Coffeehouse Thread

11 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

Where is the Windows 2000 Service Pack?

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    rjdohnert

    http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1636806,00.asp

    Good question, will any of the secuity features in SP2 get backported to Windows 2000 ?  In my opinion they should, Windows 2000 is still a widely used.  My corporate Web hoster logs show that Windows 2000 holds the no 1 spot with 86% of my visitors using it.  #2 spot goes to Windows XP with 13% and Linux with # 3 with 1% or .5 %.  It probably would be worth Microsoft's time and effort to concrete the security in Win2k

  • User profile image
    Manip

    Yeah and all it would take is for Microsoft to change a single preprocessor constant in order to make a W2k release...

    OH WAIT, I must be thinking about a perfect world where it doesn't cost millions in development and testing.

    You know that W2k is mostly corp. / business users with only a handful of home users. So the overall good this would do to the internet wouldn't be nearly as much as you might think. NOT even to mention that they want to make XP look more attractive as an upgrade option, that is why they don't release service packs to Windows 95 anymore.

    I am not a Microsoft fan-boy but I am happy that Microsoft didn't release a W2k SP because I can see why they didn't / couldn't. So to you and to EWeek I say, brighten up.

    PS Your statistics sound either wrong or are not representative of the entire internet. Shame google took down their statistics or I would link.

    Google.com -

  • User profile image
    tbeckner

    rjdohnert wrote:
    http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1636806,00.asp

    Good question, will any of the secuity features in SP2 get backported to Windows 2000 ?  In my opinion they should, Windows 2000 is still a widely used.  My corporate Web hoster logs show that Windows 2000 holds the no 1 spot with 86% of my visitors using it.  #2 spot goes to Windows XP with 13% and Linux with # 3 with 1% or .5 %.  It probably would be worth Microsoft's time and effort to concrete the security in Win2k


    I read your vistor OS statistics, so I decided to check statistics compiled since January 1, 2004 through Monday, August 23, 2004. I am using IIS 6.0 and WhosOn for my realtime log scanner.

    Site one is business orientated and the other sites are non-business orientated. I actually show a larger percentage of Windows XP users than even Google reports. As a note, my largest referrers are yahoo.com, google.com, msn.com, altavista.com, and various others, including referrers from the major three from international searches.



    Site 1:

    WinXP   61.54 %
    Win2K   17.61 %
    Win98   11.64 %
    WinNT4   1.49 %
    Linux    1.49 %
    PowerPC  1.18 %
    Win2003  0.75 %
    Win95    0.62 %
    BSD      0.12 %
    Sun      0.06 %
    WinME    0.06 %
    Unknown  3.42 %

    Site 2:

    WinXP   61.23 %
    Win98   16.31 %
    Win2K    8.10 %
    PowerPC  1.62 %
    Win95    1.40 %
    Linux    0.43 %
    WinNT4   0.32 %
    WinME    0.22 %
    WinNT    0.11 %
    Unknown 10.26 % 

    Site 3:

    WinXP   57.05 %
    Win98   18.41 %
    Win2K   15.68 %
    PowerPC  2.73 %
    Win95    0.91 %
    WinNT4   0.68 %
    Unknown  4.55 %

    Site 4:

    WinXP   56.90 %
    Win2K   25.86 %
    Win98   13.79 %
    PowerPC  1.72 %
    Unknown  1.72 %

    Both personally and professionally, I would rather have Microsoft spend their time improving Windows 2003, SP1 and R2, than to go back and change Windows 2000. I do run a Windows 2000 based server, but I do plan on upgrading it to Windows 2003 very shortly.

  • User profile image
    Mike Dimmick

    Manip wrote:
    PS Your statistics sound either wrong or are not representative of the entire internet. Shame google took down their statistics or I would link.


    The stats from June 2004 are still up at http://www.google.com/press/zeitgeist/zeitgeist-jun04.html, and they show XP on 51%, 2000 on 18%, 98 on 16%, ME on 3%, Mac on 3%, NT 4.0 on 2%, Windows 95 on 1% ... and Linux on 1%.

    There have been gaps in Google's reporting of browsers and OS before now, so they may start doing so again. I don't think they actually said they wouldn't do it anymore - it's just been assumed.

    Windows XP has been steadily increasing at around 1% per month for the last six months.

  • User profile image
    fxfuji

    I'm won't argue the market share %-ages (though a 1% uptake seems kinda low since all new PCs are shipped with XP) or that the cost of releasing a new version of IE for older versions of Windows out-weighs the benefits to MS...

    but I'm wondering what would happen if security-minded corporations started switching away from IE as the default browser, maybe to Firefox/Mozilla, or even Opera? Would MS then announce that a new version would be released after all (to forestall such a movement)?  LOL. 

    otoh, is IE now so tightly integrated into the OS that it doesn't matter what browser is used, the security holes are still present?  What do you gurus say???

  • User profile image
    fxfuji

    OK, not Firefox/Mozilla.  I'm not here to debate about its security (or insecurity), though my personal opinion is that they have improved quite a bit since the Mozilla problem in the past that keeps being brought up (MS FUD? lol).

    But our opinions about Foxfire aren't the point or the issue.  What I'm asking is if you gurus think whether a move now away from IE to another alternative is feasible (or motivated) should MS not release a secure version for the older platforms?

    Or are the security fixes in XP SP2 really unrelated to the browser?  That's what I'm really confused about....

  • User profile image
    Shining Arcanine

    rjdohnert wrote:
    http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1636806,00.asp

    Good question, will any of the secuity features in SP2 get backported to Windows 2000 ?  In my opinion they should, Windows 2000 is still a widely used.  My corporate Web hoster logs show that Windows 2000 holds the no 1 spot with 86% of my visitors using it.  #2 spot goes to Windows XP with 13% and Linux with # 3 with 1% or .5 %.  It probably would be worth Microsoft's time and effort to concrete the security in Win2k


    Isn't Windows 2000 primarily used in corporate environments that are already secure when the entire the point of Windows XP SP2 was to make home environments secure?

  • User profile image
    Tom Malone

    Keskos wrote:


    Why should a security minded company switch from a responsible and well known company's products to a program made by unprofessional people? We already saw how mozilla developers didn't care about a serious security problem for a very long time ( about 2 years). So far only slashdot type of news sites are claiming that Firefox is more secure. Everyone who uses firefox is taking a huge risk, you are using a browser whose maintainers are not hold accountable in anyway anytime. They don't care about security, they care about publicity.


    Be careful because it took microsoft how long to fix the bugs in xp with sp2, and the os is a little bit more important than a browser.

  • User profile image
    warren

    Shining Arcanine wrote:
    Isn't Windows 2000 primarily used in corporate environments that are already secure when the entire the point of Windows XP SP2 was to make home environments secure?


    Windows 2000 machines on a corporate network aren't secure.  The services haven't gone through two years of security hardening and buffer overflow protection, and literally hundreds of useful Group Policy settings relating to security are not present.

    XP SP2 has lots of useful stuff for corporate networks -- for example, there's a new setting which lets you disable writing to USB mass storage devices.  Windows 2000 can't do this.

  • User profile image
    Keskos

    fxfuji wrote:
    OK, not Firefox/Mozilla.  I'm not here to debate about its security (or insecurity), though my personal opinion is that they have improved quite a bit since the Mozilla problem in the past that keeps being brought up (MS FUD? lol).

    But our opinions about Foxfire aren't the point or the issue.  What I'm asking is if you gurus think whether a move now away from IE to another alternative is feasible (or motivated) should MS not release a secure version for the older platforms?

    Or are the security fixes in XP SP2 really unrelated to the browser?  That's what I'm really confused about....


    Personally I would recommend Firefox right now.

  • User profile image
    Keskos

    fxfuji wrote:
    I'm won't argue the market share %-ages (though a 1% uptake seems kinda low since all new PCs are shipped with XP) or that the cost of releasing a new version of IE for older versions of Windows out-weighs the benefits to MS...

    but I'm wondering what would happen if security-minded corporations started switching away from IE as the default browser, maybe to Firefox/Mozilla, or even Opera? Would MS then announce that a new version would be released after all (to forestall such a movement)?  LOL. 

    otoh, is IE now so tightly integrated into the OS that it doesn't matter what browser is used, the security holes are still present?  What do you gurus say???



Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.