of "family" is class/collection of things sharing a common attribute; e.g."there are two families of detergents". I suggest you look it up in the dictionary. A family need not be a superset of another family encompassing everything in it. - xpclient Talk 12:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC) :)
Yes, I know what a dictionary would say. The question to me is rather of whether language such as this is more directly informative than its alternatives. I'd rephrase every one of these without recourse to "family". Perhaps you think that the term is helpful. Morenoodles (talk) 01:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Power users

I'd thought that "power user" was merely a marketing term of the 1990s, intended to flatter people into thinking that they were regarded as something other than corporate drones on the one hand or game playing teens on the other. But this article takes it seriously:

Windows 2000 Professional was designed as the desktop operating system for businesses and power users.

I wonder what wasn't laptoppy about it. That aside, "power users" is linked to power user, which tells us that

A power user is a user of a personal computer who can use advanced features of programs which are outside the expertise of "normal" users, yet is not capable of advanced, non application-oriented tasks like programming or system administration.

Taken literally, this would seem to mean that intended non-business Win2K users weren't thought of as able to administer their own systems. So were they supposed to take them back to the store whenever they wanted to install new software? (It also makes the surprising, dubious and anyway irrelevant claim that they couldn't program.) I don't suppose that this is what was intended. So what was intended?

Or how about cutting the marketing term and saying something like

Windows 2000 Professional was designed as the desktop operating system for businesses and individuals dissatisfied with Windows 98. Morenoodles (talk) 07:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
In case you do not know, a client piece of software is sometimes referred to as desktop to distinguish it from server. e.g. desktop operating system, desktop virtualization. - xpclient Talk 12:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Sure. Wouldn't "workstation" be better? Morenoodles (talk) 08:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Such a statement would be even more inappropriate since satisfaction with 98 may not be the only reason, 98 lacked the enterprise features of Windows 2000. An enterprise user can be said to be dissatisfied with 98 since it is not aimed at users like him. Satisfaction is harder to define than power user. - xpclient Talk 13:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I bought a computer with Win2K because I wanted Windows, wanted various character sets (and therefore UTF-8), and wanted stability. I don't claim I was normal, but I've no reason to think I was very unusual. I was perfectly capable of administering my system, and indeed I've done some programming in my time, so I'm not a "power user" as the term is described in Wikipedia. So what does "power user" mean? (Or indeed "enterprise feature"?) Morenoodles (talk) 08:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
'Workstation' would not be incorrect. Btw Power user is not a marketing term, it exists in IT use, even in the Windows 2000/XP documentation. There is a Power users group in 2000/XP? See the Google definition. That said, I agree the line can be better worded - xpclient Talk 08:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
But as I've tried to say, MS's use of the term for the "Power users" group (somebody who has more than minimal control but doesn't have full control of Windows) seems to conflict with the notion that the company was selling the computer to "power users". My own memories of the advertising of the day are dim (and even if they were vivid they'd be discounted as "original research"), but I think that MS did rather little advertising of Win2K and instead got the computer companies to add to their adverts something bland and uninformative like Compaq [etc] recommends Windows 98 for personal use. / Compaq [etc] recommends Windows 2000 Professional for corporate use. I certainly don't remember MS or any hardware company saying If you're like most individuals, you'll be happy with Windows 98. But if you want any of [features X, Y, Z...] you should get Windows 2000 Professional instead. (I do remember hearing from friends such useful advice as If you're sick of the BSoD with 98, do yourself a favor and get 2000.) Morenoodles (talk) 09:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Active Directory

"As part of an organization's migration, Windows NT clients continued to function until all clients were upgraded to Windows 2000 Professional, at which point the Active Directory domain could be switched to native mode and maximum functionality achieved."

MS released an AD client for NT4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.160.17 (talk) 07:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

That still seems to be available, however it doesn't support core features of AD like Kerberos, Group Policy, IntelliMirror. Full functionality wasn't available. The AD extensions offered minimal NT4 client compatibility. - xpclient Talk 14:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Good Article?

I think most of the complaints from when this article was de-featured have been dealt with, the largest workload amount being the references. At a minimum this is a Good Article. Do I get a second for nomination for the latter? Tempshill (talk) 03:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

NT4 not "last" multi-architecture.

I just removed a comment that "Windows NT 4.0 is the last version to support multiple architectures, until Windows XP introduced support for x86-64". Aside from being confusingly worded, it is inaccurate on two counts. I had made this edit once, to be reverted. The revert was apparently due to other edits, though, so I'm re-doing my edit. Windows 2000 was available for the majority of its life solely on x86, yes. But toward the end, there was a public Itanium (IA64) port. Therefore, 2000 *WAS* multi-architecture. In addition, XP had IA64 support before x86-64 was even released, so even the "until ... x86-64" comment is inaccurate. (If Windows Home Server is counted separately from Windows Server 2003, then WHS is the only NT to NOT be multi-architecture. If you count WHS as a W2k3 version, then every NT has been multi-architecture.) Ehurtley (talk) 03:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

OS/2 graphical apps

Windows 2000 can run OS/2 1.x Presentation Manager (GUI) applications if the user installs the Windows NT Add-On Subsystem for Presentation Manager. I've read this on a Microsoft TechNet article somewhere... http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/windows2000serv/reskit/prork/pric_run_jzxd.mspx?mfr=true --Segin (talk) 19:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't merge the articles

Windows 2000 and Windows 2000 Server should not be merged, unless Windows Server 2003 is going to be merged with Windows XP and Windows Server 2008 merge with Vista. Like the afore sarcastically mentioned merges, the only "similarities" between Windows 2000 pro and server are the looks, everything else is different, i.e. an updated kernel for the server that the workstation did not possess and the obvious enhancements like active directory administration although it was still somewhat primitive then. Another reason is because of the server editions: server, server advanced, and datacenter, with enough feature and system requirement differences to keep the two as separate articles. If the server article needs expansion, I'll personally fill it in, as someone who has administered Windows (and Unix and Novell) servers since practically their dawn, and as someone who has had a peek at the Windows 2000 (including server) source code (which, I read off a friend's computer, I did not download it nor do I condone the download of trade secret source, don't sue me Microsoft).

Anthony cargile (talk) 02:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I beleve as well the Server and Workstation (Professional) editions be separate because they are not the same thing Mmanley (talk) 03:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
They are the same. However, Windows 2000 Pro does not include server-based options. But the components, and optional add-ons are the same. // A Raider Like Indiana 02:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
No, they aren't. If you meant NT ("razzle"), yes NT almost perfectly fits your description except for the internal Microsoft NT used that became the basis for what we now know as Windows 2000 and Windows 2000 server, which was the first to really experiment with WAN-crossing domain controllers (Orville was the name of the first MS domain controller, for reference. Helps being on the actual NT team back in the day.). 70.89.148.13 (talk) 03:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Merge because "Windows 2000" refers to only the base that is beneath both Professional and Server. A separate article can be created discussing the difference between the builds, but I maintain that "Windows 2000" refers to both, just as "Windows XP" refers to both Home and Professional. If you don't merge, then at least move this article to "Windows 2000 Professional" so that we can at least not be misleading in the name of the article. --Voidxor (talk) 02:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
No, it isn't. windows XP and Windows server 2003 are NOT the same underlying OS, although as you mentioned Windows XP Home and Professional are except for some networking and security features. Windows 2000 is only one distribution (professional, ME was 'home'), but Windows 2000 server is comparable to Windows Server 2003 in that its code base is built on top of the nearest non-server release (adding extra security features and networking services, of course, and we always use a new kernel for server releases, save using 2003 for Vista). If it was instead Windows 2001 Server instead of Windows 2000 server, then we really wouldn't be having this conversation, much like the server 2003 and XP articles don't want to merge. The names do not necessarily reflect the underlying codebase. 70.89.148.13 (talk) 03:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I didn't say that Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 use the same kernel. In fact, I didn't mention Windows Server 2003 at all. The big difference is that Windows Server 2003 came about two years after XP, while Windows 2000 Professional and Server are both products of the same year and same name. Perhaps Windows 2000 Professional and Windows 2000 Server do use different kernels, if so I was wrong on that fact. But the ambiguity is caused by Microsoft's decision to make them share the "Windows 2000" name brand. My point about Windows XP Home and Professional was that they are so alike, the system requirements list for most software only need specify "Windows XP" as the requirement. Is the same not true for programs running on either Windows 2000 version?
Regardless, "Windows 2000" is a brand name that refers to both and should go to a disambiguation page. This article should be moved to Windows 2000 Professional. Just because Professional is more popular doesn't give us the right to assume all Wikipedians looking for Windows 2000 information want Professional and not Server. --Voidxor (talk) 06:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Huh? Where does this article assume that the reader wants Professional? - Josh (talk | contribs) 01:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I didn't mean that the reader wants to buy Professional; I meant that this article assumes they want information on Professional. And this article does assume that by being titled "Windows 2000". Thus, anybody that types "Windows 2000" into Wikipedia gets this (Professional) article. —Voidxor (talk) 02:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Neither did I. This is not the Professional article; the majority of its information is about both editions, and there's also quite a lot of server-specific information. In fact, it practically duplicates Windows 2000 Server's "server family features" section. - Josh (talk | contribs) 02:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
They shouldn't be merged. This article should be renamed Windows 2000 Professional, and Windows 2000 should redirect to it with a dab template at the top to the server article. The server article needs expansion, but is already too large to just be dumped in with this.
As to the development stuff talked about above there is quite a bit of mistaken information thrown around. Windows 2000 Professional and Windows 2000 server (all flavors) were built from the same source tree with different branches and settings for each SKU. They were designed, developed, tested, and released simultaneously.
Windows XP/Server 2003 was meant to be the same: designed, developed, and tested simultaneously. During XP development, the virtual build environments were created, but there was still one master source tree with all changes from all build environments merged weekly, and the VBLs didn't split on product SKU, but on feature teams. Server was delayed a year for more work, but all underlying changes to SRV2003 went back to XP in service packs and the base master source tree was preserved. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Why? If there really a significant part of this article that only applies to the Professional edition? - Josh (talk | contribs) 01:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Wow, the same IP above mentioned he was on the original NT team, so I would listen to that guy :). Why don't we just make "Windows 2000" and "Microsoft Windows 2000" go to a disambiguation page, which then refers to Windows 2000 professional (this article), Windows 2000 server, and maybe Windows ME referenced at the bottom as the parallel personal windows release, as mentioned above. While I don't know the lower level details between the differing server releases (and I got net+ certified after win2k3 was released), I do recall there were at least 3 windows 2000 server releases, I think Windows 2000 server, server advanced, server datacenter and maybe web or small business but I'm not an expert on server 2000. If someone could clarify this, I would be happy to expand the server article to make it more "stand-alone" worthy, then a disambiguation page is the last thing needed. Oh, and my vote is don't merge, which seems to be the genuine consensus here, even bringing the experts out of the woodworks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.241.199 (talk) 01:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
What would we do with all the information that applies to both Professional and Server? - Josh (talk | contribs) 01:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Yea 68.58.241.199, I'm basically changing my vote at this point to don't merge, but move Professional-specific info to Windows 2000 Professional, and provide clearly visible links to both the Professional and Server articles from this article. Oh, and IP addresses can't vote. —Voidxor (talk) 02:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge: Nearly all the content in Windows 2000 Server is copied from and is still/already part of this article. - Josh (talk | contribs) 02:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Josh, from what you said earlier, the information that applies to both server and professional can be explained from either one's point of view in the respective article. At this point, you are the only one that wants to actually merge them, so the implied group decision here is to move the current windows 2000 article to windows 2000 professional, and make the windows 2000 page a disambiguation page that links to windows 2000 professional, windows 2000 server, and possibly windows me, while explaining the differences between them. The server article will have to clarified a little, and I'd like to ask 70.89.148.13 to do that given his/her's expertise and "behind-the-scenes" knowledge of the subject. If anyone other than Josh has any objections or general opinions/suggestions, let them be heard. 68.58.241.199 (talk) 07:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
The 70.89. IP address makes several factual mistakes in their posts. There is not much expertise their to trust their "behind-the-scenes" knowledge. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Being a former member of the Microsoft NT development team, I'd love to hear your corrections to my "factual mistakes", granted they weren't misworded or misinterpreted :). 70.89.148.13 (talk) 00:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Wow, me too! We're not here to get in a tussle between MSA.SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Dude, thats pretty cool ^^ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.111.138.126 (talk) 16:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Windows_2000/Archive_1&oldid=1142292688"