nostaglic98

I had a similar issue, with a nVidia FX5500 card. Tried a variety of different driver packages. I also tried installing DualView, but nothing was detected, and after about 6 reboots, nothing had changed. So I gave up. It begs the question - why is it "just working" under Windows ME, but not under Windows 2000? Its quite an annoying issue. That said, my system also contacts an Intel graphics solution, which you could extend the monitor onto or from if necessary with the default Windows components. So it seems as though this is a limitation imposed by nVidia for whatever reason.

Thanks!

This is probably a dreadful time to ask - given that XP/Server 2K3 are now 'long' out of support... However I was curious as to how exactly one gets MSE to work with Server 2003. Reason I ask is that my file-server/hobby domain controller run it, and I would like to have something far less mediocre than (take a deep breath) ClamWin. Versions I found would flat-out refuse installation. I tried finding older versions, which did the same. I did try the "batch file technique," which is supposed to run the program without OS restrictions. I also tried XP compatibility. None worked.

I asked a similar question a while back - as I was concerned that support for all this had been suddenly discontinued. Alas, that is not the case, although finding what you're looking for is now extraordinarily difficult if you haven't dug around lots on the forums or the net. UURollup can be found here: https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0Bw_nt4aAJIoPb0I1c1o5MHN5N1U&tid=0Bw_nt4aAJIoPWWNBay13dTlXOWs#list And you can navigate "Up" from that directory to find USP5.1, UUR2 and UURollup as necessary.

Yes http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jonathan.deboynepollard/FGA/questions-with-yes-or-no-answers.html More seriously, yes, there are quite a few members running daily NT 4.00 or 2K (besides the ones that spend a lot of time into making unofficial updates/fixes and what not supporting those OS's ) . jaclaz I am surprised by the "logical yes answer presented" as it seems this is one of the quieter sections of this part of MSFN

Following the thread I read over in the XP Forums here on MSFN, I wanted to pose this question over here: Do we still have any members regularly posting who use (or know of) systems that run either NT4 or 2000? I still use Windows 2000 regularly on at least one of my machines - mostly for document creation, internet browsing and using a simple WYSIWYG editor for my Website. It serves this purpose very nicely. As for NT4, I've played around with it in VM's... However, thanks to Netcraft (and third-parties who reported on their April 2014 Webserver Report), it would seem a number of Web-Servers running NT4 and IIS4 happen to exist, as well. Who these sites are shall remain undisclosed - simply because you can find this information yourself with a search on any major search engine.

I remember 'just' ten years ago I was in lower grade school and thought XP was just the coolest thing on the block. It was right at the time where "old" computers were still useful, but slowly being more and more outmoded. After around 2007, I just became disillusioned with progress. It really dawned on me it was only "change for the sake of change," and not because of any grating issue. For the record, I am a STRONG proponent of the adage, "it works, and its paid for." We see this attitude continually in the IT world, and beyond. The example here is, of course, from the airline industry: Back in the 1990's when everyone was selling up their DC-9 fleets, Northwest Airlines *were* cash-strapped. They couldn't afford newer aircraft in large quantities, and found their efficiency was moot on most very short hops being operated. So, Northwest went shopping - for planes already 15-20 years old, put them through heavy maintenance, added new navigation features, new cabins. Basically, you couldn't tell the difference (aside from noise...) with a new Boeing 717, a DC-9 replacement. Northwest *also* did the same with their DC-10 fleet, supplmenting them with additional aircraft until they could finally get the Airbus planes they wanted. Wow... Off the rails much? As has been stated above, "outmoded" and "obsolete" are HIGHLY subjective terms. If something still does exactly what you want in an acceptable manner? NO, it is NOT obsolete. My iPhone 3GS cost me $100 in early 2013 (second-hand). Purchased new just months prior for several hundred dollars. I still have it now in late 2015, despite the fact we've reached the iPhone 6S+20919496919498104981049820 and iOS Umpteen-Trillion. It still fetches my Email when I'm out, Syncs my Calendars, Sends iMessages and standard SMS' and makes and receives calls. As a result, I am contemplating buying broken units for spares. I fail to see the point in "upgrading" to a +$1000 phone only for it to do the SAME task. For web usage, older OS' ought to be treated with caution. Treat links with suspicion, scan files with online anti-virus pieces, or your own solutions. Keep a newer machine for sensitive operations, if need be. However, at this point in time, MOST routers/modems have rudimentary firewalls. MOST should have "NAT," Network Address Translation - which essentially hides your computer from unprovoked attacks, unless you download malicious software unknowingly. The new IPv6 standards they want us to adopt just so happen to remove NAT, which for the home user is disastrous: Your computer now has a PUBLIC IP address - not a modem with a public IP, that then assigns your machine a PRIVATE IP for local communication. That scares me. This is all done in the name of "making things easier." Well, excuse me, but 99% of home users aren't wizards, and don't need easy configuration of networking components that occur over the internet (i.e. VPN, Proxy, HTTP/HTTPS Servers etcetera, etcetera). Apologies for the soap-boxing. However, it seems we each have a sensitive point on the subject of "obsolescence," whether planned or simply pointless.

Having several systems, I use a variety of OS' suited to the task they perform: - Pentium 4 system gets Windows 2000 as I personally prefer the slightly lower RAM footprint and performance that is generally more acceptable than XP. XP seems to get slower as more updates are added on, which I really dislike. 2K is "frozen," as it were and is thus far less likely to slow down - HP/Compaq TC1100 tablet gets XP, I tried Windows 7 on an IDE SSD, but it just didn't work all that well. Machine has 1.5GB of RAM, so I'd have expected more. XP has a similar feature set and just works a heckuva lot better - "Gaming/High Performance" system gets Windows 7, and it works nicely for this. Has a Core 2 Extreme 3GHz, 8GB of RAM, a lot of hard drives and stuff. - HP DC5100 File/Active-Directory/VM server gets W2K3. This is self explanatory

Funnily enough I have experienced this issue on one of two Windows 2000 installations. Both have IE6, SP1 (Build 6.0.2800.1106) installed. Both have TLS 1.0, SSL 1.0 and SSL 2.0 selected for use. One has the Latest Daily UURollup (November 2014), the other has the Latest Stable Release (2012 or 2013 IIRC0. The one with the latest stable release will not load ANY site using HTTPS, while the other, with the latest Daily Release will. I'm not sure if there was a Root Certificates update included with UURollup at some point, or maybe some modification to SSL. But fundamentally, both installations are pretty much the same. I had thought this was an isolated issue, but considering others are noting it is of some concern. Of course, I installed IE6 to be able to run Windows Update and fully update Windows after installing it and the required software, either before or after USP5.1. I would then install the other packages. On my "main Windows 2000" system, with the latest Daily release of UURollup, I use Opera 10.12 (Last Presto version), Firefox 10 and 24ESR, as well as the latest Firefox Nightly release. IE6 is only used for a couple of sites I know are 100% compatible, and so obscure they aren't infested with any ads or malware. The other system runs as a Server of sorts - so is pretty much unused.

Well, I'm relieved things are still progressing Apologies if it came across as whining. I used your site as the main point of reference for the updates, and the recent changes took me by surprise.

jaclaz Thanks for the reply. Yes, I am looking forward to the day that USP5.2 does become available. As of yet, I have not seen or heard anything in regards to it. So it seemed somewhat concerning as to why the Website had been altered to remove accessibility to the old USP, the current UURollup and so on. Even using the "archived" site I added to my bookmarks only back in May/June of this year results in 404 Errors. Google's index lists only three results for the "windows2000.tk" domain. As late of last year, the UURollup package was still being maintained. It is (seemingly) the most-relevant package amongst all the unofficial updates as of August 2015.

As a fellow "Windows 2000 enthusiast," at this junction, I am very disappointed to see that the archive containing the Windows 2000 un-official updates on "http://windows2000.tk"have been removed. Personally, I am running the latest weekly edition of UURollup, Update Rollup 2 plus the compliment of Windows Updates BEFORE installing these. I am even in the process (still, actually) of writing a guide to completely updating Windows 2000, and also analysing day-to-day usability of the OS from my own standpoint, and that of others. If this project has had the plug pulled, it represents a very sad time for the Windows 2000 community. While many argue Windows XP is only slightly different, I personally find Windows 2000 to offer a better performance platform and less niggles, for the most part. XP on some systems just doesn't quite work. The system I am using pushes a Pentium 4 Northwood @ 2.8GHz, a 256MB nVidia PCI FX5500, 512mb of RAM and a 130GB HD. I can watch 480p YouTube without problem. The system has worked exceptionally when I put it on test watching "Live Streams," that is, a community of persons around the globe (mostly US continent) who put together playlists of music (mostly pre-1980s stuff), engage in interesting computer-related banter and so on. The video quality here is somewhere around 240p - 360p in terms of YouTube. Perhaps less. Even so, the system has held up EXCEPTIONALLY well with Opera 12.02, Firefox 24ESR and Firefox 10ESR. Last year, after some spectacular bickering with a school IT staff, I took the Windows 2000 PC to my desk (being a remote-studies student) and used it for several weeks, "just for Firefox." My Macbook was used for the online lessons, as the USB headset refused to play ball. Nonetheless, it was perfectly suited to office work, and worked long days for me in the classroom environment. I was impressed. Sure, I can use newer OS', and I often do. Although, I do have a soft spot for older OS'. I even found a way to shoehorn Mac OS X Snow Leopard onto my Late-2011 Macbook Pro (13"). Is there no-one who has decided to take upon the task of mirroring this resource, or at least finding some other means of hosting the content? Surely there is interest at this point, we do have the folks at Longhorn.ms providing the OS and everything! Just so everyone knows, I hate to complain, but was really shocked this evening to see a thread on another discussion board where someone noted they couldn't find the Un-Official software. I was able to dig up some of my own.

This guide is an excellent one for downloading all the updates for Windows 2000, but now in 2015, with several of the Un-Official options out there, I'd like to share a couple of quick experiences myself from this: ~ After installing the official Update Rollup 1, than the USP5.1, I installed a version of Windows Update and still got all the necessary updates with Windows 2000, those 90 or so. ~ On an install where I also added Unofficial Update Rollup 2, this cuts back to about 24 updates. Not sure if this was because I didn't add the newer Windows Installer, .NET Framework and so forth, as well as DirectX. Am going to "redo" the Windows install, since I managed to break Windows sound service due to some "crackly audio" issues with the Ensoniq ES1370 card I have, then rearranging it in the PCI slots. Windows claims there is "No Audio Device Available," when drivers are installed and old drivers (Hidden ones) were removed as needed. I will post some results with screenshots to demonstrate my process, and see whether our group of veteran experts agree with what I'm going to do!

I've just (about two days ago) installed the Un-Official SP4 onto my Tablet (HP/Compaq TC1100), which *was* running Windows 7 from an SSD, but I switched back to the old 4200rpm HD, which actualy seems quite a bit faster now... Anyway, it worked well, and the tablet some new POSReady updates after all was said and done. Very impressed, and thanks for the effort! *With this final version being introduced, will there be any need to reinstall? Is there anything I might miss?

I always thought that SpeedStep was controlled by the system's BIOS, and your Chipset drivers would handle anything changed/monitored through Windows. If you open System Properties during High/Low CPU demand times - you should be able to see what, if anything, is going on in regards to the clock speed. Another solution would be installing "RMClock," which is a monitoring app I used on the TC1100 to under volt (thus reducing the fan usage), and control the processor speed. Unless I'm handwriting, it'll will hang on 600MHz at the desktop, or when browsing less scripted sites. If I write or open an app, the speed is bumped to 1.2GHz (after going through 800MHz, 1GHz etc).

I'm going to try Pale Moon or Sea Monkey on an installation, and report here. Both are based on the Mozilla engine that powers Firefox, but have either the Original UI or the Gecko UI that they used. I've quite simply had it with Firefox's "Rapid-Release" program - which is fine, but this new "Australis" has me really annoyed. Once I get the newest FF on my machines, I am swearing off its use from this point forward (At least the newer releases).

I use a HP TC-1100 as my tablet. It runs Windows 7 now, but previously ran XP. I'd revert back if it weren't for support and some of the nice features Windows 7 adds to the tablet - but its useless for anything that involves a lot of flash content (Chrome refuses to render pages quickly, and Firefox grinds up on YouTube...) That machine, being from the early XP era *should* be capable of Windows 2000 operation - though you'd be missing some operation. You're probably best off getting something from around that time, ex-fleet. Dell's Latitude (with Attitude series), or older Toshiba models (The Tecra) or older Acer's (except the P4-Preshott models) should be solid, dependable choices for this application. I used to own a Toshiba Tecra 2300, ex-fleet, it did run Windows 2000 "once upon a time." It was a nice machine.

The older versions of Firefox had a nice, agreeable user interface. G-Mail has now reverted to plain HTML as it used to be, instead of the more modern interface on FF3.6.3. I had always thought Windows 98 was just useless for browsing, for whatever reason. I've heard that YouTube is now useless with some earlier versions of Opera (that use the old engine), due to the heavy JavaScript (or, "JavaSludge") interface - and this was on Windows XP installations. It really is a shame the internet couldn't be written by talented developers, rather than useless "Script-Kiddies" who run someone else's poorly coded slop, slap more slop on top and make the experience terrible on all but the most bleeding-edge machines. And even then, it can be pretty dismal (My experience on some sites with a Macbook on Mavericks kinda shows this). This, IMO, is why we have faster CPU's. Developers are just lazy now, since upgrades are cheap and technology moves fast enough to make bloated software look "fine" in just a day. No wonder Linux is gaining some traction!

Well from what I've seen so far, the KB numbers between the updates issued for Windows Embedded POS Ready 2009 and Windows Server 2003 do match. In fact they even match with the updates issued for Windows Server 2008 and R2 and probably Windows Vista and 7. So I'm guessing that they're all just the same updates, and work just like any previous updates for Windows XP. This seems like a reasonable explanation. If POS-Ready is based on XP, then it would be okay. But Server 2003, whilst based in that code, is an x64 OS, no? So it would be featured up differently. Just checked the Wiki on POS-Ready, and I cannot believe the HUGE jump in installation size from 2009 - 7/8 variants. Thats just an incredible amount of bloat. They're CHECKOUT computers, for goodness sake!

Whilst I am no longer a Windows-XP user, I am interested in this project. Does anyone know if the patches being applied are relevant to the XP Kernel, or if they are patching the "holes" they are supposed to as effectively as in their native OS's? This question was posed by a "security-conscious" friend of mine, who wondered if this was merely appearing to work, but not actually beneath the skin of it.

The system doesn't see use on the internet, and doesn't run facing the internet. It runs internally. However - it seems there are plenty of organisations that aren't concerned about that sort of thing, namely "Australia Post," who still use a Windows NT4 system for their website and online billing system... Anyway - I was able to more or less solve this problem. Unfortunately, the Thomson ISP supplied router will only set itself as DNS, so I had to use Telnet to configure the AD as the top DNS (which forwards to Google), then the two Google DNS servers in case I have to pull the server for any maintenance purposes. Thats the best that can be done at the moment, given these circumstances. I am hoping to put that router into bridge once I secure another Asus RT-N16 router, and load in DD-WRT. For the moment, it'll have to do.

I have a rather irritating issue that needs resolving regarding Active Directory and DNS. You see, I run a File Server and Active Directory at home. Whilst its all setup and working, I find that I have to manually enter the details of the DNS server into the computers that I have, otherwise, they will not use the active directory to get DNS information, and everything falls in a big heap. I'm wondering if there is some way to ensure that computers that connect automatically are aware of the DNS servers that they must be running - Is this something that is done via the computer, or via the router and its interface. Any requests un-resolvable by the DNS will be forwarded onto the router, where they are then put over to Google DNS. Should I turn of the DNS on the router - or merely direct it to put requests to the local server which will then forward to Google itself. OS is Windows 2000 Advanced Server, Clients typically run Windows 7 (Hey - It was cheap, and works well for what it does). Network lies behind a "typical" router with a hardware Firewall and NAT enabled. Cheers for any advice

Flash IS bloat. Waste of CPU cycles and INCREDIBLY inefficient. Its part of the reason why processors are getting more powerful - since no-one is bothering to write software that isn't glitchy and inefficient (i.e. Windows, Photoshop)

Been hearing rumours on other forums I frequent that the latest updates to MSE is causing people's computers to become inaccessible? Not sure if there is any truth to these claims, but I would be *interested* to see whether Microsoft would stoop to such a level.

I think you are referring to the HP/Compaq TC1000 and TC1100, AFAIK. For hardware from the early 2000's (esp. the TC1100 with the Intel Processors), it stands up VERY WELL even today with the iPad - in fact, the hardware specs are BETTER than the iPad. From my standpoint owning one, I can say they work darn well, have good battery life and are quite zippy with Windows 7, 1.5GB of RAM and a replacement SSD.