Talk:Windows 2000

	Windows 2000 is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 17, 2006.
Article milestones Date Process Result May 24, 2006 Peer review Reviewed June 2, 2005 Featured article candidate Promoted May 22, 2008 Featured article review Demoted Current Status: Former featured article

Version 0.5 (Rated B-Class)
	This Engtech article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale (comments).

	This article is part of WikiProject Microsoft Windows, a WikiProject devoted to maintaining and improving the informative value and quality of Wikipedia's many Microsoft Windows articles.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as top-importance on WikiProject Microsoft Windows's importance scale.

	This article is within the scope of Computing WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to computers and computing. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale

To-do list for Windows 2000:

edit · history · watch · refresh

Service Pack Slipstreaming - nothing on this so far Terminal Services section is very brief Networking support should be covered, at least in part (there's a whole checklist that Microsoft run through - will find this later) Extended support and/or end-of-life status info should be added. Complete.Jdlowery 02:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC) I think it's interesting and relevant to present-day use of this OS to mention that Windows 2000 will "see" a hyper-threading CPU as two CPUs, and will schedule threads exactly as though it were two processors, which supposedly is far from optimal; Windows XP supposedly handles hyper-threading far better, presumably because Windows 2000 was designed before multi-core and hyper-threading CPUs existed.

Archives

1

[edit] OS/2 graphical apps

Windows 2000 can run OS/2 1.x Presentation Manager (GUI) applications if the user installs the Windows NT Add-On Subsystem for Presentation Manager. I've read this on a Microsoft TechNet article somewhere... http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/windows2000serv/reskit/prork/pric_run_jzxd.mspx?mfr=true --Segin (talk) 19:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WPA

any chance of a note on lack of WPA, and solutions.. ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.107.93.248 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article?

I think most of the complaints from when this article was de-featured have been dealt with, the largest workload amount being the references. At a minimum this is a Good Article. Do I get a second for nomination for the latter? Tempshill (talk) 03:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NT4 not "last" multi-architecture.

I just removed a comment that "Windows NT 4.0 is the last version to support multiple architectures, until Windows XP introduced support for x86-64". Aside from being confusingly worded, it is inaccurate on two counts. I had made this edit once, to be reverted. The revert was apparently due to other edits, though, so I'm re-doing my edit. Windows 2000 was available for the majority of its life solely on x86, yes. But toward the end, there was a public Itanium (IA64) port. Therefore, 2000 *WAS* multi-architecture. In addition, XP had IA64 support before x86-64 was even released, so even the "until ... x86-64" comment is inaccurate. (If Windows Home Server is counted separately from Windows Server 2003, then WHS is the only NT to NOT be multi-architecture. If you count WHS as a W2k3 version, then every NT has been multi-architecture.) Ehurtley (talk) 03:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Don't merge the articles

Windows 2000 and Windows 2000 Server should not be merged, unless Windows Server 2003 is going to be merged with Windows XP and Windows Server 2008 merge with Vista. Like the afore sarcastically mentioned merges, the only "similarities" between Windows 2000 pro and server are the looks, everything else is different, i.e. an updated kernel for the server that the workstation did not possess and the obvious enhancements like active directory administration although it was still somewhat primitive then. Another reason is because of the server editions: server, server advanced, and datacenter, with enough feature and system requirement differences to keep the two as separate articles. If the server article needs expansion, I'll personally fill it in, as someone who has administered Windows (and Unix and Novell) servers since practically their dawn, and as someone who has had a peek at the Windows 2000 (including server) source code (which, I read off a friend's computer, I did not download it nor do I condone the download of trade secret source, don't sue me Microsoft).

Anthony cargile (talk) 02:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I beleve as well the Server and Workstation (Professional) editions be separate because they are not the same thing Mmanley (talk) 03:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

They are the same. However, Windows 2000 Pro does not include server-based options. But the components, and optional add-ons are the same. // A Raider Like Indiana 02:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No, they aren't. If you meant NT ("razzle"), yes NT almost perfectly fits your description except for the internal Microsoft NT used that became the basis for what we now know as Windows 2000 and Windows 2000 server, which was the first to really experiment with WAN-crossing domain controllers (Orville was the name of the first MS domain controller, for reference. Helps being on the actual NT team back in the day.). 70.89.148.13 (talk) 03:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge because "Windows 2000" refers to only the base that is beneath both Professional and Server. A separate article can be created discussing the difference between the builds, but I maintain that "Windows 2000" refers to both, just as "Windows XP" refers to both Home and Professional. If you don't merge, then at least move this article to "Windows 2000 Professional" so that we can at least not be misleading in the name of the article. --Voidxor (talk) 02:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it isn't. windows XP and Windows server 2003 are NOT the same underlying OS, although as you mentioned Windows XP Home and Professional are except for some networking and security features. Windows 2000 is only one distribution (professional, ME was 'home'), but Windows 2000 server is comparable to Windows Server 2003 in that its code base is built on top of the nearest non-server release (adding extra security features and networking services, of course, and we always use a new kernel for server releases, save using 2003 for Vista). If it was instead Windows 2001 Server instead of Windows 2000 server, then we really wouldn't be having this conversation, much like the server 2003 and XP articles don't want to merge. The names do not necessarily reflect the underlying codebase. 70.89.148.13 (talk) 03:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say that Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 use the same kernel. In fact, I didn't mention Windows Server 2003 at all. The big difference is that Windows Server 2003 came about two years after XP, while Windows 2000 Professional and Server are both products of the same year and same name. Perhaps Windows 2000 Professional and Windows 2000 Server do use different kernels, if so I was wrong on that fact. But the ambiguity is caused by Microsoft's decision to make them share the "Windows 2000" name brand. My point about Windows XP Home and Professional was that they are so alike, the system requirements list for most software only need specify "Windows XP" as the requirement. Is the same not true for programs running on either Windows 2000 version?

Regardless, "Windows 2000" is a brand name that refers to both and should go to a disambiguation page. This article should be moved to Windows 2000 Professional. Just because Professional is more popular doesn't give us the right to assume all Wikipedians looking for Windows 2000 information want Professional and not Server. --Voidxor (talk) 06:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Where does this article assume that the reader wants Professional? - Josh (talk | contribs) 01:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean that the reader wants to buy Professional; I meant that this article assumes they want information on Professional. And this article does assume that by being titled "Windows 2000". Thus, anybody that types "Windows 2000" into Wikipedia gets this (Professional) article. —Voidxor (talk) 02:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Neither did I. This is not the Professional article; the majority of its information is about both editions, and there's also quite a lot of server-specific information. In fact, it practically duplicates Windows 2000 Server's "server family features" section. - Josh (talk | contribs) 02:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

They shouldn't be merged. This article should be renamed Windows 2000 Professional, and Windows 2000 should redirect to it with a dab template at the top to the server article. The server article needs expansion, but is already too large to just be dumped in with this.

As to the development stuff talked about above there is quite a bit of mistaken information thrown around. Windows 2000 Professional and Windows 2000 server (all flavors) were built from the same source tree with different branches and settings for each SKU. They were designed, developed, tested, and released simultaneously.

Windows XP/Server 2003 was meant to be the same: designed, developed, and tested simultaneously. During XP development, the virtual build environments were created, but there was still one master source tree with all changes from all build environments merged weekly, and the VBLs didn't split on product SKU, but on feature teams. Server was delayed a year for more work, but all underlying changes to SRV2003 went back to XP in service packs and the base master source tree was preserved. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Why? If there really a significant part of this article that only applies to the Professional edition? - Josh (talk | contribs) 01:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, the same IP above mentioned he was on the original NT team, so I would listen to that guy :). Why don't we just make "Windows 2000" and "Microsoft Windows 2000" go to a disambiguation page, which then refers to Windows 2000 professional (this article), Windows 2000 server, and maybe Windows ME referenced at the bottom as the parallel personal windows release, as mentioned above. While I don't know the lower level details between the differing server releases (and I got net+ certified after win2k3 was released), I do recall there were at least 3 windows 2000 server releases, I think Windows 2000 server, server advanced, server datacenter and maybe web or small business but I'm not an expert on server 2000. If someone could clarify this, I would be happy to expand the server article to make it more "stand-alone" worthy, then a disambiguation page is the last thing needed. Oh, and my vote is don't merge, which seems to be the genuine consensus here, even bringing the experts out of the woodworks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.241.199 (talk) 01:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

What would we do with all the information that applies to both Professional and Server? - Josh (talk | contribs) 01:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Yea 68.58.241.199, I'm basically changing my vote at this point to don't merge, but move Professional-specific info to Windows 2000 Professional, and provide clearly visible links to both the Professional and Server articles from this article. Oh, and IP addresses can't vote. —Voidxor (talk) 02:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge: Nearly all the content in Windows 2000 Server is copied from and is still/already part of this article. - Josh (talk | contribs) 02:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Josh, from what you said earlier, the information that applies to both server and professional can be explained from either one's point of view in the respective article. At this point, you are the only one that wants to actually merge them, so the implied group decision here is to move the current windows 2000 article to windows 2000 professional, and make the windows 2000 page a disambiguation page that links to windows 2000 professional, windows 2000 server, and possibly windows me, while explaining the differences between them. The server article will have to clarified a little, and I'd like to ask 70.89.148.13 to do that given his/her's expertise and "behind-the-scenes" knowledge of the subject. If anyone other than Josh has any objections or general opinions/suggestions, let them be heard. 68.58.241.199 (talk) 07:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The 70.89. IP address makes several factual mistakes in their posts. There is not much expertise their to trust their "behind-the-scenes" knowledge. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Being a former member of the Microsoft NT development team, I'd love to hear your corrections to my "factual mistakes", granted they weren't misworded or misinterpreted :). 70.89.148.13 (talk) 00:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, me too! We're not here to get in a tussle between MSA.SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Dude, thats pretty cool ^^ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.111.138.126 (talk) 16:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SBS 2000

I'm not very familiar with the hierarchy, but shouldn't SBS 2000 at least be mentioned in this article? --Resplendent (talk) 17:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)