October 1st, 2002 01:36 AM
Windows 2000, banned
Now this is just typically Microsoft. I came across this article on Lockergnome, which can be found HERE.
Although this is a security site, I'm more a designer. Is win2000 really that bad or is it just me? Tell me what you think about it.
The Windows 2000 operating system, although used by only a few residents, was primarily responsible for hundreds of major problems on UCSB's residential network during the 2001-2 academic year. Residents' computers were compromised with several well-known vulnerabilities and used for all manner of unfriendly purposes such as the installation of viruses like Code Red and Nimda on other residents' computers, denial of service attacks, and port scanning.
For this academic year, ResNet staff determined that it is in the best interests of the entire UCSB ResNet community that this operating system not be used. As of the beginning of Fall Quarter, Windows 2000 (and Windows NT 4.0) cannot be used on ResNet. We recommend that users of Windows 2000/NT switch to Windows XP Home. Residential Computer Consultants will be available to assist with these upgrades, and Windows XP Home is available in the UCSB Bookstore at student rates. Students on financial aid can receive an augmentation of their award to cover the cost of the upgrade.
Greetz & Respect
October 1st, 2002 01:54 AM
I use windows 2000 at home and at school, and I havent had any problems with it. I've only seen my home computer with w2kp lock up maybe 10 times since I've had it, and its about a year and a half old. It sounds to me like they werent updating and keeping up with patches, which is no reason to ditch one of the better OS's microsoft has made IMHO.
You're not your post count, You're not your avatar or sig, You're not how fast your internet connection is, You are not your processor, hard drive, or graphics card. You're the all-singing, all-dancing crap of AO
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
October 1st, 2002 02:49 AM
Well, I also used 2k, and I have to say that from my experience, WinXP is more stable. But hey, I used 2k in a time when I didn't had inet, so I don't really know how stability is now.
October 1st, 2002 03:14 AM
I've had xp home for about 8 months now. Prior to that I had 2000. Taking an 8 month spread of 2000 and comparing it to xp, I'd say xp is a little more stable. I had 2000 freeze maybe 3 times during the previous 8 months before I upgraded. XP has stopped once since I installed it.
Given the opportunity to have either, I'd go with xp, but I wouldn't be mad if I had to stay with 2000.
October 1st, 2002 05:27 AM
Ha! I'm just glad I don't go to USCB!
I mean, seriously, I can understand why they're doing that, but I also think they're looking in the wrong place for answers: As I see it, if you can't secure the hosts, secure the network. I think they should put more effort in implementing network protection features like a firewall or IDS or even plain simple router ACLs. While building a restrictive rulset without disturbing accepted activites like online games can be difficult, they should at least put router ACLs to deny inbound access to port 80 (blocking code red/nimda), or better, run an IDS with adaptive firewalling or connection killing (tcp rst) capabilities.
My point is, you can only secure what you can control.
Credit travels up, blame travels down -- The Boss
October 1st, 2002 05:28 AM
S.D., rest easy. W2K with all the updates and patches in place, and set according to the best policy is a good OS, especially for those of us who did not start out with **Nix 15 yrs ago. W2K is better than any previous MS OS, and if you pay attention it has very few problems. The problems mentioned in UCSB ResNet are the fault of the operators, as well as apparently an Admin that knows not how to point the members to help sources.
...... Besides, as far ask i can find out, it's the last OS where you don't have to phone Bill every time you need to reload your next larger harddrive or your next generation hardware, among other things.