Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Microsoft's Most Successful Failure

Zonk posted more than 9 years ago | from the win-some-lose-some dept.

Windows 354

m4dm4n writes "As we near the end of mainstream support of Win2k The Register looks back at what it has achieved. What was meant to be Microsoft's most secure OS ever turned into a disaster. Worm after worm changed the face of internet security in Win2k's first 2 years. Five years down the line the battle is far from won, but the improvements are dramatic." From the article: "Things were different in the year 2000. Programmers felt vindicated that the Y2K bug didn't turn out to be that big of a deal. We made it past January 1st, and then it was time to move on. Windows 2000 came out that first quarter, just as security was becoming more interesting to more people -- and Windows was a good place to start. It was also seemed to be the start of a new breed of Windows hackers."

cancel ×

354 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

lol at britain (-1, Troll)

Armands Leimanis (890215) | more than 9 years ago | (#12750628)

dcom, never tell me to shut up again, you dirty fucking kike. You are worthless and your English is worse than areems. GTFO out of #gnaa and go back to playing DDR. HOW ABOUT SOME WORKOUT FATTY?

lol @ dose, lol @ ddr fags, lol @ wtc. Props to GNAA.

Microsoft's Most Successful Failure (0, Redundant)

PyWiz (865118) | more than 9 years ago | (#12750632)

or just "Microsoft's Most Successful Business Venture"

Win 2000, a worthy OS (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12750818)

Flame all you want, but Windows 2000 was a much improved OS over Windows NT as well as significantly better as a desktop OS than unix/linux was at the time.

Windows 2000 is the high water mark in increasing feature creep for MS operating systems.

Future systems, especially on the server side will be significantly easier and simpler.

MS has learned that combining a large number of different recently written technology together causes more problems that it is worth.

I look to see MS developing much simpler desktop and server operating systems with a focus on security, ease of use, ease of administration, and TCO.

I also look to see MS taking BSD licensed code and using it as the basis for future OS versions and/or subsystems.

MS is also leveraging future development by making the API, languages, and dev tools easier to use (C#, .NET, ASP, .NET Framework - instead of straight win32 api).

Re:Microsoft's Most Successful Failure (1)

davidross (748505) | more than 9 years ago | (#12750959)

Microsoft has allowed me to keep my job. Fixing hacked host is a life long journey.

First LEEROY! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12750639)

LEEEEERROOOYY JEEENNNNKINNNNSSS!

Important Stuff

# Please try to keep posts on topic.
# Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads.
# Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said.
# Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about.
# Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page)

Problems regarding accounts or comment posting should be sent to CowboyNeal.

Learning Experience (4, Insightful)

strongmace (890237) | more than 9 years ago | (#12750640)

If only I could make as much money from my mistakes as Microsoft does from its learning experiences.

Re:Learning Experience (1, Insightful)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 9 years ago | (#12750696)

If only I could make as much money from my mistakes as Microsoft does from its learning experiences.

It's quite easy to do. Step 1: Build a monopoly for a required commodity. Step 2: There is no step 2.

By the time that Microsoft had committed to Windows 2000, they had virtually no competition. Many people did not *want* to upgrade to Windows 2000, but had little choice due to the lack of other options. NT and 9x were only going to get less and less secure, and Microsoft ensured that several programs were put in place to force upgrades.

The end result was that any OS that Microsoft put out was destined to become a success. That's why monopolies are considered a bad thing. :-/

Re:Learning Experience (2, Insightful)

PopeAlien (164869) | more than 9 years ago | (#12750813)

If only I could make as much money from my mistakes as Microsoft does from its learning experiences.

Get yourself a job in government.

Re:Learning Experience (2, Insightful)

FidelCatsro (861135) | more than 9 years ago | (#12750885)

That way you could make money from your mistakes and micrsofts

say what you want... (5, Interesting)

msh104 (620136) | more than 9 years ago | (#12750642)

but atleast it didn't took me 4 years to get my printer up and running... all in all I am very happy with linux, but why does it always have to be win=bad lin=good everywhere.

Re:say what you want... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12750665)

> but atleast it didn't took me 4 years

perhaps if you had a grasp on the English language you could have understood the settings or documentation better?

Re:say what you want... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12750995)

Actually, from his word choices I'd imagine that English isn't his first language.

Re:say what you want... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12751120)

You are assuming that the tool/package actually came with (readable) documentation. Quite often you get only a manpage with tens of pages of minute technical settings that are outdated and have no bearing in the current implementation. Just give me a few pages of HTML documentation that are up to date. Tell me how to do common tasks. I'm sorry, but Microsoft's documentation wipes the floor with most OSS documentation I've had the pleasure of viewing. While we're at it, please kill Doxygen. Please. For the sake of humanity.

Re:say what you want... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12751150)

what's wrong with that phrase?

Re:say what you want... (4, Insightful)

KoReE (4358) | more than 9 years ago | (#12750762)

It's because of Star Wars. Everyone wants a guy with a red lightsaber, and a guy with a blue lightsaber. Gates has been handed the red one, and Linus the blue one. It's really quite dumb.

I'm a big fan of the "best tool for the job". I like Windows for a desktop, Linux for a server environment...but Windows server environment is improving. I still think it sucks, but it's improving....

Re:say what you want... (1)

j0217995 (597878) | more than 9 years ago | (#12750958)

Nice post, haven't really thought of it that way, but I too use the best tool for the job. I am working on implmenting our first Open Source project, request tracker, into our domain simply because it is the right tool for the job. I wish linux users were more about using the right tool instead of Linux is the only tool

Re:say what you want... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12751141)

So, that means that MacOS X is the green lightsaber representing the enlightened Jedi, right?

Right?

Re:say what you want... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12751162)

On this website, I read posts by quite a few people complaining about GNU/Linux bias. Doesn't that mean there are enough of the so-called "non-biased" readers that your complaints are almost null and void? Maybe we need some real statistics here?

Are you a biased pro-GNU/Linux reader?
A. Yes.
B. No.
C. I'm a troll.

Indeed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12750768)

Those were also the days of Apache servers getting rooted pretty frequently.

Re:say what you want... (0, Redundant)

ThomS (866280) | more than 9 years ago | (#12751138)

Yes, but look at the amount of time Windows has been around for and look at how far linux driver/hardware support's come in such a short space of time. Now imagine where it will be in 10 years.

2k was excellent except for one thing.... (3, Insightful)

zanderredux (564003) | more than 9 years ago | (#12750645)

... IIS and those stupid ActiveX controls that bridged Office docs into a web page.

Users (including the usual PHBs) got used to that paradigm and now do not value a proper web server setup!

And people think something does not work when a link points to "C:\Dave\Projects\budget.xls" does not work on their computers!

Re:2k was excellent except for one thing.... (4, Interesting)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | more than 9 years ago | (#12750750)

A slightly off-topic comment, that I feel I have to make to someone somewhere...

My boss and I were talking a week or so back, and we were talking about taking a bunch of our libraries and somehow making them into something we can use everywhere. Now realize that we, unfortunatly, have about 200 applications to maintain, across Visual Basic, Delphi, Java, C++ in many flavors (Borland and MS are the majority) and a slew of other crap, including some VB scripts.

Now, obviously, a plain DLL isn't going to cut it... VB would be a pain in the arse to translate all of the declares to, and Java would need something similar to use a native library.

This IS where ActiveX control/libraries come in. And thanks to even automation, I can EVEN use said libraries in the windows scripts via a magical CreateObject.

The nightmare of using ActiveX controls on a webpage shouldnt blur the actual usefulness of the technology possibly elsewhere.

Re:2k was excellent except for one thing.... (3, Interesting)

metlin (258108) | more than 9 years ago | (#12751140)

I agree.

Most people who bash ActiveX controls haven't really been in enterprise development environments where they have used them.

While their security aspect is a bad thing, they're quite useful in their own way.

Re:2k was excellent except for one thing.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12750945)

*sniff* I remember when paradigm was just a young mode. That takes me back.

oldie but a goodie (1, Funny)

professorhojo (686761) | more than 9 years ago | (#12750652)

YOU ARE ATTEMPTING TO INSTALL WINDOWS 2000, ARE YOU SURE YOU WANT TO CONTINUE?

- Yes.

ARE YOU REALLY SURE?

- Yes.

ARE YOU REALLY REALLY SURE?

- YES!

OK, THEN. JUST SO YOU KNOW, WE'RE REQUIRED TO ASK YOU THAT NOW. IT'S ALL YOUR FAULT FOR BEING A PICKY CONSUMER AND SUPPORTING THAT WHOLE "ANTI-TRUST" NONSENSE. INGRATE.

- Just get on with it.

ATTEMPTING TO INSTALL WINDOWS 2000. FIRST WE NEED TO CHECK YOUR SYSTEM FOR COMPATIBILITY. THIS COULD TAKE SEVERAL DAYS.

- Groan.

THE INSTALL PROGRAM HAS DETECTED SEVERAL POSSIBLE PROBLEMS AND WILL NOT LET YOU INSTALL ME.

- Problems? What problems?

THE VIDEO CARD YOU ARE USING APPARENTLY DOES NOT WORK WITH THE MOTHERBOARD.

- But I'm using it at this very moment.

THAT IS IRRELEVANT.

-But if the video card isn't working with the mother board then I can't very well see this warning message telling me that the video card wasn't...

DO NOT ATTEMPT TO FOOL ME WITH LOGIC, I AM A MICROSOFT PRODUCT. LOGIC DOES NOT WORK ON ME. I HAVE ALSO FOUND THE FOLLOWING MINOR ERRORS: WINDOWS 2000 IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE FOLLOWING HARDWARE - MONITOR, KEYBOARD, MEMORY CHIPS, MOTHERBOARD BIOS, WEB CAM, SCANNER, SOUND CARD, USB CONTROLLER, CD/R DRIVE, MICROPHONE, AND FLIGHT STICK.

- All that?

YES. AND THE HARDDRIVE IS RIGHT OUT TOO. WE DON'T LIKE THE MANUFACTURER.

- Well what *DOES* work?

THE MOUSE.

- The mouse?

YES. AND THE 5 1/4 DRIVE.

- I don't have a 5 1/4 drive.

YES YOU DO.

- No I don't.

WHAT'S THAT THEN?

- It's a 3 1/2 drive.

NO IT ISN'T.

- Yes it is. .. HEY, WHAT IS THAT? WHAT ARE YOU DOING? IS THAT A DISK? WHAT ARE YOU DOING WITH THAT DISK? YOU'RE NOT PUTTING IT IN THE DRIVE ARE YOU? YOU ARE! WHAT'S ON THAT DISK. IS THAT LINUX? YOU'RE INSTALLING LINUX?? WHY WOULD YOU INSTALL DOS WHEN I AM INFINITELY MORE POWE..........

Re:oldie but a goodie (0, Flamebait)

Fjornir (516960) | more than 9 years ago | (#12750733)

Fucking dumb. No "goodie" about it, that was just stupid.

Re:oldie but a goodie (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12750744)

Considering this is supposed to be a joke . . .I recently got an XP machine at our office without an a: drive (31/2"). Windwos seams to think it has one though, it shows up in explorer, and you get an error if it is selected. It also generates an error every time the computer is shutdown.

Sad when jokes become reality. . .

Re:oldie but a goodie (1)

zerocommazero (837043) | more than 9 years ago | (#12750811)

We have plenty of desktops without 3 & 1/2 drives. Never had that problem before. Wonder if there was one originally that was removed from yours.

Re:oldie but a goodie (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12750821)

I think that's more of a BIOS thing. Disable it in the BIOS, and it should disappear in Windows.

Re:oldie but a goodie (1)

SomeGuyTyping (751195) | more than 9 years ago | (#12750868)

yeah, even if there's no drive attached to the mobo, if you tell bios there's a drive, it thinks there's a drive.

Re:oldie but a goodie (0)

Tassleman (66753) | more than 9 years ago | (#12750791)

What kind of moron would actually mod this up as funny? There is nothing humorous about this at all. Yet another example of why Slashdot is a pale shadow of what it used to be.

Re:oldie but a goodie (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 9 years ago | (#12750841)

The old NT/W2k jokes reminded me of Linux today.

Most hardware was complete compatible. However it was that odd printer or bizaare combination doitalljazz card that always ever quite worked.

Re:oldie but a goodie (1)

zerocommazero (837043) | more than 9 years ago | (#12750855)

Really stupid joke, dude.

Re:oldie but a goodie (1)

master_p (608214) | more than 9 years ago | (#12750931)

Offtopic, but user interface experience is relative to what a user expects. For example, when I had an Amiga, I just switched off the computer. Then I saw a Macintosh asking "Do you want to shutdown now?", and I laughted my heart out! "no, I want to shutdown later, after half an hour, or maybe after I am tired playing Tetris"...

Re:oldie but a goodie (1)

Shadow Wrought (586631) | more than 9 years ago | (#12751075)

example, when I had an Amiga, I just switched off the computer.

I still have an A1200 up in the closet that I busted out to play with a little bit ago. After reminiscing about Amigas and college (which was its glory days for me) I went to turn it off. After looking around the menus for a bit looking for the shut-down option I smacked myself in the head when I remembered that all you have to do is turn it off;-) At the present rate, I wonder if someday you'll have to use a menu otpion to "safely" turn off your TV.

Re:oldie but a goodie (1)

Vampyre_Dark (630787) | more than 9 years ago | (#12750967)

GOLD!

Windows RG (0, Flamebait)

alexhs (877055) | more than 9 years ago | (#12751096)

Allmost as annoying as Windows Really Good Edition...

http://www.deanliou.com/WinRG/ [deanliou.com]

MetaEditing? (4, Funny)

bc90021 (43730) | more than 9 years ago | (#12750661)

So we've got a Slashdot palgiarism of two paragraphs of a Security Focus story that was posted on The Register. Is this like "meta-editing" or something?

Re:MetaEditing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12750941)

Hey, some editing would have been great... TFA: word four: Pable Picasso?

Failure -- A bit harsh? (5, Interesting)

Blahbooboo3 (874492) | more than 9 years ago | (#12750673)

I won't make an arguement about security problems in Win2k, since the article is correct. However, I will say that I think Windows 2000 is the best MS OS to yet come out. The GUI is far better then XP (IMHO), has support for all the latest "bells and whistles", and it is FASTER than the equivalent XP machine.

Re:Failure -- A bit harsh? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12750738)

but you have DIPSHIT companies like adobe making their products look for XP.

Premiere Pro.. REQUIRES Xp. funny how a hack a buddy of mine found will make it work under 2000 and everything works fine.

companies are putting in OS version detect to tow the microsoft line of force them to upgrade...

Beware (1)

ucblockhead (63650) | more than 9 years ago | (#12751014)

There are XP features that some programs require that are not at all obvious. Just loading the app and clicking for five minutes does not mean that "everything works fine".

Re:Failure -- A bit harsh? (2, Interesting)

matth (22742) | more than 9 years ago | (#12750826)

I agree.. I'm extremely disapointed to see support for W2K going away as it's the O/S I run on my laptop, at home, and that we use here at work... it's fast sleek, and doesn't hog resources like XP... oh well.. here we come linux.

Re:Failure -- A bit harsh? (1)

Blahbooboo3 (874492) | more than 9 years ago | (#12750844)

Better yet, go to Mac :) I know I am interested in moving to it once the intel based boxes are out! :)

Re:Failure -- A bit harsh? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12750864)

Geez, you call yourself a geek and you don't even know how to revert to the windows classic theme?

A properly configured windows XP box is also probably faster than a properly configured Win2k box. Especially WinXP64.

Re:Failure -- A bit harsh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12751081)

This is very true, even on the older xp64 beta's I was on the speed was significantly faster. want xp to run better? turn off all the junk you dont need the visual pretties that do nothing but take up power, background services that mean jack all to what you use the system for.

and those bashin 2k's security look at the o/s' that came before/at the same time 2k was leaps and bounds ahead of M$' earlier o/s (save for NT, but you couldn't typically use that in a home environment effectivly). with the latest updates 2k is still a viable o/s.

Now if only M$ would improve their (rather pitiful) server environment they would finally start to deserve the install base their O/S' have.

Re:Failure -- A bit harsh? (1)

ucblockhead (63650) | more than 9 years ago | (#12750956)

It's not faster than XP. Turn off all the graphical bullshit so that XP looks like Win2k and it'll run as fast as Win2k.

Re:Failure -- A bit harsh? (1)

master_p (608214) | more than 9 years ago | (#12750957)

And why 2K's gui is far better than XP's? have you got any real argument or you are pissed off by having more than 2 colours on your screen?

Re:Failure -- A bit harsh? (1)

metlin (258108) | more than 9 years ago | (#12750970)

While I agree that for the general home user, Win 2000 is probably a better option, you can indeed turn off those options in Win XP, and it runs just as fast.

And XP does have some really good features for the power user.

Pardon me, but weren't most of the worm issues in (3, Insightful)

Assmasher (456699) | more than 9 years ago | (#12750684)

...2000-2003 the fault of applications which happened to run on 2000? I'm not too familiar with 'OS worms'... IIS and SQL worms, oh yeah, lots of those; but, those aren't Windows 2000.

Re:Pardon me, but weren't most of the worm issues (5, Informative)

OhPlz (168413) | more than 9 years ago | (#12750726)

IIS and the repeatedly exploited index server were distributed with Win2000. The RPC port exploit was also a Win2000 issue.

I think it's a shame that they're twilighting the support for the OS. I still use it and have no real reason to upgrade to XP. I tend to wonder if the only "big deal" with XP is that it included a software firewall.

Re:Pardon me, but weren't most of the worm issues (1)

Assmasher (456699) | more than 9 years ago | (#12750872)

SQL Server is distributed with VS.Net but I don't consider it part of .Net ;)... I did forget about the MSBlast though.

Re:Pardon me, but weren't most of the worm issues (1)

man_of_mr_e (217855) | more than 9 years ago | (#12750919)

XP is actually significantly more than just 2000 with a firewall, especially when you consider SP2. It's worth the upgrade to XP SP2 for the browser security improvements alone (though you shouldn't have to upgrade to get them.. but that doesn't change the fact that you DO have to upgrade to get them).

Things in XP that I use every day and would go nuts not having if I went back to 2K.

* Tray Icon Hiding. Too many apps put icons on the tray and it's very nice to get rid of them.

* The new Start menu. I can get at pretty much everything in 1 or 2 clicks, without having to minimize everything to get to the desktop (for instance, right click on "My Computer" in the start menu and choose "Manage" to get to computer management. Right click the "Network Neighborhood" in the Start menu and choose properties to view all your network connections, etc..

* Remote Desktop. I use this *ALL* the time. I'd have to run 2000 Server to get terminal services in 2000.

* Volume Shadow Copy client. This lets me version snapshot network drives and get previous versions from various dates and times.

That's not even counting how fast XP boots compared to the typical 3 minute boot time of 2000 in a domain environment.

Re:Pardon me, but weren't most of the worm issues (1)

steveness (872331) | more than 9 years ago | (#12750751)

MSBlast ring any bells?

Re:Pardon me, but weren't most of the worm issues (1)

Assmasher (456699) | more than 9 years ago | (#12750914)

Good point, not just 2000 but XP too. I would still hazard the assertion that the majority of the security problems were with software and not the OS itself ;).

Re:Pardon me, but weren't most of the worm issues (1)

steveness (872331) | more than 9 years ago | (#12750947)

No argument there. SQL Slammer, arguably the most damaging worm ever, was software, not OS, related.

But Blaster and Sasser both caused me some headaches, and they were all about exploiting the OS.

Now, if we accept the position that IE is part of the OS, then we can really expand the list....

Re:Pardon me, but weren't most of the worm issues (1)

Assmasher (456699) | more than 9 years ago | (#12751082)

Gack, let's not go there... I wonder if you lined up all the patches applied to IE over the years (pick any particular version) how much larger than the complete install they would be? lol.

Pardon me, but if you can't separate the browser.. (1)

solomonrex (848655) | more than 9 years ago | (#12750910)

Microsoft shipped WIN2K with IIS, it's not stand alone and you certainly can't purchase it for a non-Windows OS. And most of the worms didn't need IIS to bring down the Internet. I think we SHOULD all gripe about Win2K and IIS, and I think that the article was far too kind.

An OS that needs gigs of updates is no OS, it's an embarassment. Linux needs updates, but it can certainly be functional without hours of downloading.

Re:Pardon me, but if you can't separate the browse (1)

Assmasher (456699) | more than 9 years ago | (#12751044)

Sorry, but I've been downloading gigs of updates for stability and security to my various *nix flavors for the past 13 years. IIS wasn't enabled by default on my Win2k installs, just as SSH, Apache, et cetera, are not when I install Slack or Mandrake. I don't blame Linux for SSH vulnerabilities, nor Red Hat or any other distribution. Equally, I don't blame Win2K for IIS, but there's always the DCOM hole and 'messenger' service to harp on ;).

Previous name (1)

UnixRawks (705739) | more than 9 years ago | (#12750685)

No it was not originally going to be called NT5 but Windows 2000 Flushes.

Re:Previous name (2)

j0217995 (597878) | more than 9 years ago | (#12751023)

An early version of the computer game "Axis and Allies" wouldn't install on a Windows 2k box of mine. Kept insisting that it worked only on NT5 or greator.

where would we be.... (1)

Twillerror (536681) | more than 9 years ago | (#12750691)

without buffer overruns.

Obviously they are caused by irresponsible programing, but just imagine if the nature of the stack wouldn't allow them. If some kind of mechanism beside a simple jump had been used. Like registering an address in the CPU via an instruction and then calling that jump. Would we have had half the problems?

Re:where would we be.... (4, Interesting)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 9 years ago | (#12750997)

just imagine if the nature of the stack wouldn't allow [buffer overruns]. If some kind of mechanism beside a simple jump had been used. Like registering an address in the CPU via an instruction and then calling that jump.

Would it annoy you to no end if I explained that you've just described the segmented memory model that has been available on the 386 and up since 1986? It just so happens that today's "Modern OSes" (right load of bull that is) map only two memory segments, then completely ignore the GDT, LDT, and TSS after that? It is, of course, done all in the name of "Performance", the mini-god for which many a programmer has sacrificed his first born for, but has never actually managed to show that this "performance" was worth it.

<sarcasm>But wait, we must claim that Java is slow in order to appease this mini-god! </sarcasm>

Re:where would we be.... (1)

Dink Paisy (823325) | more than 9 years ago | (#12751086)

Well, let's just think about that. Perhaps you're familiar with the following instruction sequence from many PowerPC programs:

ld 0,0x10(1)
mtlr 0
blr

Of course, then you wonder what the ld 0,0x10(1) does. r1 is the stack pointer, and 0x10 is the standard offset onto the stack for storing the return address. Yuppers, you still need somewhere to store the return address, and the stack is the obvious place for that.

So my answer is that yes, you would have had exactly the same problems with that mechanism.

What about "Trusted Computing?" (1)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 9 years ago | (#12750709)

Fellow slashdotters, wasn't this Windows2000's period, the same period that M$ talked of Trusted Computing? What happened to this thing called "Trusted Computing?" Is it still alive?

Re:What about "Trusted Computing?" (1)

weierstrass (669421) | more than 9 years ago | (#12750859)

It still exists, but now it's called DRM.

Re:What about "Trusted Computing?" (1)

praxis (19962) | more than 9 years ago | (#12750882)

No, actually, Win2K was in it's final days before release when the TwC initiative was just getting started. Look to Server 2003 for the first release predicated competely by TwC. You'll see the security improvements there. Comapre the vulurabilities in 2003 to the vulurabilities in 2000 and its quite a difference. How many of the big name worms were a big issue for 2003?

Re:What about "Trusted Computing?" (1)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 9 years ago | (#12751027)

Comapre the vulurabilities in 2003 to the vulurabilities in 2000 and its quite a difference. How many of the big name worms were a big issue for 2003?

The figures you want to see are proportional to how widespread the OS is. Windows 2003, though quite capable, is not that widely deployed. Netcraft backs me up here.

Re:What about "Trusted Computing?" (2, Insightful)

Keith Russell (4440) | more than 9 years ago | (#12751005)

wasn't this Windows2000's period, the same period that M$ [sic] talked of Trusted Computing?

Trustworthy Computing was the response to high-profile security failures like Sadmind and Code Red. And if you think Trustworthy Computing is dead, just compare Windows XP SP2 to an unpatched XP install.

Why use windows? (-1, Troll)

davidross (748505) | more than 9 years ago | (#12750710)

Fuck Windows, use Linux.

Re:Why use windows? (0)

slavetrade55 (444917) | more than 9 years ago | (#12750732)

Wow, that's deep.

Only with MSFT (0)

quarkscat (697644) | more than 9 years ago | (#12750730)

could a stable OS that has many/most of the security holes patched be considered a "failure". Of course, it is also an OS that will shortly be retired (unsupported) by MSFT, in favor of a more vulnerable series of OSes (XP Home, XP Lite, XP Pro, XP Reduced Fuctionality, XP Media Center, etcetera).

Too bad that MSFT has decided that hardware DRM is the only way that their newest OSes can be secure.
Digital Restrictions Management is not user friendly.

Win2k, a failure? (5, Interesting)

JeffTL (667728) | more than 9 years ago | (#12750734)

I can't see how you can honestly call Windows 2000 a failure -- Microsoft didn't spend more making it than they made off of it, and it was actually (in my experience, at least) more reliable than XP.

Re:Win2k, a failure? (1)

pantycrickets (694774) | more than 9 years ago | (#12750990)

Any business on earth would be happy to see the profits Microsoft made from this "failure." It was a fine OS with some issues. What software doesn't have "issues" though. See the frontpage of Slashdot today for Mozilla issues that Microsoft would be getting reamed for had they been responsible for them.

It was successfull, kind of... (5, Interesting)

adolfojp (730818) | more than 9 years ago | (#12750740)

I was the first STABLE windows platform that could handle multimedia apps.

Security became a joke, but stability was superb.

It was a gigantic leap from the 9x series.

Cheers,

Adolfo

Re:It was successfull, kind of... (1)

PMuse (320639) | more than 9 years ago | (#12751039)

The parent is right. As I recall, Win2000 was touted as "the most stable Windows ever". It promised to eliminate the blue screen of death. And, more than any of its predecessors, it did.*

Security didn't become the dominant issue until later. Seems to me that the Register/Security Focus has a short (dare I say "revisionist") memory.

*(That is, it was stable relative to MS products, not really stable. Viva Novell Netware!!)

Re:It was successfull, kind of... (0, Redundant)

Inda (580031) | more than 9 years ago | (#12751065)

NO! I was the first STABLE windows plat...

Windows ME was far worse (2, Informative)

WickedClean (230550) | more than 9 years ago | (#12750753)

I've got Win2k on an older machine and had no major problems with it. However, I have never installed and then removed an OS so fast as when I tried using Windows ME. It was basically like Win98 3rd Edition with a few cosmetic changes, but mostly just a big pain in the hiney.

Re:Windows ME was far worse (1)

AviN456 (863971) | more than 9 years ago | (#12750886)

AFAIK, Windows 98 stopped at 2nd edition

Re:Windows ME was far worse (1)

Stibidor (874526) | more than 9 years ago | (#12751104)

Right. The parent was just trying to say that ME was just a 3rd Edition of 98. And I believe the parent was right about uninstalling ME as quickly as possible. It may very well have been just a 3rd edition of 98, but in my experience it was far, far, FAR worse then 98 SE.

Oh for one last time..... (4, Insightful)

Boss, Pointy Haired (537010) | more than 9 years ago | (#12750783)

Programmers felt vindicated that the Y2K bug didn't turn out to be that big of a deal.

It was a big deal. Lot's of us here worked very hard to make sure that nothing bad happened and this really gets to me when people throw around the opinion that it was all a fuss over nothing.

Get a clue.

Re:Oh for one last time..... (4, Insightful)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 9 years ago | (#12751124)

Absolutely, and it's all an after effect of the way it was presented in the media.

It's kinda like there's a big office building on fire downtown. The news reporter is standing in front of the blaze, speaking in a calm voice layed thinly over barely-contained hysterics: "As you can see behind me, the fire continues to burn! If left unchecked, this fire could spread to nearby buildings, and from there continue to spread, until eventually the entire metropolitan area is burned to the ground. From there, who knows how far it could spread! Civilization itself hangs in the balance! Flee, flee for your lives! And buy duct tape!" Meanwhile, fire fighters work like hell to put out the fire, and it eventually dies. The next day everyone is wondering what the hell the big deal was and what they are going to do with all the duct tape they bought. Feeling gullible and duped, they forget that there really could have been a disaster if the fire fighters had just sat on their thumbs watching the building burn...

OS "Feel" (2, Insightful)

Shadow Wrought (586631) | more than 9 years ago | (#12750789)

When it comes to OS's I judge them by the "feel" part of "look and feel." Win2K feels a whole not nicer than XP to me, and is closer in feel to 98, which I didn't mind, than to NT, which I hated. I wonder if some of the success just has to do with MS striking a better chord with the feel of Win2K than with their other offerings?

Re:OS "Feel" (1)

nkh (750837) | more than 9 years ago | (#12750875)

I don't understand this "look and feel" thing. The only difference is that Win98 had a brighter grey color than Win95/NT and Win2k had a brighter grey color than Win98. But I don't remember there was bigger differences.

Re:OS "Feel" (1)

Shadow Wrought (586631) | more than 9 years ago | (#12751155)

I don't think you're alone. If it were easier to describe we wouldn't use a term as vague as "feel" to describe it. I loved the feel of AmigaOS and have found Windows in most of its incarnations to be tolerable. I'm getting used to Linux at home, and have never liked the feel of Apple's various OS's. I've tried several different versions of it (starting around '93) and it just doesn't feel right.

Its a lot like cars. Even though sedans might look alike, indeed might only be a few years apart from the same company, they can have very different feels. At the end of the day, it all comes down to taste and personal preference.

Microsoft's Most Successful Failure (3, Insightful)

ArielMT (757715) | more than 9 years ago | (#12750825)

Microsoft Bob! [toastytech.com] Oh, wait. Successful failure... hmm... Ah! Windows Millennium Edition (ME) [aroundcny.com] , without a doubt! This insecure, rushed, overhyped, bug-ridden excuse for an operating system should've gone the way of Bob and New Coke even before it was officially released.

Re:Microsoft's Most Successful Failure (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12751142)

Y

o

u

A

r

e

A

Faggot

Even more "successful" failures (3, Insightful)

jmulvey (233344) | more than 9 years ago | (#12750835)

One word: Solaris.

How's that NIS treating you for security?
Kernel "user/group/world" security should be enough for anybody.

You guys need to realize that you can't have credibility without objectivity. You would have a lot more success convincing people to switch to Linux if you didn't come across as zealots all the time.

Why would I care (1, Funny)

MozillaMike (889339) | more than 9 years ago | (#12750879)

Windows2k......Cricket, Cricket

WindowsME....... You suck.... you deserve to be in an incinerator... go back to your banished freinds Nessi and the Yeti.

(angry mob)Die windowsME... Die!!!

A Failure? (3, Insightful)

4of12 (97621) | more than 9 years ago | (#12750904)

I'm a fervent Linux fan, but I'm also logical.

Win2K was by far much better than Microsoft's earlier OS offerings in terms of reliability and security.

It's like they finally realized that desktop PC monopoly didn't get them a free pass into the mainframe and server market. Realizing that, they actually produced a credible OS that wouldn't get themselves laughed at. MS has intelligent people that can do a great job (if they're not tasked with creating obstacles and artificial cross-ties in the company's product lines.) Like they did with IE before the Netscape threat was effectively vanquished.

Win2K will be humming along for many years to come.

How can you knock Windows 2000? (3, Insightful)

zbuffered (125292) | more than 9 years ago | (#12750921)

Think about what Win2k gave us! Plug and Play, protected memory (when apps crash, the OS survives), NTFS, and USB support. All these things were necessary to help the OS do more for the end-user. Not to mention Active Directory, and Group Policies! All good stuff for Windows users. As for security issues, windows update is a much better solution than what we had with previous OSes. So what Windows 2000 did is integrated everything good about NT and 98. Yes, there were security vulnerabilities in IIS. A lot of websites got broken into. Waah.

well, I'm glad (1)

davidross (748505) | more than 9 years ago | (#12750934)

Microsoft has helped me keep my job. The more kiddies there are, the more work I've to do and charge people to fix hacked hosts. Go Microsoft! They hire college kids anyway, so I don't expect code to be secure.

A disaster? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12750954)

Give me a fucking break.

Where exactly was the pandemonium that should have ensued due to the majority of the world running a "disaster"?

Was it Win2K, or IE/OE? (3, Insightful)

Frangible (881728) | more than 9 years ago | (#12750962)

IIRC, Win2K didn't have too many vulnerabilities, mostly they were just in IE and Outlook Express. All the more reason to run Firefox and Thunderbird even today, as it seems exploits for IE/OE keep cropping up.

Re:Was it Win2K, or IE/OE? (1)

moranar (632206) | more than 9 years ago | (#12751145)

Oh! You found a legal win2k version free of IE and OE? Tell us where to get it, please!

Seriously, if the company itself says "IE is an integral part of the OS", then bugs in IE _are_ bugs in the OS. Almost the same with OE: if they make the system and the app so broken that malware can infect the system so easily through email, they get to be blamed.

The Register (0)

The Bungi (221687) | more than 9 years ago | (#12750973)

This is obviously flamebait (ooooh, teh bigestest dissasster evar!!1!) but I have to chuckle at how this fine, fine publication is considered an authority when it happens to bash Microsoft, but a pack of retarded corporate shills whenever it utters anything that is remotely critical of anything related to open source.

Too funny.

I know two things: (1)

MsGeek (162936) | more than 9 years ago | (#12750983)

1.) Windows 2K made the crappy Gateway computers at LA Valley College's computer lab tolerable.

2.) When they moved to Windows XP, those same Gateway computers felt like the POSes they are.

Now that Apple will be transitioning to x86 architecture, hopefully a situation will emerge where Windows 2K can be run safely in virtualization under MacOS X. XP will never sully a computer of mine. I know you can already run Windows 2K in virtualization under Linux. But I'd like to do it under MacOS X. It probably would be a lot less hassle to do. It seems like everything that you can do in Linux is less hassle in MacOS X.

Creating the poison? and the Cure? (1)

MrRoarkeLovesTattoo (878817) | more than 9 years ago | (#12750984)

If you could create a disease that you knew that you could also cure wouldn't you at least consider doing it? Microsoft created the problem with their faulty programming and then we were stuck waiting for them to fix the problem because only they understood the disease.

Don't delude yourself (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12751037)

2000 was NOT a failure. MS finally got a multi-media desktop that ran reliably. When I think back on how much better unix/Linux desktops were, how they were remotely manageable and manageable in large groups when MS totally wasn't, even with 3rd-party add-ons, I wonder how they stayed in business. 2000 lead us to 2003, which is a rock-solid desktop, finally has a decent web server, and is fully manageable remotely and in large groups. Linux doesn't need anymore MS "failures" or there may be no more reasons to run an open source desktop (or server for that matter)

Define failure (2, Insightful)

Kontinuum (866086) | more than 9 years ago | (#12751100)

On the plus side of Win2K, it would only be fair to note the millions of MS Word (yes, you may look down your noses at them, but believe it or not, most people do not use StarOffice or vi+TeX to write their documents) documents that have been created with people using Win2K. And the millions of Excel spreadsheets, and millions of presentations, etc. Now, I suppose if you define a failure in that it was not perfect, then yes, of course it was a failure. But did it do what Microsoft wanted (make ooodles of money and get MS products everywhere in the business world)? Yes. And did it do what all those people who DIDN'T experience any security problems wanted (office productivity)? Yes.

Win2k was like a 1990 Taurus. They were everywhere, billions of miles were gotten out of them, but she had no airbags. Ponder that, and don't try and look up whether or not the Taurus had airbags, since I didn't ;)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?