Microsoft Windows 2000 Professional Upgrade [OLD VERSION]

Customer Reviews

windows 2000 professional

2006-04-21
I THINK WINDOWS 2000 PROFESSIONAL IS VERY HIGH ON SECURITY IT HAS BEEN VERY GOOD FOR ME I HAVE USED IT FOR 1 MONTH NOW AND HAS BEEN VERY GOOD. FROM JUDITH NOTHDURFT

Another Failure in the Windows Scepter

2006-01-31
Windows is crud, and everybody knows that. Windows 2000 is chief among the hall of failure. First, it has a blocky, chunky GUI. Second, EVERY TIME you lauch it, it prompts you with this ridiculous "Welcome to Windows 2000" statement. Welcome me to binary code? Wow, how appealing. Besides the fact that even if you check the box that say "Don't show this again", it continues to show it. Third, the "Open Microsoft document" option in the Start menu never works. It always says that it can't open it. The library is obviously faulty. Fourth, the Microsoft Office Applications ALWAYS have to do a "Connecting with Microsoft Office SR-Standard" message, which you promptly have to cancel, because it will cycle between connection and cancellation. Fifth, the bundled version of Internet Explorer does not allow you to redirect in websites. I know this because whenever I open my Yahoo! e-mail, I always have to click the link on the page that says "If you see this page, your browser prevents you from redirecting to other websites." Sixth, you cannot open files from a server or external drive without opening Microsoft and using Ctrl+O. It's a mess. It is (like other Windows OSs) completely unfriendly to the use of ',`,~,ˆ,¨, and so on. Seventh, there are very ambiguous shortcuts...in which case you might as well go to the symbols palette, which is nearly impossible to decipher because of the hundreds upon hundreds of tiny Unicode characters packed into tabular format.

So just don't buy it. If you do, either you're poor or stupid.

AWSOME!

2005-08-28
windows 2000 is the best...
for old laptops or desktops (I.E. 250-800 mhz) this is the best way
to go i have it on 6 of my old laptops that are going to be on ebay. But if you have a pc 1 Ghz or over use windows xp.
2000 is more stable than xp but not by mutch.
i like 2000 better than xp but you have to have a pc with xp and one with 95 and one with your favorite windows.
i have a winbook v series laptop with xp, a old ibm laptop with 95, a very old compaq with windows 3.11 on it, two comaq armada 7800's one has 98 and one has 2000. i am up grading the 98 to 2000. for a pc for work 2000 is the best.
stable and not fun so employees do not get destracted.

thanks for reading
and go to danweekly.net

A quantum leap ahead of 98-SE

2005-07-22
As a registered OEM system builder with Microsoft, I was invited and attended the introduction of W2000 Pro. A lot of Microsoft staff was there. One quick note is that there were two types of staff. One wore red shirts, and the others wore blue shirts. The whole day seminar/presentation started with an explanation of, "If you have a technical question, ask one of the Microsoft staff in a red shirt, if you have a sales or marketing question, ask a blue shirt". I got a charge out of that. Sales people are enamored with what the software can do for you, and the technical staff is enamored in how it can do it.
What I really wanted to share with you is the major difference between W2000 and 98; In W2000 the system files are off bounds by different programs regarding, not being able to modify them for each program. In 98, that doesn't hold true. If a change needs to be made to a system file, then the outside software manufacturer can do it. The only help is that you can run system file checker in 98 to check for modified system files, and correct them.
What W2000 does is amazing. Not only can an outside manufacturer not be able to change system files, if you go in and delete a system file, then exit out of the folder, then go back in, sure enough the system file you just deleted was automatically restored when you exited out of the folder.

Another point I wanted to make; the overwhelming advantage of using W2000 over XP when installing in an older machine is that it is compatible with a lot of the older hardware.
Here is the problem: You install XP, and up comes a warning that your hardware is not compatible, or needs drivers loaded in order to work. The manufacturers on the other hand, made your older component, whether it is a sound card, or video card, long before XP arrived, so they never created software drivers for it to run in XP. Nor do they want to spend the resources, to create drivers for a product that they stopped manufacturing 6 years ago. You have to check with the individual components to see if drivers are available for XP before buying it, or replace components. The advantage with W2000 is that you are getting the reliability, and the older hardware (within reason) compatibility.
XP is built on the Windows 2000 platform.
I just built a new machine, so I installed XP Pro on it, and I also picked up a copy of W2000 from an independent seller here at Amazon, and loaded it on my AMD K62-500 for the network. Although I did have one video card that didn't have a W2000 driver, so I changed that very inexpensively with a great 128meg video card on sale with rebates for $29. So my old machines that were built in 1999 run W2000 great. No more programs freeze when several programs are open at the same time. You can leave a machine sitting for a couple of hours and not have it respond poorly when you come back to it, and have to reboot. No more blue screen error reports, having to reboot and run scan disk.
On my new XP machine, I had a bad program loaded, and when would run it, I would get a millisecond error screen, with an instant shut down, then it would reboot without having to run scan disk. I am assuming that since you can't mess with system files, no errors are created. I removed the program, which was a Mickey mouse add on included with a hardware bundle.
Windows 2000 pro rocks. Highly recommended.

Which is better and worse

2005-05-23
Windows 2000 was released after Win98. Windows 2000 has richer colors then 98 and NT and 95. WinXP gives you choises of slecting colors. Of course the back ground and all that. WinXP is much faster then Win2000. If you want to have a computer be aware of Windows 95. Windows 95 can only play weak PC games that have 300Mhz or lower. 98 can play most out of all PC games. Today, we have advanced technology which gives us a better life for computers. 2000 and XP can play all the games because they are newer then 98, NT and 95. I would get WinXP.

Great Upgrade For Older Computers

2007-09-14
If you have a windows computer from between 1998 and 2001, this is a great upgrade. Most hardware and software today works with at least Win 2000, and Win 2000 gives you the great security and stability of Win XP, without hogging your memory or hard drive. I put it on an old Compaq Presario 1255 from 1999 which originally had Win 98. It works great. Win 2000 is a great way to keep your old computer around for a few more years.

Excellent Operating System!

2007-06-19
I love this operating system. I had an old compaq computer from 1998. It came with Windows 98. Which is very crash prone. Everytime we would insert a disc, we would get the BSOD. It was so annoying. We put up with it until I got pissed off with it and asked my friend if I could use his Windows 2000 disc. He gave it to us and we installed it. It worked like a breeze. No crashes. We were able to put in cds without a problem. It was so great that we went out and bought our own copy. Windows 98 would freeze up a lot. With Windows 2000, it would work flawlessly without any problems. It is one of the best microsoft OS's ever made. XP is good for a few extra features. But it ran slow on my old laptop, so I install 2000. So if you are looking for a lightweight, flawless and better system then 98, I recommend this. Especially for older computers that want a good OS.

BTW, don't get me started on ME or Vista. They were horrible. Maybe I can recommend vista.... in a few years. I hope this helps you.

WIN2K = relatively reliable Windows OS

2007-05-28
2000 Professional is relatively stable. It is less of a hog than Windows XP (although you can alter XP settings to optimize it for your particular PC).

It has the simple look of Windows 98, but it does not crash as often. 2000 is based on NT technology, a precursor of XP (unlike

Windows 2000 Professional will receive security patches until 2010. So if you buy it now, it will be officially secure until 2010.

You must take a few steps when installing this OS.

1. Download all windows updates.
2. Firewall. Zone Alarm's free firewall works well
3. Antivirus -- antivirus software is mandatory, try symantec corporate edition.

Windows Getting Better & Milenium and 2000 were the worst ideas

2007-01-17
You actually think that windows2000 is stable and the XPs aren't? That is talking backwards. It is the other way around. I have used the XPs for 4 years and they have never crashed on me, but Millenium and 2000 have been always a hassle to my family and friends. There is nothing stable about either of those two. Maybe it is because I am a programmer, maybe not, but I do know this, what you are saying is wrong. The GUI in XP can be changed back to the original 95, 98, Millenium, and 2000 GUI so it doesn't take up extra resources. Have you tried doing that yet? Millenium and 2000 were not the successors of 98 2nd and WinNT 4.0 either; they were temps until the "true" successors, the "XPs", came out. If you believe they were the successors, then you need to do more homework on the subject, and using Microsoft as a refference is useless because they will tell you what ever they want you to know, whether lie or not.

the best version of Windows, bar none

2006-09-24
I have used just about every version of Windows. These are my observations.

1. Windows 98. Windows 98 was easy on the memory-hogging a/v pizazz, but where Windows 98 ultimately fails is in the security department. I expect my OS to be secure. In addition, I expect my OS to be stable. Windows 98 frequently crashes...sometimes for what seems like no reason at all! Windows 98 fails these tests.

2. Windows XP. Windows XP is based on the stable Windows NT architecture, but XP fails with me on several issues. The first issue is too much a/v pizazz in the GUI. I want an OS with a GUI that "just works" without any frilly stuff. Number two, Windows XP has been very suspectible to security flaws since its release. And number three, Windows XP is not as stable as Windows 2000 Professional and crashes from time to time. So Windows XP fails these tests.

3. Linux. I mainly use Xandros and Linspire as my choices of Linux distributions. Linux was built to be secure and stable. Xandros and Linspire are both secure and stable, but sometimes their GUIs (the KDE desktop environment) seem memory-hogging. Ubuntu Linux has a GUI called GNOME which isn't as memory-hogging, but GNOME just doesn't feel the same as Windows. I don't consider any of these Linux distributions to fail my test because I use Linux more than any other OS, including Windows 2000 Professional.

4. Windows 2000 Professional. Windows 2000 Professional offers me many security options...even though a good firewall and antivirus tool helps out more, Windows 2000 Professional was BUILT to be secure and stable. Windows 98 crashed like a mofo, and Windows XP likes to crash from time to time. I have yet to have Windows 2000 Professional to crash on me. In addition, Windows 2000 Professional gives me a GUI which doesn't rely on frilly nonsense...the a/v pizazz I mentioned above.

Windows 2000 Professional is an OS that is stable, secure, and "just works". Next to the very secure and stable Linux distributions, you can't go wrong with Windows 2000 Professional.