no sp5?

[Guest]

http://news.com.com/Microsoft+opts+...ws+2000/2100-1016_3-5469948.html?tag=nefd.top

I just want to know 'WHO DOES THIS COMPANY THINK THEY ARE??'

Windows 2000 has been out 3 or 4 years-- most people adopted it within the
past 2 years.

And now, they give us all these excuses about how it is _EASIER_ on us if
they don't combine 200 patches into a SP5?

WHO DOES MICROSOFT THINK THAT THEY ARE?

 

[Ghostrider]

http://news.com.com/Microsoft+opts+...ws+2000/2100-1016_3-5469948.html?tag=nefd.top

I just want to know 'WHO DOES THIS COMPANY THINK THEY ARE??'

Windows 2000 has been out 3 or 4 years-- most people adopted it within the
past 2 years.

And now, they give us all these excuses about how it is _EASIER_ on us if
they don't combine 200 patches into a SP5?

WHO DOES MICROSOFT THINK THAT THEY ARE?

As the license owner of Windows 2000, Microsoft can
do whatever it wants with the product...just like it
did with Windows NT. If MS's object is to have all of
its users migrate eventually to Windows XP or succesor,
so be it. But it will never be perfect, witnessed by
the the Windows 3.0, Windows for Workgroups, Windows NT,
etc., stalwarts. If one is co concerned about post-SP4
patches, then it becomes important to download and keep
copies of them...just as many sysadmins had done when
MS started discontinuing support for Windows NT after
SP6a.