Talk:Windows 2000/Archive 1

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Boot disk nonsense 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Windows 2000 architecture 

message: In all that criticism, I'm surprised noone has brought up their problems with RPC vulnerabilities. Have a look at  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  MS03-026: Buffer overrun in RPC may allow code execution
* 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 (MS00-066): A remote denial of service vulnerability in RPC is found. Blocking ports 135-139 and 445 can stop attacks. 
* 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)
thread_title:  Criticism of Microsoft 

message: ... almost done with the Executive, haven't covered the object manager however. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:19, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Finished the object manager! - Ta bu shi da yu 08:09, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Have dealt with the whole architecture now! woohoo! - Ta bu shi da yu 08:17, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Getting there... 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: Footnotes fixed. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:06, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aargh! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Hybird-kernel 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Microsoft notice board]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Something else that should be added 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Recovery Console 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Much more to be done 

message: This article is much-better than my original text-book which was about W2K. --190.55.16.152 12:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! - Ta bu shi da yu 15:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very good article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  No criticisms section? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 64.126.42.123 00:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Discontinued. 

message: Warren, here is a link that supports my reason for taking the Discontinued Microsoft software category off of the Windows 2000 article.
*How to Buy a Windows 2000 Volume license 
  
: 64.126.42.123 00:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Proof that Windows 2000 is not Discontinued

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Agreed. Ta bu shi da yu 06:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DirectX and games 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  added criticism section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Market share? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: I added a short section on the source leak under "History". Wesha 18:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No information on source leak? 

message: "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)
replies: text: I agree. I have removed this material. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Subsystems 

message: 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)
replies: text: Um, I noticed the page is a red link.. FYI
--Illyria05-- 00:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Development of Windows 2000 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  217.235.244.45's Recent Edit 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Service packs? 

message: :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)
replies: text: Apologies, I was a bit out of line with the last comment. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Common functionality section 

message: 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)
replies: text: No, that sounds reasonable. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common functionality 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  I have now.  -/- Warren 09:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another break 

message: 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)
replies: text: I thought you were an administrator.
24.6.156.190 20:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Actual work 

message: * 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)
thread_title:  A mention of some more features 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Typo. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Long, splitup? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Is vs was? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Limitation 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Is, or was? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Excessing use of non-free images? 

message: We read:
#"Windows 2000 (Part of the Microsoft Windows family)"
#"The Windows 2000 Server family has additional features"
#"Windows 2000 is a continuation of the Microsoft Windows NT family of operating systems"
#"Server family features / The Windows 2000 server family consists of Windows 2000 Server, Windows 2000 Advanced Server and Windows 2000 Datacenter Server."
#"A DFS root can only exist on a Windows 2000 version that is part of the server family"
#"the server family of Windows 2000 also supports fault-tolerant volume types"
#"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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Family 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Sure. Wouldn't "workstation" be better? Morenoodles (talk) 08:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: '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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Power users 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Active Directory 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Good Article? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  NT4 not "last" multi-architecture. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  OS/2 graphical apps