Windows 2000: Do you think Second Life Should Stop Support for Windows 2000

I'm not sure Windows 2000 could be secure no matter how many patches you put on it...

They were both awful, but both in their special ways.

Windows 2000? LESS stable than 98SE?

I tried to get the admin network people to upgrade to NT4, but they were insistent that NT4 didn't support the drivers they needed (mostly scanners and weird executive toys, I think) and they could tame the 98 series. They never went to ME but they upgraded everyone from 95 to 98 to 98SE, and they ALWAYS had more people than we did supporting fewer than 1/4 of the users. Windows 2000 let them keep their old funky drivers and it revolutionized their network.

NTFS, real network support, a fully protected mode kernel, getting rid of the damned autoexec.bat and loading drivers as patches... there's no comparison.

I'd say their weakest OS is all their OSs that they've made since 1988 that are widely vulnerable to virus and worms. To date, this would be every OS they've made since 1988; fixing the design to close a gigantic security hole is a non-concern to them. Instead they duct-tape antivirus and antispyware crap on top and call it security, when it's a lot like putting a diaper on someone and calling them potty-trained...

That applies to all versions of Windows.

1997. They introduced the worm-enabled browser and email with "Active Desktop" in 1997.

Given that 2000 and XP are ancient (it'd be like if the Linux world were still running 2.0.36 for a kernel) Vista bombed, and Windows 7 isn't receiving good press, wouldn't that be better cause to focus on the Linux and Mac versions?

Yes, that's true. That was kind of my point, too...Windows is 20+ years behind the rest of the industry, except in terms of UI, in which it's running par.

If you're so concerned about privacy that the answer even makes a difference for you, you shouldn't be running any closed source code on your system. You should already be on Linux instead.

Win2000 isn't really a network OS (Cisco IOS is), but it is multiuser, which is a move up from the 9x series. NTFS is not FAT, they're two almost entirely different filesystems.

That doesn't inspire much faith in the future of that platform, does it?

Drop both?

Sure you can, and even an OS that SL supports, for no money whatsoever, completely legally.

http://debian.org/ (or, the Windows installer for the same, at http://www.goodbye-microsoft.com/ )

Garry (and everybody else for that matter), for continuity's sake, could you please click the Quote button on the message you're replying to? When you click on some random Quote button elsewhere to reply, instead of the one on the message you're replying to, you're breaking the thread and making it hard to tell what you're replying to.

there is no support from the manufacturer (Microsoft) any more for this product(W2k) - unless you pay consulting services.

so why should there be a product development for this ? it´s even a security risk by definition.


if someone likes to run on w2k - the viewer (many viewers now) are open source, so it is still possible.


drop it asap

cheers
Ralf

and maybe a note on Vista:

i use Vista 64bit on a Dell Laptop for more than a year with embedded viode - allways on the highest graphic level possible.

- never had a better windows for mobile (stability, power management)
- it´s a actual lifecycle product, so.. no discussion to drop anyway


people often just don´t love changes...


cheers
Ralf

You get as much support as you get for XP. Neither is ever going to get another service pack or rollup. They are only ever going to get security updates. But they are both getting that level of support.

The technical details of the support level are probably of interest to a contract lawyer, but they're irrelevant to the end user or to Linden Labs.

Umm only because most of the userbase are using it, can you imagine all the non-tech minded people trying to use 10yo office rated dinosaurs tryoing to install and run a Linux version of SL?
Or complaining when their Original Mac running Housecat V1 won't run SL?

Well there we go an expert reason why continuing to test viewers for Win2k compatibility is a waste of resources, if it runs on XP it will run on Win2k just fine.

If they dropped Windows support, Baloo wouldn't have anything to post about in the forums.

No, no, and no.

A "network OS"? What? All Windows OSes can be categorized like this (depending on your definition, which appears to be somewhat lax) unless there's a very old version of Windows that I am not able to recall that didn't come with any networking software.

File Allocation Table? No, Windows 2000 uses NTFS by default, just like Windows XP and Windows Vista.

Personal computer OSes? Linux is a personal computer OS and I don't believe there is any distro that uses NTFS by default, so you can't just say there is one universal file system that all OSes use.





Why would you try to spread that misinformation? I've already said several times in this thread that there are still security updates, FREE, until 13 July 2010.

You left out a "probably" in that sentence.

The issue isn't whether they test viewers for Windows 2000 compatibility, it's whether they fix bugs reported with Windows 2000.

It seems that waving the thumb in any direction was equivalent to giving someone the finger:

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/gladiators/polliceverso.html

You all are nuts xp is the best os out there lay off xp !!
2000 sucks and crashes all the dam time and vista still has too meny bugs in it and its shit !!