Win2K stable?

[gerhard]

Yes, if you never patch it and you never install IE6. (Stay away from
Windows update, solve security problems with a firewall)
Otherwise it will not be quite as stable as Win 3.0 was, that usually ran
for an entire day without reboot.<g>

Gerhard
Yes I know, I have to reinstall and follow my own advice. Unfortunately
..... well, there's still stuff on the machine. Lesson learned.

 

[David H. Lipman]

You know not what you are talking about!

If you don't patch such vulnerabilities as in RPC/DCOM - how can you call it stable ?

While it is true that the most stable platform is a plain Jane vanilla platform, it is
vulnerable to all sorts of exploits w/o patching.

As for comparing stability of a NT based OS to a Win16 or with a Win9x/ME platform -- there
is NO comparison as the two OS models are completely dissimilar.

As for IE6 it is already in Win2K, a very stable but very vulnerable subcomponent that
*needs* to be patched.

Even the US CERT has indicated that there are so many problems and vulnerabilities in IE
that users should switch to another web browser.

Dave





| Yes, if you never patch it and you never install IE6. (Stay away from
| Windows update, solve security problems with a firewall)
| Otherwise it will not be quite as stable as Win 3.0 was, that usually ran
| for an entire day without reboot.<g>
|
| Gerhard
| Yes I know, I have to reinstall and follow my own advice. Unfortunately
| .... well, there's still stuff on the machine. Lesson learned.
|
|

 

[Rick]

I've been running it for 4 years and haven't had a single crash
that wasn't my own fault.

Rick

 

[DL]

Personnally I've run win2k 24/7 for a number of years I rarely experience
any problems

 

[Alan Illeman]

Yes, if you never patch it and you never install IE6. (Stay away from
Windows update, solve security problems with a firewall)
Otherwise it will not be quite as stable as Win 3.0 was, that usually ran
for an entire day without reboot.<g>

Gerhard
Yes I know, I have to reinstall and follow my own advice. Unfortunately
.... well, there's still stuff on the machine. Lesson learned.

Yes I totally agree, see
http://surfbest.net/[email protected]/home/win2K.html
but all you'll get here is critics, as they can't believe that a
firewall will provide that protection.

 

[Alan Illeman]

You know not what you are talking about!

If you don't patch such vulnerabilities as in RPC/DCOM - how can you call it stable ?

While it is true that the most stable platform is a plain Jane vanilla platform, it is
vulnerable to all sorts of exploits w/o patching.

As for comparing stability of a NT based OS to a Win16 or with a Win9x/ME platform -- there
is NO comparison as the two OS models are completely dissimilar.

As for IE6 it is already in Win2K, a very stable but very vulnerable subcomponent that
*needs* to be patched.

Win2k comes with version 5.0

 

[gerhard]

And how often do you re-install, and what does it take for you to do it?

Gerhard

 

[gerhard]

A firewall and virus protection.
But it doesn't do you any good after you've patched W2K into oblivion. It
just crashes all the time or goes to sleep on you.
Hard reboots are not unheard of, they are the rule.

So, will there a last service pack? The Dcom flaw demands it.

Gerhard

 

[David H. Lipman]

I manage hundreds of platforms.

I use Symantec Ghost v7.0/8.0 and for platform imaging.

I also understand the "Chaos and Complex Systems" in a computing platform postulate.

Dave



| And how often do you re-install, and what does it take for you to do it?
|
| Gerhard
|
| | > You know not what you are talking about!
| >
| > If you don't patch such vulnerabilities as in RPC/DCOM - how can you call
| it stable ?
| >
| > While it is true that the most stable platform is a plain Jane vanilla
| platform, it is
| > vulnerable to all sorts of exploits w/o patching.
| >
| > As for comparing stability of a NT based OS to a Win16 or with a Win9x/ME
| platform -- there
| > is NO comparison as the two OS models are completely dissimilar.
| >
| > As for IE6 it is already in Win2K, a very stable but very vulnerable
| subcomponent that
| > *needs* to be patched.
| >
| > Even the US CERT has indicated that there are so many problems and
| vulnerabilities in IE
| > that users should switch to another web browser.
| >
| > Dave
| >
| >
| >
| >
| >
| > | > | Yes, if you never patch it and you never install IE6. (Stay away from
| > | Windows update, solve security problems with a firewall)
| > | Otherwise it will not be quite as stable as Win 3.0 was, that usually
| ran
| > | for an entire day without reboot.<g>
| > |
| > | Gerhard
| > | Yes I know, I have to reinstall and follow my own advice.
| Unfortunately
| > | .... well, there's still stuff on the machine. Lesson learned.
| > |
| > |
| >
| >
|
|

 

[Andy]

A firewall and virus protection.
But it doesn't do you any good after you've patched W2K into oblivion. It
just crashes all the time or goes to sleep on you.
Hard reboots are not unheard of, they are the rule.

So, will there a last service pack? The Dcom flaw demands it.

Gerhard

Just my 2c worth

I am no sys admin but the 4 PCs I have all with W2k on (1 for me for work,
Graphics and video editing, 2 for the children with hundreds of games on
and one for the wife for surfing (with Opera not IE) all work perfectly all
are fully patched and all were loaded from scratch more than 3 years ago
and have never been re installed.

Especially on the Childrens PC games are been added and removed all the
time so there is no carefully crafted setup that is left untouched.

Only crashes have been from a couple of really badly written games and I
have only seen a BSOD once from a dodgy driver for a cheap 4 port USB2 card
I added which took offence to the via chipset. (card went in the bin)

Everything is behind an Netgear FR318 and all have Norton running on them.

I have more problem with a new laptop running XP than the 4PCs running W2k

Andy