Is Windows 2000 still 'good enough' ?

[Kevin Lawton]

I've been using Windows 2000 Pro for almost four years now and it is 'okay'.
Not perfect, by any means, but quite okay for general use.
My applications are just 'general use' - internet & e-mail, office apps like
word & excel, SQL server 2000 database, photo editing, CD burning, etc.
Nothing very esoteric, just 'bread and butter' work.
Reliability and efficiency are what I like to see, fancy 'eye candy' like
animated icons and screen savers are of no interest and for the sake of
efficiency I'd rather be without them.
So, the question is: is it worth paying the cost and going to the trouble of
upgrading to Windows XP Pro or should I just stick with Windows 2000 ? What
do I stand to gain - or lose ?
TIA
Kevin.

 

[Steve Parry [MVP]]

In

I've been using Windows 2000 Pro for almost four years now and it is
'okay'. Not perfect, by any means, but quite okay for general use.
My applications are just 'general use' - internet & e-mail, office
apps like word & excel, SQL server 2000 database, photo editing, CD
burning, etc. Nothing very esoteric, just 'bread and butter' work.
Reliability and efficiency are what I like to see, fancy 'eye candy'
like animated icons and screen savers are of no interest and for the
sake of efficiency I'd rather be without them.
So, the question is: is it worth paying the cost and going to the
trouble of upgrading to Windows XP Pro or should I just stick with
Windows 2000 ? What do I stand to gain - or lose ?
TIA
Kevin.

I must admit my own desktop PC's still have W2k on them and I too am
happy with how it works.

On my laptops I have XP Pro 'cos its wireless networking is integrated
and works well.

 

[Anthony Yates]

Good question. We are upgrading because of:
- wireless networking
- desktop firewall
Everything else works fine for us in W2K, although the level of patching is
geting a bit out of hand.
Anthony

 

[Leythos]

I've been using Windows 2000 Pro for almost four years now and it is 'okay'.
Not perfect, by any means, but quite okay for general use.
My applications are just 'general use' - internet & e-mail, office apps like
word & excel, SQL server 2000 database, photo editing, CD burning, etc.
Nothing very esoteric, just 'bread and butter' work.
Reliability and efficiency are what I like to see, fancy 'eye candy' like
animated icons and screen savers are of no interest and for the sake of
efficiency I'd rather be without them.
So, the question is: is it worth paying the cost and going to the trouble of
upgrading to Windows XP Pro or should I just stick with Windows 2000 ? What
do I stand to gain - or lose ?

Windows 2000 Pro was/is very stable, does everything most people need,
and runs about everything on the market.

I moved all of my 2000 systems to XP and then set them us looking like
2000 (disabled all the GUI Crap). The XP systems are much more forgiving
when ADDING new hardware, working with the latest apps, and seem to
never BSOD or fault.

XP is slower than 2000, but the trade-offs sort of make it worth it.

When it comes to Laptop, I would not consider anything but XP Prof.

 

[David H. Lipman]

The End of Life (EoL) is coming up soon, a year or so and there are problems such as IE6
will no longer be updated for the OS nor will WMP. Therefore you won't see newer versions
of software and you may NOT see I6SP2 for Win2K.

This can be important because WinXP SP2 is NOT vulnerable to the IFRAME Buffer Overflow
vulnerability that the latest MyDoom worm exploits and there may not be/may never be a patch
for Win2K.

Dave



| I've been using Windows 2000 Pro for almost four years now and it is 'okay'.
| Not perfect, by any means, but quite okay for general use.
| My applications are just 'general use' - internet & e-mail, office apps like
| word & excel, SQL server 2000 database, photo editing, CD burning, etc.
| Nothing very esoteric, just 'bread and butter' work.
| Reliability and efficiency are what I like to see, fancy 'eye candy' like
| animated icons and screen savers are of no interest and for the sake of
| efficiency I'd rather be without them.
| So, the question is: is it worth paying the cost and going to the trouble of
| upgrading to Windows XP Pro or should I just stick with Windows 2000 ? What
| do I stand to gain - or lose ?
| TIA
| Kevin.
|
|

 

[Davy]

I thought 2000 was going to supported until 2010. Or is that just 2000
server?
Someone may be able to put me right here.

Thanks.

 

[David H. Lipman]

You would have to examine the Microsoft EoL URL.

Dave



| I thought 2000 was going to supported until 2010. Or is that just 2000
| server?
| Someone may be able to put me right here.
|
| Thanks.
|
|
| | > The End of Life (EoL) is coming up soon, a year or so and there are
| > problems such as IE6
| > will no longer be updated for the OS nor will WMP. Therefore you won't
| > see newer versions
| > of software and you may NOT see I6SP2 for Win2K.
| >
| > This can be important because WinXP SP2 is NOT vulnerable to the IFRAME
| > Buffer Overflow
| > vulnerability that the latest MyDoom worm exploits and there may not
| > be/may never be a patch
| > for Win2K.
| >
| > Dave
| >
| >
| >
| > | > | I've been using Windows 2000 Pro for almost four years now and it is
| > 'okay'.
| > | Not perfect, by any means, but quite okay for general use.
| > | My applications are just 'general use' - internet & e-mail, office apps
| > like
| > | word & excel, SQL server 2000 database, photo editing, CD burning, etc.
| > | Nothing very esoteric, just 'bread and butter' work.
| > | Reliability and efficiency are what I like to see, fancy 'eye candy'
| > like
| > | animated icons and screen savers are of no interest and for the sake of
| > | efficiency I'd rather be without them.
| > | So, the question is: is it worth paying the cost and going to the
| > trouble of
| > | upgrading to Windows XP Pro or should I just stick with Windows 2000 ?
| > What
| > | do I stand to gain - or lose ?
| > | TIA
| > | Kevin.
| > |
| > |
| >
| >
|
|

 

[Davy]

Anyone that is interested.

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lifecycle/default.mspx

Davy

 

[Stringrazor]

Good question. We are upgrading because of:
- wireless networking
- desktop firewall
Everything else works fine for us in W2K, although the level of patching is
geting a bit out of hand.
Anthony

While I'll certainly go with XP on new hardware, I've avoided
upgrading my Win2K desktops to WinXP up to now. I seem to have hit
upon a problem that may make me change my mind (or upgrade h/w
sooner). I posted this question in another thread but it fits well
into this discussion:

I'm just getting into DVD burning and have found that Win2K cannot
read any session past the 1st on burned data DVDs. The disc in
question is a DVD+R burned under Win2K SP4 using Nero Express. XP has
no such trouble. There's a MS KB article on the problem but it offers
no fix. Most Win2k systems I've tried only show the 1st session in
Explorer. If I try to look at the DVD on the burner drive under Win2K,
Explorer hangs until I manually eject the disc. Aside from moving to
XP, something I don't want to do with the hardware I'm running, is
there any workaround?