Talk:Windows 2000

Unification?
"This was the last NT - based version before the unification of the Windows NT and DOS-based line."

I question this line, and the logic behind it. Maybe the multimedia features from Windows Me were added to NT client Operating Systems, but I fail to see how there was some form of merger. Microsoft did not release any more 9x-based OSs after WinMe, and Windows NT has had the WOWEXEC subsystem for quite some time. I don't believe Microsoft has (except for maybe some settings tweaks for the "Compatibility Mode" introduced in WinXP), imported any additional code from 9x, thus warranting NT specific compiles of software for many years... User99672 (talk) 03:59, 24 November 2015 (GMT)
 * Perhaps that isn't correct actually? 120.144.135.20 06:16, 24 November 2015 (GMT)
 * That was my insinuation...that the suggestion of a unification is incorrect. User99672 (talk) 06:52, 24 November 2015 (GMT)
 * @User99672: There's no need to say it that way. Tau Ceti (talk) 09:07, 25 November 2015 (GMT)
 * There absolutely is. You post a confusing, vague question, in which the context cannot be understood. I legitimately cannot tell if you're criticizing me, or agreeing with me. In the case of the ladder, don't you have something more to add? User99672 (talk) 18:30, 25 November 2015 (GMT)
 * Indeed, the "unification" was mostly just marketing. XP did take features from Win9x though, I can mention the Category view of the Control Panel, or System Restore. Most likely it was just a reimplementation of the at the time Win9x only features to make Whistler equivalent to the older line in terms of features. --08:01, 27 November 2015 (GMT)
 * If there were features from 9x in XP then it counts, surely? Tau Ceti (talk) 00:48, 29 November 2015 (GMT)
 * The extent of what is a re-implementation and what is straight borrowed really is quite variable between each and every feature. User99672 (talk) 01:17, 30 November 2015 (GMT)

Suggestion
Why don't we spin off the server builds into a separate page? Or at least group together their builds into a separate section? --2.28.175.216 20:59, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Why though? Windows 2000 Professional and Server SKUs were technically not separate versions of Windows and don't need different pages for these versions. We might as well then do the same for every Windows NT build before it and split the SKUs of every Windows version as a separate build. BF10 (talk) 21:38, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Simple answer. Do we have pages for seperate SKUs? No. --LilShootDawg (talk) 22:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Builds Source

 * Windows 2000 Build 1909.1 : https://groups.google.com/d/msg/microsoft.public.winnt50.beta.general/LFFlTKlfd5s/Nb827nlyMIUJ
 * Windows 2000 Build 2134.1 and 2179.1 in this text file : https://urlz.fr/9z6q --Jajan131 (talk) 14:57, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Those versions in the text file are literally taken from the file versions of random system files. Not exactly a good source eh.--Overdoze (talk) 15:15, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Possible unleaked build
Hey, I think I've found evidence of a possible build 1382. https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/openspecs/windows_protocols/ms-rprn/e81cbc09-ab05-4a32-ae4a-8ec57b436c43 Diyamund (talk) 22:22, 29 October 2021 (UTC)