Jump to content

Talk:Windows 2000/Archive 2

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

SBS 2000

I'm not very familiar with the hierarchy, but shouldn't SBS 2000 at least be mentioned in this article? --Resplendent (talk) 17:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

"To date, its encryption has not been compromised."

But very misleading. The encryption algorythm hasn't been compromised, but the Windows 2000 EFS has been compromised, through the recovery agent. This only requires a reboot using downloadable software, so shouldn't there be at least a note saying that the system has been broken? 218.214.18.240 (talk) 02:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

WPA

any chance of a note on lack of WPA, and solutions.. ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.107.93.248 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Windows 2000 (and earlier versions of Windows) never included Windows Product Activation (WPA) meaning that users any install the OS on literally any PC whatever it's a retail or OEM product. Windows XP and onwards has WPA to cut down on software piracy thus making it difficult, if not impossible to reinstall the OS on another PC. --74.42.185.134 (talk) 04:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

"Interruptible"

Just a question: what does the article mean when stating that

Windows 2000 (also referred to as Win2K) is a preemptive, interruptible, graphical and business-oriented operating system

? What does it mean? That the system can be interrupted, or that it interrupts itself because of failures? It's the only Windows article that I've noticed this statement. --WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 21:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

An article called "Interruptible_operating_system" is available, read it. 1() (talk) 09:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

When NT was first introduced, the client OS Win3.1 was a cooperative, non-interruptible multi-tasker. Any task could open and run for as long as it wanted without giving control back to other apps or the OS. The lead sets up those distinctions. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Datacenter

Missing image of Windows 2000 Datacenter box is here. Please add it to Windows 2000#Editions. 79.191.250.92 (talk) 11:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Correct image uploaded. ㍐ (talk) 16:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. 83.30.141.84 (talk) 16:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The edition section has not been written completely....

as I have had hard copies of the evaluation editions purchased from one of the campuses of TAFE--222.64.30.66 (talk) 23:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Kernel improvements

There are MAJOR kernel changes in Windows 2000. The article completely lacks them, I wonder how this was a featured article in the past. - xpclient Talk 13:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring over status

Hey guys, is there a need to fight over the "proper" sentence structure of the status, be it "Unsupported as of..." or "Support ended on..."? Just come to a consensus that we'll all agree on, alright? NoNews! 13:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

We have only two options here: Support ended on 13th July or unsupported as of July 14th but not a mix of both as it was still supported on July 13th. While it's true W2k did not receive any new updates on July 13th it was listed by M$ as not affected. M$ would not have listed an OS that way if it's out of support on this date. --Denniss (talk) 14:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
The correct wording is "Unsupported as of 13 July 2010", meaning that support for Windows 2000 ended on 13 July 2010. However, other users have been fighting over the ability to change the wording of the support status whatever "support ended on 13 July 2010" or "unsupported as of 14 July 2010" as this will only lead to endless edit wars by other users. Windows 98 also has a correct wording of "Unsupported as of 11 July 2006" as well. I think that you might want to consider getting the admins to protect the article from being vandalised in a frequent matter. -- 74.42.188.45 (talk) 01:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Somebody should do something. the Microsoft Windows page said "Support ended on July 13", as I don't agree. Articles like Windows 95 and Windows 98 say "Unsupported as of (date)". Is there a need for Windows 2000 to say "Support ended on (date)" or say "Unsupported as of 14 July 2010". The Microsoft webpage says Windows 2000 and Windows XP SP2 says unupported on July 13, 2010. Mabye the page should be protected so registered users or admins should only edit it temporarliy? Mabye warn the user who edited the articles? --Quoladdie (talk) 14:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree. Support for Windows 2000 and Windows XP Service Pack 2 ended on 13 July 2010 which means that the correct wording for Win2K is "Unsupported as of 13 July 2010", not "14 July 2010". I believe that the admins should protect both pages so that only a specified number of registered users can edit articles and should either warn or temporary block Denniss for aggressively engaging in edit wars. This is something that no one one wants if the edit warring continues. -- 74.42.188.45 (talk) 15:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
What's the source at Microsoft telling us these products were out of support on July 13th? Support ended on this day but was still available. Support ceased to exist on July 14th thus these products were effectivly unsupported on July 14th.. --Denniss (talk) 15:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Denniss, read Quoladdie's comment for the clarification. Anyways, I want you to stop the edit warring on this Windows 2000 article by changing the end-of-support date and its wording. I forgot to edit and put a extra colon which is one of the reasons why I failed to reply to your comment. -- 74.42.188.45 (talk) 17:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/search/?sort=PN&alpha=Windows+2000&Filter=FilterNO, This link ahows you the lifecycle of Windows 2000 products. --Quoladdie (talk) 16:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the link. As this is not my article, no one wants to see people to change the wording or end-of-support date for Windows 2000 anymore.

64-bit

The history section claims Windows 2000 64-bit was codenamed "Janus". But according to Windows NT#64-bit, Windows 2000 never had 64-bit support. Note the reference for Janus just refers to a "64-bit successor". Could it be Windows 2003? Also see Talk:Windows NT#Windows 2000 and 64-bit. -79.179.200.231 (talk) 19:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

IA-64 version of W2k ? --Denniss (talk) 21:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
NTOS on DEC Alpha was 64 bit and development continued internally at Microsoft well past the Windows 2000 RTM. This work was never made public except the beta releases of Windows 2000 released previous. Neither IA64 nor x64 were developmentally ready during the Windows 2000 lifecycle. SchmuckyTheCat — Preceding unsigned comment added by SchmuckyTheCat (talk • contribs) 21:49, 9 January 2011
Then the section should state Janus was never released (e.g. "Windows 2000 had no 64-bit support. There was an attempt of a Windows 2000 64-bit version codenamed "Janus", but it was never released"). I'd write it myself but I don't have a reference. -79.179.200.231 (talk) 00:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
The existing reference to Janus is so poor I don't know it should be used at all. The reference article does state that it is targeting IA-64, not Alpha or x64. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Further ref added. wjematherbigissue 09:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
So now there are 2 refs that anticipate a 64-bit version! Is there a contradictory ref? -79.179.200.231 (talk) 15:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
There were actually at least two releases of "Windows 2000 Advanced Server Limited Edition" for Itanium [1] [2]. Letdorf (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC).
Which was actually the IA64 release of XP. The second "release" was some kernel patching for architecture on Lion. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
If you are going to contradict reliable sources (which in this case clearly state it was Windows 2000), then you really must provide some evidence to back your comments up. wjematherbigissue 00:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
The server edition was called Win2000, I'm not contradicting that. It sim-shipped with XP, which had a 64 bit "Professional" edition for IA-64. The IA64 server release was just not named XP because there was not a x86 server release to co-market.
If we do want to consider sourcing, this is an unreliable article [3] although it may be from a reliable source it is quoting unreliable sources (the Y2K equivalent of a fanblog), while adding obviously untrue information (WinME does not have a hybrid kernel). As editors, it is our job to assess the quality of sources and not just blindly trust them, and that article isn't quality. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
But you stated that 64-bit Win2K Server was "the IA64 release of XP" and now that "the IA64 server release was just not named XP because there was not a x86 server release to co-market." – where are the souces to support those assertions? Of course it was released at about the same time, but it is still a jump to make that connection, and given few other features of XP were in Server it looks like a blind jump at that.

BetaOS is only referenced (and clearly so) for a single sentence of that article, so I hope you are not dismissing the whole thing on that basis. Of course, being written and published early in the development stages it can not, and does not, accurately describe the finished/released products. But as a source for what was known/reported/expected at the time Computergram International (and this article) is a reliable source. wjematherbigissue 09:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The PCWorld reference states it is the Whistler codebase. Whistler=XP. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
It actually states it was "built on the Windows.Net code base, formerly code-named Whistler". I assume it means NT rather than .Net, and they specifically do not refer to it as the XP codebase. wjematherbigissue 09:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
"Windows.NET" was what "Whistler Server" was called before it became Windows Server 2003[4][5]. However, regardless of which generation of NT was used in Windows 2000 Advanced Server Limited Edition (it would be interesting to find out what its internal version number was - if used the Whistler codebase, I expect it would be 5.1), Microsoft still called it "Windows 2000" and there's no point denying that. Regards, Letdorf (talk) 23:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC).
Right, of course. I knew that. I even referenced it elsewhere only last month! Memory like a sieve sometimes. In which case "built on the Windows.Net code base, formerly code-named Whistler" should be read as "Whistler Server" (not XP). wjematherbigissue 23:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Just Wondering

I have installed and used Windows 2000 Pro on a few 486SX, 486DX, 5x86, and 6x86 systems. And one Winchip system. I'm curious why the system requirements in this article has the wrong system requirements. Yes, I understand if somebody runs off and installs something modern on 2000, but I'm referring to the servers or "Office" computers I've worked on. The boxes I have state that all I need is a 486 CPU and 32 MB RAM minimum, and it's installed on such systems just fine, and, if the user isn't on the Internet and running Office 4.2, it's the perfect OS, or only uses the Internet via something dinosaur like AOL 2.5.

Just thought I'd bring it up. No citations or anything, just pointing it out from personal experience. 68.96.214.115 (talk) 17:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The system requirements come straight from Microsoft documents and is properly sourced. That's why it's in the article. Personal experience is original research and can not be included in the article. SpigotMap 17:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
68.96.214.115 wrote "The boxes I have state that all I need is a 486 CPU and 32 MB RAM minimum." I checked a win-2000 Pro box and the wording of both the box and the Getting Started book (page 19) match System requirements for Microsoft Windows 2000 operating systems from Microsoft. I updated the article to include the " (or equivalent)" that Microsoft used after the processor requirement and presumably allows for operation on the machines 68.96.214.115 has used. The win-2000 Pro CD has \SETUPTXT\PRO1.TXT dated 12/07/1999 which states "133 MHz Pentium or higher microprocessor (or equivalent)."
68.96.214.115, a manufacturer often overstates the minimum requirements as they also want to ensure the user has a usable system and to provide a baseline that applications can rely on. While Windows 2000 itself may well work on a 486SX a "Windows 2000 compatible" application may not run.
I did not have the box handy but also looked at a win-2000 Server CD. That has \SETUPTXT\SRV1.TXT dated 12/07/1999 with the requirements stated as "133-MHz Pentium or higher central processing unit (CPU)" meaning Microsoft dropped "(or equivalent)" for the server edition. This is reflected on the System requirements for Microsoft Windows 2000 operating systems article.
I saw that Wikipedia article's Infobox has "Platform support: IA-32, Itanium" and so update that to use Pentium. We'll ignore the fact that the operating system software installs from a directory named "I386" and presumably works on the i386 processor. --Marc Kupper|talk 18:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Unnecessary Citation Needed tag?

Released on 17 February 2000, it is the successor to Windows NT 4.0, and is the final release of Microsoft Windows to display the "Windows NT" designation.citation needed

Does this REALLY need a citation? - Snip3rNife (talk) 05:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Support

Support has already ended. The official Microsoft page says so. Please don't confuse it with Windows XP (which is not a version of Windows 2000).Jasper Deng (talk) 22:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Windows 2000 and Windows XP are versions of Windows 5. Version 5.0 and version 5.1 Please don't confuse the versions with the marketing labels or the technical support agreements.09:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.162.148 (talk)
I don't understand how the comment has any meaning. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
This is like saying that Mac OS X Tiger is still supported because it has a 10.* version number like Mac OS X Lion.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with the Marketing labels, (Mac OS X), and everything to do with the kernel. Windows XP is a minor update of Windows 2000. Windows XP SP2 is a major update of Windows XP/2K, leading to compatibility problems for kernel-level programs. Windows Vista/7 are not Windows 2K/XP or Windows XPSP2. The hidden version numbers (5 & 6) reflect the reality: the marketing labels hide the reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.162.148 (talk) 06:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Both XP SP2 and XP call themselves version 5.1. 2000 calls itself 5.0, but you say that XP SP2 is a more major change than the change from Windows 2000 to XP. If this is true, doesn't this mean that version numbers are just as arbitrary as marketing name changes? --Blah2 (talk) 05:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Kernel changes from Windows 2000 to Windows XP: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/hardware/gg463468.aspx#E5KAC This was not a "minor update." SP2 changes: http://www.winsupersite.com/article/reviews/windows-xp-service-pack-2-with-advanced-security-technologies-review That doesn't look like a major change. The kernel changes for SP2 were nearly all security related and were all brought over from the work on Server 2003 SP1, which at the time was a separate LOD. Yes, some of those changes did affect third party kernel mode code, but not because of major design changes, rather because they were blocked from doing stuff they shouldn't have been doing in the first place. In any case this doesn't affect support. Support for 2000 has ended and you won't get Microsoft to act otherwise by citing internal version numbers at them. Jeh (talk) 19:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Windows 2000 does not technically require a Pentium 1.

I wonder if maybe the mention of Win2k requiring a Pentium should be changed, even if it is their official position. Windows 2000 Pro and Server editions run without issue on any 486/DX processor. I've done it myself. Maybe it should just be mentioned that even if technically unsupported by Microsoft, it works. Miker00lz (talk) 04:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Somebody undid my addition of that, and I undid theirs but rather than continuing to have an undo-war we should get some opinions on the talk page. Miker00lz (talk) 04:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

User Jasper Deng says: "they are called recommended, not absolute, requirements for a reason. Windows 7 was once reported to use 96 MB of RAM. True of any Windows version." However, that is very different imo. That requires some trickery by having the proper amount of RAM in during the setup process and then removing it later. You can install Win2k directly on a 486 box with doing anything special, and theres a huge difference between running 7 on 96 MB when the minimum stated is 512 MB, and Win2k on a 486 with RAM that matches or exceeds the stated requirement. A high-end 486 is reasonably close in speed with a low-end Pentium, and I really think it's worth noting that it works. Miker00lz (talk) 04:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I also undid your addition because it is unsourced. But I think that the listed requirements might be changed to recommendations instead. HumphreyW (talk) 04:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)This is original research. I undid your addition also because we use official Microsoft requirements, even though I often have been able to run virtual machines of Windows (including Windows 2000) with far less than the RAM requirements. Likewise, it's probably possible to use lower clock speeds/older processors, but we stick with the official requirements. All system requirements on Wikipedia should be assumed to be recommended minimums.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Windows 2000 Powered is not exactly an edition

"Windows 2000 Powered was a version of Windows 2000 - It would be good to mention it" This is not really an edition.this is just windows 2000 advanced server,with server appliance 2.01 installed and running the saprep tool to change the branding with the -l and -b switch.this is how the windows server 2003 becomes "windows server 2003 appliance edition",but the server appliance kit is 3.0.same with the windows server 2008 r2 where it changes to windows storage server 2008 r2(workgroup,enterprise,standard not essentials).so i think this a separate thing instead of an edition Zapper067 (talk) 02:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Windows ME is not a "successor" to Windows 2000!

Various people over the years have tried to edit the OS template to indicate that Windows ME, rather than XP, is the "successor" to Windows 2000. (And over in Windows ME, they think Windows 2000 was ME's "preceded by".) Such edits should be reverted and the editors pointed to this notice.

I understand that the release dates of W2K vs. ME may lead people to this conclusion. However, 95->98->ME was one product line and line of development, and NTx->2K->XP->Vista->W7->W8 is another. (Yes, I know about the server releases; I'm ignoring them for conciseness... which having to explain this has made moot.) ME is not a "successor" to W2K other than in order of release date, which is irrelevant, as they are different lines. The claim that it is would be similar to looking at two of GM's product lines, say Chevrolet vs. Buick, and saying that one model of the former was a "successor" to one model of the latter just because the former had a later release date.

Moreover, ME cannot be viewed as a "successor" to W2K because nobody would ever expect a W2K user to move to ME as their next OS upgrade. Users were expected to move from the 9x line to the NT line and stay there; there was never an upgrade or migration mechanism offered for anything in the NT line to anything in the 9x/ME line. ME was only released as a punishment "next OS" upgrade for 98 users who didn't want to move to the NT side.

As for XP (in case you were wondering), both ME and 2K can be viewed as "predecessors" in the usage path. That is, XP was the upgrade path and logical "next OS" for both 2K and for users of any of 95/98/ME.

I hope this helps. Jeh (talk) 21:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Jeh. Like Dennis (in Talk:Windows ME) I agree with you. I think there is enough consensus to immediately revert such edits. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 02:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Revision 596207882: This normal layout is awful...

This normal layout is awful. What can I say?

Hi Codename Lisa. May I know why it's awful? It is a normal layout on Wikipedia, see Apple Inc article for example. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 17:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Yes. Here is how they look in their table layout: 1024px and 1600px This revision keeps the box with the edition.
And here is how they look after your edit: 1024px and 1600px Now, in this revision, the box image is never kept with the same paragraph. Reader should struggle to find the corresponding box. Caption can help but can you see how they are sprawling off the screen?
As for the Apple Inc. article, I hope they are not having layout problems with what they are doing.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 18:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand, on my computer (Firefox 24, Debian) it renders on the right side, this template do this by default. See my screenshot. Does the Apple Inc#Logo section logos lineup renders on your computer wrong as well? --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 18:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Wow! Your image is huge! But it is exactly similar to my 1024px and 1600px screenshot. What's wrong?
Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm not sure, but I'm curious what's the matter. Maybe let's open a thread on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). What do you think? --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 19:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Got it! I guess you're using Google Chrome/Chromium. I tested this in Chromium and get same error like you. So the problem is located in {{Multiple image}} layout. You have Template editor rights, could you take a look at this template? --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 19:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I am using Firefox 27. And no, there is no need for a village pump thread. This type of formatting is just like that. They don't stick to the corresponding paragraph because the code does not tell the image to do so. The combination of separate image plus {{clear}} might be better.
However, I was thinking about taking these for images to NFCR. (I just didn't want you to think I am doing this to ruin your edit.) So, I reverted to be able show my screenshot. But now that it is done, I can open an NFCR thread. Only if the images are kept, we can resume this discussion. Right?
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Right, but only on this topic. This bug still exist and needs to be fixed by someone. Does the Apple Inc#Logo section logos lineup renders on your computer wrong as well? --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 22:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but are you sure that you posted a screenshot containing my edit. I took a look at a current state of this section and it looks similar to you screenshot. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 22:45, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Diff-wise speaking:
  • Screenshots of revision 596174840: 1024px and 1600px Now, in this revision, the box image is never kept with the same paragraph. Reader should struggle to find the corresponding box. Caption can help but can you see how they are sprawling off the screen?
  • Screenshots of revision 596207882: 1024px and 1600px This revision keeps the box image with the edition paragraph.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 23:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, maybe {{clear}} would help? --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 00:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Try it. My Internet connection is mysteriously slow right now and the page does not load. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Never mind. It loaded. Trying it now... Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
@Codename Lisa: I did it before you, see its layout, should works. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 11:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Alignment problem persists with your edits anyway. Using {{Multiple images}} is guaranteed to cause this problem. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 23:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't see any layout problems, could tell me more or send a screenshot? I made this edit because current layout is very strange. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 08:30, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Codename Lisa? --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 13:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
I am watching this page. The problem is what I have been talking about all along: The image of each box should be aligned with the paragraph it is discussing. (Otherwise, what's the worth of it?) Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
You know, may be you should explain what you are trying to accomplish? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
But with {{clear}} it aligns only the proper paragraph. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 19:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Only the first item. The second, third and fourth can be anywhere in the page. But you didn't say: What are you trying to accomplish? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 22:30, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Attempts to delete mainstream support date

Hi.

There has been an attempt to prevent mainstream support date from entering the article. The given pretext have been "this information is old" and "not useful".

I cannot find a Wikipedia policy that support this removal, especially not one that supports age or perceived usefulness. (On the contrary, I found WP:ATA.) It appears that this information fulfill requirements set forth by WP:V and WP:NPOV and its removal requires community consensus because Wikipedia is not censored.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 13:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Limited Edition

I've now provided a specific quote from the source that specifies Limited Edition is based on Windows .NET Server (a.k.a. Server 2003) beta code:

Although Microsoft has pushed back the schedule for Windows .NET Server, the company is going ahead with the release of a limited edition of Windows Datacenter Server based on Windows .NET Server beta code.

Is that enough to clear up the matter? - Josh (talk | contribs) 21:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

This is indeed a bizarre mystery to unravel. Apparently, Datacenter Server LE is an x86 edition, while Advanced Server LE is an IA-64 edition. http://www.windowswiki.info/2012/07/18/the-development-of-ia-64-windows/ - Josh (talk | contribs) 22:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I've investigated the matter of ASLE recently: apparently there were several versions with 1.0 being based on Windows 2000 and 1.1+ – on Server 2003. I am unsure about DSLE, though it may be possible that it was entirely based on Server 2003. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 00:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Windows 2000. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Screenshot

Source: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/gallery/2015/nov/20/windows-turns-30-gallery-microsoft#img-1 (Just in case we do want a screenshot, a Windows 2000 screenshot can easily be accessed here.)

Is it okay to add a screenshot to this article? I mean, surely, Windows 2000's home screen may be akin to that of the Windows ME (a non-enterprise version compared to the Windows 2000), but is it important otherwise? Gamingforfun365 (talk) 22:23, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Ping me when you want or need to write me a comment; I am going to work upon other articles. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 23:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
It certainly is not ok to use a screenshot you found on another site, unless it includes a copyright declaration that is compatible with use on Wikipedia. Jeh (talk) 23:43, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
I am not quite sure about whether I understand. Surely, it is obviously copyrighted, but what Wikipedia guideline is against that? (As in "What is copyright declaration?) Gamingforfun365 (talk) 05:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
See WP:COPYVIO for starters. From the lede: " in short, media which is not available under a suitable free license and which does not meet the non-free content criteria, should be assumed to be unacceptable." This is not just a WP guideline, but policy. Jeh (talk) 05:49, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Certainly, it must be okay under the "Fair Use" license unless I should be missing something important. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 15:38, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
No. You cannot presume that an image you found on the web is ok to use under "fair use". The source has to include a statement that the image is either in the public domain or is free to use under terms compatible with Wikipedia's requirements. By default we must assume that it is not. Jeh (talk) 15:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Are you saying that the Windows images must be free under the license of Microsoft? I should have known that. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 02:15, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

And I don't know what "contradiction" you're referring to. In general, the creator of any creative work automatically owns the copyright to that work. Copyrights can be assigned to someone else (like when you sell a book you've written; most publishers require that you transfer the copyright to them), and most works created as "works for hire" (like by employees) are owned by the employer. Unless there is an explicit statement somewhere that "this work is in the public domain" you can assume that somebody owns the copyright on it. Incidentially, you own the copyright to original work that you create and post to Wikipedia. Of course, copying images or text from other sites is not "creating".

A copyright holder may, however, release the work to the public domain, which means that anybody can do anything with it (including make copies and sell them). Or else they can license the work to someone else for specific uses under specific terms. If I sell an article to a magazine or web site I may license it to the publisher for only a single use, in English, even though I retain the copyright. (Typically I'll get less money than if I sell it to them outright.) Later I might use the same text in another form, since I still own it.

This "release for specific use" has been around for decades, but recently the notion of the "Creative Commons" license has arisen, largely in association with the "Free software" movement. When you post your work to Wikipedia you are agreeing to "release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL with the understanding that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient for CC BY-SA 3.0 attribution." (That text is under the edit window when you edit any page here.) Briefly that allows anyone else to use your material under the terms defined in those licenses. Those terms are summarized here. But note that these are licenses that you're granting to Wikipedia and to its readers to use your content. You aren't transferring your ownership of your material to Wikipedia. (Something similar applies if you contribute to Linux or to most any other "Free software" project.) So you can see that it is possible to hold the copyright on something but still allow others to use it.

In order to copy material you find elsewhere into Wikipedia, you need to ascertain that either a) it's in the public domain; or b) that the copyright holder has released it for use under a similar "creative commons" license; or c) that Wikipedia's "fair use" provisions allow its use. Regarding "fair use", there are ten criteria for the latter and the use has to meet all of them. See WP:NFCCP for the criteria, and the containing article for WP's non-free content usage policy in general.

Hope this helps. If you have more questions or doubts, you should probably start with WP:RFCA. Or if you want a really friendly Q&A forum, ask at the WP:TEAHOUSE.

Don't beat yourself up over past things. All new editors make mistakes. What would earn you a block would be repeated violations of such policy after repeated warnings. You have not shown any sign of any such intent, so relax. :) Jeh (talk) 02:56, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

The previous main screenshot that was incorrectly removed from this article has now been restored. Mdrnpndr (talk) 23:00, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Itanium back in the infobox?

Can we please get a consensus to ban Itanium from the infobox here? According to the highly reliable sources in the body of this very article, no final version of Windows 2000 running on the Itanium was ever released. Even if development versions were (itself arguable - at what point does a new branch become an entirely new Windows version?), we would have to list the Alpha processor as well, something that I'm sure everyone here would oppose. Mdrnpndr (talk) 01:21, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I would say no, it should not be listed. Jeh (talk) 02:47, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
I concur. —Codename Lisa (talk) 10:49, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
I would disagree, a little. From my understanding and faulty memory, Windows Advanced Server Limited Edition (ASLE 1.0) was released and was based on the Win2kSP1 codebase. It obviously wasn't supposed to be widely available. I THINK microsoft decided to go with the win2002 codebase right after that, for whatever reasons.Paganize (talk) 23:54, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Based on the information we have, the version you are referring to (if it even exists) was always considered a development preview, and thus never "released". If you have a reliable source that states otherwise, feel free to post a link here for discussion. Mdrnpndr (talk) 01:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Windows 2000. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Windows 2000. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Windows 2000. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

64-bit: Which Windows was first?

This article claims that the first Windows to actually be released with 64-bit support were two shortly released OEM Limited Editions of Windows .NET Server (later known as Windows 2003 Server), released in 2002, citing this source[6] which officially gives July, 2002 as the release date (however, this source[7] linked in this talkpage's archive claims the release date for that version was even December, 2001).

However, 64-bit computing#64-bit operating system timeline claims that the first 64-bit version of Windows was XP back in 2001. Using this[8] as a source, Windows XP editions#Windows XP 64-Bit Edition names Windows XP (Home) 64-Bit Edition for Itanium systems (based on the genuine XP code) as the first, which was originally released in October, 2001. --46.93.158.170 (talk) 18:36, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

XP was first.
Server didn't have a separate code base. It's a minor fork from the XP RTM base. That's from memory of working on it, not a citable reference, sorry. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 00:04, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2021

Change the reference of unexistent "Windows 99" on History section to "Windows 98 SE" or "Windows 98 Second Edition" Er Maqui (talk) 15:37, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:39, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

This is a dead link and I can't find a Wayback Machine source to back it up. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 11:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Someone must protect this page from vandals.

Hello. There one of the administrators must protect this page.

Usage share

Vt320, I've seen you reverted one of my recent contributions, in the article about Windows 2000, where I added usage share. I don't think usage share needs to be removed, as this is very similar to content removal. Also, I added the latest, probably the last source which says usage share of Windows 2000 (as of March 2004). Note that my IP Addresses changed because of Wikibreak. 178.95.99.242 (talk) 16:14, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

It is not clear why the usage of Windows 2000 in March 2004 is noteworthy. Your source is not particularly authoritative, and there is nothing to suggest that this is actually the latest market share state, merely the latest you could find. Vt320 (talk) 20:59, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Recently, I found a source from 2010. A source which I found is about usage share of Windows 7, Windows Vista, Windows XP, Windows 2000, Windows ME and Windows 98. As of March 2010, Windows 2000 was used by 0,56 % of PCs. Is it needed to add usage share of Windows 2000 of March 2010? 178.95.99.242 (talk) 10:14, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

"W2000" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect W2000 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 20 § W2000 until a consensus is reached. Okmrman (talk) 16:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Windows_2000/Archive_2&oldid=1224825610"