Microsoft to axe Windows 2000 security upgrades

Dexsal · Jan 26, 2005, 11:58 PM

Microsoft has confirmed that there will be no equivalents of its Windows XP Service Pack 2 to boost security on earlier operating systems.

The announcement leaves the 50 per cent of Microsoft customers not currently using XP with the choice of upgrading or relying on platforms that will become increasingly less secure.

Read more Vnunet

noko · Jan 27, 2005, 05:39 AM

That sucks, corporate America relies allot on W2K so this move may push many businesses to just go with Linux vice keeping a rather insecure OS that Windows has turned out to be. Now Microsoft pulling security updates to an OS that they rally on release to be much more secure then Linux. . . is kinda funny but sad as well. So after two to three years for many businesses after working the kinks of a new OS MicroSoft wants then to upgrade again with XP which is going to hit the dirt when LongInTheTeethHorn comes out next year????

nForcer · Jan 27, 2005, 06:29 AM

Yeah they'll switch to Linux, pay more to figure out how to maintain, realize thier mistake, and switch back. Moving on.

I look at it this way, Windows 2000 is how many years old? atLEAST 4 years! In the technical world, thats old. Since then there has only been 1 major release (XP) and even it is atleast 1 revision old. *Some state SP2 is almost XP 1.5 considering the rewrites+additions).
Yes, the cost is quite a bit and from a corporate standpoint, it will add up.

Final question - "How secure do you feel knowing you're relying on an Operating System that is 4+ years old?"

Majin GeoDooD · Jan 27, 2005, 02:58 PM

Okay this is stupid, fucking Microsoft.

EcPercy · Jan 27, 2005, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nForcer

Yeah they'll switch to Linux, pay more to figure out how to maintain, realize thier mistake, and switch back. Moving on.

I look at it this way, Windows 2000 is how many years old? atLEAST 4 years! In the technical world, thats old. Since then there has only been 1 major release (XP) and even it is atleast 1 revision old. *Some state SP2 is almost XP 1.5 considering the rewrites+additions).
Yes, the cost is quite a bit and from a corporate standpoint, it will add up.

Final question - "How secure do you feel knowing you're relying on an Operating System that is 4+ years old?"

You have not made a valid point considering XP is very small improvement from windows 2000. I mean you can tell from the version number Windows 2000 (5.0) Windows XP (5.1). So basically we are all using old stuff considering that they are all based on "NT Technology" and Windows NT came out in 1993.

nForcer · Jan 27, 2005, 06:13 PM

No, I made a valid point. Windows 2000 is an old operating system. I know what the sub-numbers mean and they don't amount to anything. 5.0 vs 5.1 Its 4 years old! If you really want to get technical, 2000 is based on NT which is, how many years old? Well now the cat's out of the bag.

If you (being whoever) are so concerned about the security and general well being of your machine(s) and feel comfortable running an operating system thats 4 versions old, and has been upgraded for a reason, then you might want to rethink your strategy.

Yes I'm aware of the cost and push Microsoft makes in running newer operating systems but they have every right and reason to. After all, if there was no need for XP, don't you think they wouldn't have released it?

Jan 26, 2005, 11:58 PM	#1
Dexsal Space Monocerotis Join Date: May 2004 Location: Aust Posts: 1,401 Rep Power: 0	Microsoft to axe Windows 2000 security upgrades Microsoft has confirmed that there will be no equivalents of its Windows XP Service Pack 2 to boost security on earlier operating systems. The announcement leaves the 50 per cent of Microsoft customers not currently using XP with the choice of upgrading or relying on platforms that will become increasingly less secure. Read more Vnunet

Jan 27, 2005, 05:39 AM	#2
noko HardwareHeaven Newbie Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Orlando Florida Posts: 17 Rep Power: 0	That sucks, corporate America relies allot on W2K so this move may push many businesses to just go with Linux vice keeping a rather insecure OS that Windows has turned out to be. Now Microsoft pulling security updates to an OS that they rally on release to be much more secure then Linux. . . is kinda funny but sad as well. So after two to three years for many businesses after working the kinks of a new OS MicroSoft wants then to upgrade again with XP which is going to hit the dirt when LongInTheTeethHorn comes out next year???? __________________ Q6600 at 3.4ghz, 4gb DDRII, PowerColor Radeon HD 5870 , Vista 64, 24" Accer monitor.

Jan 27, 2005, 02:58 PM	#4
Majin GeoDooD HardwareHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Woodbridge, VA Posts: 1,117 Rep Power: 0 System Specs	Okay this is stupid, fucking Microsoft. __________________ Windows 7 Ultimate (x64) ~Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 @ 3.55GHz~ Gigabyte P35-DS3L ~ eVGA GeForce 8800GT 512MB @ 690/1000 ~ OCZ Titanium 2x2GB ~ Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 750 GB ~ WD Caviar Black WD7501AALS 750GB ~ NEC ND-3540A DVD-RW ~ Rosewill RP600V2 600w PSU ~ Antec Nine Hundred Mid-Tower

Jan 27, 2005, 06:29 AM	#3
nForcer Twice the fun! Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 1,404 Rep Power: 0	Yeah they'll switch to Linux, pay more to figure out how to maintain, realize thier mistake, and switch back. Moving on. I look at it this way, Windows 2000 is how many years old? atLEAST 4 years! In the technical world, thats old. Since then there has only been 1 major release (XP) and even it is atleast 1 revision old. *Some state SP2 is almost XP 1.5 considering the rewrites+additions). Yes, the cost is quite a bit and from a corporate standpoint, it will add up. Final question - "How secure do you feel knowing you're relying on an Operating System that is 4+ years old?"

Jan 27, 2005, 06:13 PM	#6
nForcer Twice the fun! Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 1,404 Rep Power: 0	No, I made a valid point. Windows 2000 is an old operating system. I know what the sub-numbers mean and they don't amount to anything. 5.0 vs 5.1 Its 4 years old! If you really want to get technical, 2000 is based on NT which is, how many years old? Well now the cat's out of the bag. If you (being whoever) are so concerned about the security and general well being of your machine(s) and feel comfortable running an operating system thats 4 versions old, and has been upgraded for a reason, then you might want to rethink your strategy. Yes I'm aware of the cost and push Microsoft makes in running newer operating systems but they have every right and reason to. After all, if there was no need for XP, don't you think they wouldn't have released it?