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)

Yeah, this does not really mean that 1382 did exist, and if it did, it probably would have been a Windows NT 4.0 post-RTM. Kendrenogen

What was the first build to have the Shutdown Event Tracker?

I saw pictures of the SET in Windows XP build 2211, so it may already was a part in Windows 2000 (though being disabled by default). - 2.204.219.209 17:51, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Not sure which build introduced SET but you can enable it in 2000 RTM by editing the registry like so

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Reliability]
"ShutdownReasonOn"=dword:00000001
"ShutdownReasonUI"=dword:00000001

Xeno (talk) 18:00, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

1877 doesn't have it, but 1946 does have. - 2.204.219.209 10:24, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, alsomsgina has a file version of 5.00.1939 so it's entirely possible that it was introduced sometime in late 193x. Hopefully we can see a leak from this range in the near future Xeno (talk)

Regarding the weird “Windows 2000 personal” thing.

I have a theory on what it could be. It could be what happened to Neptune post Neptune-Odyssey merge. Considering that Neptune was based on 2000 and it was also gonna be NT for consumers, this could be true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NitroGD (talk • contribs)

It is possible, as Whistler branding wasn't introduced until ca. 225x. There is also a Win2000 Personal 64-bit banner in the IA-64 compile of Windows Server 2003 build 2462. In this case however, I think that MS just messed up things. I mean a 64-bit release intended for personal/home usage didn't appear until Vista. Not speaking about IA-64 and AMD64. - Bob2204 Click here to begin. Or here. Talk 18:56, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Windows 2000 IA-64

I have found something that may interest you. The Windows 2000 Server page of Winhistory.de lists two variants of „Advanced Server Limited Edition“ which are designed for Itanium processors. According to the page, it was only distributed to OEMs. The second version 1.2 differed from the initial release in that it added support for Itanium 2 processors. I am curious if these „Limited Editions“ ever existed. - Bob2204 Click here to begin. Or here. Talk - 21:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Correct Your Spelling You said Linited 37.231.30.170 21:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Done. 🙄 - Bob2204 Click here to begin. Or here. Talk - 21:57, 22 May 2023 (UTC)