Windows 2000 update problems...

[nute]

So in this effort to make a Windows 2000/XP compatible OS, how is the
patching mess going to affect things?

I've been trying hard to download all the patches and service packs that should be installed to 2000 pro SP1. I am running into problems getting KB904706 to go on at all.

The is a Microsoft Virtual Machine patch that I can't install manually.
The hotfix is KB816093.

I want to be able to set 2000 pro up fully patched until ReactOS becomes
a solid replacement for it. I can't run Office 2003 without at least service
pack 3. I don't think codeweavers will support it yet.

On some site, guess it was windowsgripes.com, I ran into a discussion of
"April fools" patches via Windows Update and complaints about forced installation of Windows Genuine Advantage.

Does anyone know what on earth the following Windows update error code: 0x8007F205 means??? The Security Update for DirectX 9 for Windows 2000 (KB904706) failed to install.

Another update I can't figure out how to manually install is Windows Installer 3.1.

The last update I can't seem to manually install is Update for Background Intelligent Transfer Service (BITS) 2.0 and WinHTTP 5.1 (KB842773).

I want to be able to set Windows up WITHOUT an Internet connection.
That is why I'm staying away from XP aside from the price.

[Stead]

I'm not sure if i'm understanding this right, but you are trying to install updates for a windows 2000 pro SP1 install?

The directx update requires sp4 along with the virtual machine

the Bits and WinHTTP requires service pack 3 or higher

[jezebelus]

Win 2000 is the worst OS. I mean all MS products are crap but this is the biggest crap

[Haos]

@jezebelus

You didn`t seem to use Win2k at all... The only better system than Win2k is Win2k3...

Win2k has less hardware requirements than XP, runs sweet on 600mhz cpu with 128 sdram... now try to run XP on that machine... On older machines you could run Legacy XP (although i havent tried it yet so cant say anything about it).

[jezebelus]

Yeah I've used 2000 for a long time and its crap (at least its my opinion). For old machines there is win98 which runs much better

[samwise52]

So in this effort to make a Windows 2000/XP compatible OS, how is the
patching mess going to affect things?

It wont, has nothing to do with anything...

Yeah I've used 2000 for a long time and its crap (at least its my opinion). For old machines there is win98 which runs much better

Your insane, win9x sucks so much that it breaks all the scales. Windows 2000 is also one of the best windows ever.

[Haos]

Depends on machine specs. I was running Win2k first on a 1666 athlon XP, with 512 mem. I was able to outperform similar PC with WinXP.

Win98 is shitty, because of not enough IRQ`s. I wasn`t for example able to run A7N8X Deluxe mobo on 98, without first turning off all of the extra devices, because of lack of free IRQ`s and bad IRQ share handling in Win98SE.

[Stead]

Yeah I've used 2000 for a long time and its crap (at least its my opinion). For old machines there is win98 which runs much better

I feel your either in denial or on drugs, i'm currently running windows 2000 on an old PII 233 chip with 196 mb, once its loaded its just as responsive as any modern computer

windows 2000 as much more responsive than xp I find onthe same machine, but xp has the pretty ness and hte cleartype fonts, if 2000 had cleartype i'd of gone back to 2000 in a heartbeat!

..the only good thing about windows 98 is that you can start flaming microsoft because of all the bluescreens...I mean at its time it was great, but i've never use a 9x os again

...actually, if your on about windows 2000 on old amd or cyrix processors then fair enough, I remember often the installer would fail, and windows would randomly crash, however I belive thats a fault of the processor not windows, as newer versions of the cpu's never had the problem..

[GreatLord]

Hi

I am runing windows 2000, it is allot better that xp´in many area

1. less BSOD for me when I devloping dx, in xp it bsod within single mistake.

2. it is faster req less memory

and allot other advanters,


I am one of them that hate WIndows ME and Windows XP, I have not got any options about vista yet, just start using vista at work.

[Haos]

Sorry, basic requirements.... Win2k requires at least pII450... I wouldn`t also install it on Celeron300. You just lack basic computing power.

[Stead]

For once a microsoft product has its min requirements way to high!, it works fine on a P75 wih 96mb of ram, lower than 96 I find is a bit much tho, again just slow loading but once programs are loaded, actually windows 2000 is more repsonsive than windows NT4 on a P75... (I know this as I actually used it as my main computer for 6 months before)

To me xp is windows 2000 with a service pack, unlike vista, everything that works in xp will work in 2000, the drivers are the same...they just refused to add things like cleartype and zero configuration wireless support, oh and hyper threading...I hate how the refused to add these things in!

Vista on the other hand is completly different to xp, networking drivers are interchangable, but thats about it.

Feel i should shut up and stop replying before some sort of flamewar happens!