tomasz86 Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 (edited) I don't know if it's mentioned anywhere but Gurgelmeyer's USP5 (when slipstreamed) is not compatible with installation from USB where you're using programs such as WinSetupFromUSB (or other similar) to prepare your source. Edited March 28, 2012 by tomasz86 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomasz86 Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 Hey Kurt_Aust,Have you got any interest in incorporating unofficial updates into your guide too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurt_Aust Posted April 13, 2012 Author Share Posted April 13, 2012 (edited) April update .Net onlyDeleteions:RunOnce\dotNet11SP1_UH_Mar12.exeRunOnce\dotNet20SP2_UH_Mar12.exeAddition:Download from MediaFire Hotfix_2000sp5_N_date.7z (.Net 1.1 SP1 & .Net 2.0 SP2) and extract it into the same directory that you chose to extract the Config archive into (see notes part 4 for other options).MD5: 8C237AD6DB5972AA1BF54B06C233287CSHA-1: 74AB2B17BF908A83EB972C45CBE65B1447F309EFTomasz:Not really, I only include the .Net packs due to the huge space saving they supply on the install media. After all, there are plenty of options out there if someone wants to take a more aggressive stance on keeping Windows 2000 updated, for instance OnePiece's all-in-one solutions or your work.However I found odd corner cases when using OnePiece's XP solution that I don't get when using User Hidden's more conservative update packs and the risk of something going wrong with Windows 2000 is much greater due to the smaller base using and testing such update packs.As I see it the primary use for Windows 2000 these days should be on low powered systems isolated from the Internet or as a virtual machine on more recent operating systems where its low system requirements don't impose much of a performance hit (on this point it's a **** shame that VirtualBox doesn't do Win9x).Edit:Seriously, is Rhett Butler's final line of "Frankly my dear, I don't give a ****!" still regarded as too shocking for our tender young readers? Edited April 13, 2012 by Kurt_Aust Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomasz86 Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 I see. I asked because there are basically too many options at the moment and people get confused which path to choose So you're saying that your guide is targeted at people wanting to use W2K on a VM or a PC that's not connected to the Internet, not those using it as their main system. Is it right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurt_Aust Posted April 14, 2012 Author Share Posted April 14, 2012 So you're saying that your guide is targeted at people wanting to use W2K on a VM or a PC that's not connected to the Internet, not those using it as their main system. Is it right?Not so much targeted at those groups (although with auto installation of VM drivers it's certainly good for that) as rather that as it's no longer officially supported and more and more programs don't run on it without hacks it's inherently unsafe to use as an internet connected main box. Naturally one can diminish the risk greatly by locking the system right down but that reduces it's utility.A friend of mine bought an iPhone 4S (yes, I know) from a major telco retail store a couple of months ago and was not impressed when I pointed out that the system they entered all her personal and credit card details was running IE6 on W2K. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bphlpt Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 @Kurt_Aust, I thought that the purpose of the work of BWC, Wild Bill, and tomasz86 was to try and add back both the security and the utility that you are talking about Win2K losing over the years. Don't you see it that way? And I thought your guide was a pretty general purpose one for anyone who wanted to continue using Win2K for whatever reason. That's why I have been encouraging tomasz86 to get in touch with you to combine your work. Maybe I had misunderstood something along the way.Cheers and Regards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurt_Aust Posted April 14, 2012 Author Share Posted April 14, 2012 (edited) I certainly admire their efforts in that regard and of course one can use this guide anyway one sees fit but I for one would not recommend Windows 2000 for front line use these days.To use the infamous car analogy, if you took a 1930's car that had been sealed away and was in mint condition it wouldn't be as safe to drive as an equivalent brand new model. Sure you could retrofit some things, seat belts shouldn't be too hard for instance, but good luck retrofitting crumple zones. By the way I usually use this analogy to describe why the ****ashima reactor partial meltdown is a poor reason to write off nuclear power.At one stage I was considering taking an old box and using W2K on it as the basis of a media PC, but 10 minutes down the road they're selling ex-lease Core2 quad machines for $230. At that price it simply isn't worth mucking around with a box from 2003 running W2K that I wouldn't really trust on the internet.Edit:What is with the censoring on this site, that wasn't even a dirty word, at least not in English. Edited April 14, 2012 by Kurt_Aust Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomasz86 Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 Windows 2000 is not that old Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurt_Aust Posted May 12, 2012 Author Share Posted May 12, 2012 May update .Net onlyDelete RunOnce\dotNet20SP2_UH_Apr12.exe andDownload from MediaFire Hotfix_2000sp5_N_date.7z (.Net 1.1 SP1 & .Net 2.0 SP2) and extract it into the same directory that you chose to extract the Config archive into (see notes part 4 for other options).MD5: 1F533A3554563213E71226596A5B0EF9SHA-1: 8E41C9CE2BCDB2C3130EF7CC133851A4026B4FF7Also added a security warning to the start of the main post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurt_Aust Posted June 21, 2012 Author Share Posted June 21, 2012 June updateDeletions:RunOnce\dotNet11SP1_UH_Apr12.exeRunOnce\dotNet20SP2_UH_May12.exeReplace: (optional)Runonce\WindowsUpdateAgent30-x86.exe . 6,761,832Download from MediaFire Hotfix_2000sp5_N_date.7z (.Net 1.1 SP1 & .Net 2.0 SP2) and extract it into the same directory that you chose to extract the Config archive into (see notes part 4 for other options).MD5: 24E94B2C94CE2D3A77F95C7A5167CD08SHA-1: 59CBFBAD1DD1B5FDEFB169C847E9B077F4DC37A3Unfortunately over the last month Mozilla and Opera have dropped support for Windows 2000 meaning that no current mainstream web browser works properly on Windows 2000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomasz86 Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Opera still officially supports Win2k...http://www.opera.com/browser/download/requirements/ (Minimum configuration) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurt_Aust Posted June 21, 2012 Author Share Posted June 21, 2012 Officially yes, try running it in a limited account though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomasz86 Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 What do you mean by a limited account? I've just tried it while being logged in as a normal "User" and it seems to work OK. The browser itself is extremely unstable but it's another story... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurt_Aust Posted June 21, 2012 Author Share Posted June 21, 2012 That might be due to the unofficial kernel you use, with a standard kernel launching Opera as a member of the Users group brings up the following message box:Startup errorOpera has failed to access or upgrade your profile. This may have occurred because your computer has insufficient resources available or because some files are locked by other applications. You may have to restart your computer before Opera will start again.OK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomasz86 Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 I did a test using a VM with only official updates installed.In my opinion what you experience seems to be a bug rather than "dropping support for Windows 2000". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now