RSSWindows 2000 SP3 Testers Tapped
By David Worthington | Published October 5, 2001, 5:49 PM
Microsoft has sent word that CDs will be shipped shortly to those who were lucky enough to be amoung those accepted to test Windows 2000's third service pack. As per the usual, key areas being focused on by the sustained development team are setup, application compatibility, operating system reliability, and numerous security issues.
There are no plans to incorporate new features into Windows, as this is solely a maintenance release. The soon to be released update marks the third installment of a service pack since Windows 2000 went gold in December of 1999.
I would love to try it. Let me know:
TP05@Juno.com
Score: 0
|Score: 0
|Forget Windows XP, 2000 & others...Mac OS X is the stuff.
Score: 0
|sure if you want to use a mac. but for the life of me I can't find a reason why I'd want to use a kiddie computer with training wheels... LoL
but seriously Macs are good for desktop publishing, and graphics design work but since hardly anyone makes decent games for the mac os it's kind of hard to get more than a small niche in the computing world.
Score: 0
|just like an earlier post, if WinXP is fine and dandy and 1001 times better than win2k then why bother for a win2k SP3? i pretty sure won;t need it. the only thing that i hate that is missing from winxp is the TWAIN support. they introduced the new WIA drivers. they suck big time. so i can't use my scanner. i am still waiting for canon to do something about it. other than that it took me a while to actually find that netmeeting is included just that there are no shortcuts to it. if anyone needs to run netmeeting use the start > run and type "conf" or conf.exe (that is the executable for netmeeting) but anyhow the new windows messenger is nice. cammera support and all. is sweet. i got my windows XP Pro final about a month and a half ago and is sweet. i never touched win2k since then. i turned off all the crappy gui in winxp and made it look like win2k. it is nice and much faster than win2k. so bye bye win2k.
my 2c.
my username at hotmail.com
Score: 0
|I don't mean to offend but one of the biggest and probably one of the most welcomed change in WinXP is the brand new GUI... like I have said in earlier posts -- I was a loyal Win2k user, but now I am beginning to like WinXP and I dont think I will go back to win2k. Indeed, I liked the new GUI though it slowed down my system (just) a little bit ... in fact I am getting used to it as I speak... And yes, the OS is much faster... esp. during cold boot-ups! :) So why not give the new GUI a try?
Score: 0
|There were two things that struck me as nice about XP over 2K. First was that new GUI, it was pretty slick and didn't really slow me down on my machine, which had its 2nd birthday recently. I kinda wish I could bring the GUI over to 2K. The other plus was being able to switch users without closing my programs, that was cool.
On the other hand, XP's file security scheme pissed me off to no end. I couldn't select users or groups to have access to a file, it was all or nothing, and anybody with any control over the system (an admin not user account) could see them anyway, or make tons of changes. For this reason alone I'm sticking with 2K. Otherwise, they seem nearly the same. I can't find anything overly revolutionary about this release except the new GUI.
Score: 0
|the filesharing pissed me off at first, but then i found out how to change it back to the way it was before:
windows explorer -> tools -> folder options -> view -> uncheck "use simple file sharing"
Score: 0
|I upgraded from windows 2000 sp2 to winXP and the install removed Netmeeting. I can't even install it from the MS Netmeeting site (I get a popup messge that says it can't install the program). Windows Messenger can't communicate with users of Netmeeting or MSN Messenger. It's not h.323 compatible, so you can only talk with other WinXP users!
Plus, you HAVE to create a passport account to use Windows Messenger.
Luckily, there are other h.323 compatible audio conferencing clients available, for now...
BTW, the upgrade program also grabbed all the html extension from Netscape 6, without asking me first!
Score: 0
|I meant the above comment for another article. Sorry to spam the thread. Peace
Score: 0
|netmeeting is there. use start > run "conf.exe"
and netscape sucks big time compared to IE5x and above. so screw aohell netscape s***.
Score: 0
|u HAVE to have a passport account to use windows messenger? newsflash. u still HAVE to have a passport account to use MSN messenger in win2k and 9x. duuh!
Score: 0
|ALthough I was offtopic, I will respond to the above. If you use Netmeeting, you can connect to other Netmeeting users ifyou know their IP address. So you can use that software without being forced to get a passport account, or register youself with MS. You can also connect to other h.323 standard conferencing clients in much the same way. MSN Messenger will let you create an account without forcing you to create a hotmail account. Windows Messenger created a hotmail account for me automatically. Maybe there is a way around that, if anyone knows I'd be interested in hearing how.
Score: 0
|If anyone here is actually running 2k SP3, I'd like to know if there is any truth to the rummor that this service pack will sneak in the "Activation" crap like with XP products?
BTW, I ran XP PRO RC2 and I happily went back to Win 2K SP2. It's the first time, for me, that going "backwards" in Windows was a relief and welcomed change. XP is not more stable, it's not more this and that, it's eye candy. Win 2k is still the most stable, most supported OS from the clowns at Microsoft. For those of you run XP or plan to, it will be a driver nightmare, just like 2K was in it's inception. Who the hell wants to go through that again? Newbies and people who have no real use for a PC other than surfing porn and Microsoft's website. Get real and stay real. XP is unsupported and will remain like that for at least a year or so. Older systems, new products are already supported in Win 98-2000, why waste your time with more unsupported Microsoft crap and "beta" drivers? It's all just a big mistake.
Score: 0
|I think you should try XP Pro RTM before reverting back to Win2k...
Score: 0
|hmm thought you only used linux/bsd and other l33t OSs bootup?
Score: 0
|What your forget is that Windows XP is built directly from Windows 2000's source code...
Score: 0
|It may be, but the new interface is frankly ugly, everything is so simplified it actually makes it difficult to perform advanced tasks.
Score: 0
|Oh, and please tell me even ONE thing that fits under that category.
Score: 0
|Oh shut up. You can make it look just like Windows 2000 by turning all of that stuff off.
Score: 0
|Then what's the point in upgrading if you aren't changing anything? LOL!
Score: 0
|emm... like wut kind of advanced task?
Score: 0
|the new services options are good and make it much easier to use. IIS5.1 i find easier to do somethings which saves alot of time and as a system admin saving time is a very very good thing as i am sure it it for everyone else! I would choose WindowsXP over Windows 2000 anyday if just because it is more stable. I know you will probably never need to do this buy make a text file 1024KB in size (1MB exactly if u didnt know) now open it 100 times in Notepad and see if win2k can handle it? couldnt on my machine and i got a P4 1.5Ghz with 768MB RAM and a 1.3Ghz AMD with 512MB RAM and both almost died! On WindowsXP the system was perfect, it didnt even slow down! Every program works on WindowsXP evne the ones that didnt on Windows 2000, all my hardware works, even my Sigma Designs REALmagic DVD Decoder Card, it dont work that well on a Win2k system. You can remove DirectX and alike from the .NET Server editions, remember WindowsXP Home and Pro are the only ones that are out this year!!! I doubt any sensible person will have a high use server running on WindowsXP Pro!
I still like Windows 2000 but i prefer WindowsXP as i do like a nice looking GUI and WinXP hasa nicer one than Win2k, and anyone who says i am sad or wanting a nice GUI, well you can stay with Win2k i dont care! you probably have WindowsBlinds and DesktopX installed so you can get the look for XP without using it!
Score: 0
|Pssst!!! You know you can turn off all those little pieces of eye candy if you want to....
Score: 0
|Ah yes! Thanks! So then why on earth would you use WinXP for? Still a *LOT*, No I really mean a **LOT** of Apps don't have support for Windows XP and are not planning to make it. ( E.g. Photoshop 5.5, which clearly runs a lot smoother than 6.0 )
Win2k might not boot as fast as WinXP, but to be honest I don't care, since I had to boot XP a lot more than 2K..
Most people just use WinXP because it's a new OS, has new Eye-candy and basically is "el1te" to run the newest OS. But for business users, Win2k is the best OS.
Score: 0
|I still cant believe people are actually using windows xp, forgetting all the ugly comments I have heard from other people, I simply cannot enjoy using it for myself. I am extremely glad that M$ is still making service packs for 2k, SP2 has a memory leak problem, hopefully SP3 will be worth the download
Score: 0
|do spwolf is huge?
Score: 0
|You can't believe people are using XP? *I* can't believe people are still using Win3.0 and Win95a!!
I have not found any problems yet with XP. Everything I use for and in my business works wonderful on/with it. Even my OfficeJet 600 loads in half the time (or less!) than it did under Win2K.
James
http://belprecomputerwizard.com
Score: 0
|Everyone has different needs, requirements and likes. The 'simplistic' feel of Luna would/will appeal to many people whom have used Win9X beforehand but found Win2K a little more difficult. Other people are running WindowBlinds 3.0 and are slowly starting to make their own skins. There are many things in XP that are pleasing to many people but I can definetely understand business etc sticking with Win2K.
Score: 0
|I was a loyal Win2k user, till WinXP came along. I am trying WinXP out now, and yup, I have yet to find any probs with it... It's hardware & software support are simply superb -- all my programs that failed to run (properly) on Win2k is running perfectly with WinXP! :) I was reluctant to try it at first, but I think I am starting to love it now...hehhe
Score: 0
|I have found one thing wrong with XP so far. If I leave my PC connected to my Win2K server for too long, I cannot access the drives on the server through My Computer or Explorer. Once I reboot, everything works fine. Not flawless but I still like it better than any other OS that Microsoft has come out with.
Score: 0
|That sounds like a network card driver issue where the network socket is being disconnected perhaps by ACPI.. Check to make sure you don't have 'turn off to save power' enabled on the NIC.. Might fix it.
I'm using Windows 2000 Server SP2 on a dual-Tualatin machine and was also a tester for Windows XP Pro and Home. The only thing that really irritated me is that Home does not support Domains, even though 95, 98, ME (which XP Home replaces) does. I do understand that Home won't do multiprocessing, and that's fine, but to eliminate domains is disappointing... Pro has an extra 20mb of memory overhead and I have to use it on my machines here over using Home..
I can't argue though, XP does run very stable.. As it should, since it's the Windows 2000 core. I namely am happy that it supports a lot of software that wouldn't work under Windows 2000, such as the original Red Alert.. Even in compatibility mode, RA95 would not run under Win2K, but it will under XP.
It makes things easier for us (The OEM) if people have a sound OS to start with.. Too many calls I received with people complaining about Windows ME being crap, that's why machines were deployed with Windows 98SE until now.
I hate the Luna interface, I switch all of my machines to the classic method.. I want people to have a smooth transition, and the Classic theme is more Windows 95/98/ME than the Luna desktop is.
People fear change, and convincing them that the XP move is worthwhile of an upgrade is hard if things look totally different.
Just my 2 cents.
--Droo
Score: 0
|I would take XP any day over Windows 2000. I love it.
Score: 0
|Well, the argument was, Win9x never actually joined a domain, they just "participated" in it, which is 100% accurate, and so they made Home so it only "participates" in the domain, and never actually joins it.
If Pro gives you 20mb of overhead, all you have to do is configure the services.
Score: 0
|Which one do you get in the mail? I would love to try out Sp3, but M$ didn't think I should :)
Score: 0
|well I clicked the radio buttons for the windows 2000 with integrated service pack 3 and and left the buttons unchecked for the service pack files themself, but knowing microsoft there is no telling what I will get until I actually get the cd in the mail.
one of the best ways to get a leg up on beta testing for microsoft is to sign up to beta test Direct X they are more likely to pick you for other betas you sign up for if you already have a profile on file with them with a beta id and passowrd and a signed NDA on record.
Score: 0
|I signed up to beta test the windows 2000 with service pack 3 integrated in it. I checked my email today and I had my email from microsoft telling me that I got accepted. :)
I agree with the comments about why bother go with XP but like the other person said, most companies are just now transitioning over to windows 2000 from windows nt 4.0, so it's definately good to keep working on and supporting win2k even though XP is fixing to hit the retail market.
I loved Windows XP professional RC2 (paid for the preview program thank you so lay off the warez comments) and I'm still running a slightly hacked version of it on my system in a dual boot config with windows 2000 professional. However I still don't see myself totally switching over to XP anytime soon as there are still programs that work under windows 2000 professional that still have some quirks and bugs to work out with windows xp.
Peace!
Score: 0
|Hmm with WindowsXP installed and working just as good, if not better than Windows 2000, who needs SP3 ;0) hehe
Score: 0
|people that dont want to upgrade?
i bought 2000 about 7 months ago and i love it - no reason to dish out another couple hundred to buy ANOTHER new OS just yet.
besides, think of the server side of 2000. at my work we're still running mostly NT4 machines, and are JUST starting to upgrade to 2000.
Score: 0
|I think the same... NT4 is old but is fast as Win2k, much more stable and tested: at work we have a LOT of NT4 servers + apache, which all are rock solid.
Win2k is not a bad os, but it frightens me to have DirectX 8 on a cluster node...
Score: 0
|Agreed
Score: 0
|XP may drive u upgrade your hardware frequently:
http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-rt4/?t=gr,p=Pipes
Score: 0
|No kidding. I dropped Windows 98SE for Windows 2000 with SP2 and have enjoyed it since. I'm not going to Windows XP until atleast the first service pack comes out or until I really need to go to one. Win2k does it for me after six years of Windows 9X technology.
Score: 0
|Yes, it would be nice to take usless features like that out of Server.
Score: 0
|If XP is (which ive read) is the core of 2000 and (from also reading...) people say it 'supports' their hardware that 2000 didnt then obviously there is something different which is probably the win 95 emulator that is built in which ive also read
hmmmm
Score: 0
|it support their hardware which Win2K didn't, or it supports their software which Win2K didn't? I thought it was software.
Score: 0
|Win XP provides better support to both hardware & software compared to Win2k. I'm yet to see the so-called enhanced hardware support (cause all my hardware worked fine in w2k, and so does now in XP), but I'm sure that software support was better, as all my programs that couldn't work under Win2k came to live under winxp...:)
Score: 0
|LOL! Gotta love the whole software compatability issues that plague Windows products, and they say unices are fragmented! LMAO!
Score: 0
|Forgot about one thing. Some games will work in Win2k, but will not in WinXP, such as... Star Wars: Pod Racer..
Score: 0
|That's the game manufacturer's fault right? No wait, make that the end users fault, they should have known that pod rager wouldn't have been compatable with XP before Microsoft started developing it! LOL (Yes I'm making fun of them once again) Microsoft breaks compatability with every release, but yet people complain that Linux is bad because you sometimes have to install a compatability library to run software that may be 10 years old HAHA! I stopped playing games on my PC when Windows 95 hit the market, and I had to repurchase some of my dos games in order to keep using them. I realized then that a console no matter how old it gets will not require that I repurchase games that I bought with the system because I spent money to add a feature.
Score: 0
|"Yes I'm making fun of them once again"...you just couldn't resist huh =) Which distro of Linux can I install and play Star Wars: Pod Racer on? WinXP supports the majority(?) of games from the 'old' DOS games right up to the game currently being released. How many of those games does Linux support, even with all the emulators, non-emulators etc?
Backwards compatibility is the biggest pain in the a** for any developer as it isn't always a simple case of being able to throw in a host of new features and have everything backwardly compatible. Those projects which choose to throw away backward compatibility are more more free to throw in new features, better re-design their system(s) etc. I wonder if KDE 3.0 will be backwardly compatible with all the v1 and v2 applications written for it - or will they all have to be modified and recompiled? (Yes I know that KDE 3.0 = KDE 2.2.1 or thereabouts using QT3)
Score: 0
|Considering the fact that I can run gnome apps on kde, kde apps on gnome, xforms apps on either, motif apps on any of the above I think I'm pretty well covered ;-) there are QT 1.x compatability libs to allow kde 1.x apps to run on kde 2.x while there may me some issues with inter application communication I suspect they will operate very close to 100% if not 100% ;-) Microsoft could actually learn a lession (not knocking them this time) from unices. I suspect that I can go and get an application binary compiled in 1993 and execute it without any major issue (sure I'll probably have to install old libraries, but that's the beauty of it, I can have both ;-)
Score: 0
|It didn't support my HP USB Scanner or my USB PC camera. I know it can't support everything all at once so I am being patient.
Score: 0
|