Talk:Windows 2000

Archives
Archive 1: 2001 – July 2006

No criticisms section?

In my experience, Win 2000 was MUCH slower than Win NT, or even Win 9x for that matter. It also crashed a lot more. Lengis 01:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

IME 2000 needs more memory than 9x. If you run any of them in more than about 128Mbytes I found that Win 98 and Win 2k were about the same speed, Win 2k often felt faster but usually wasn't. OTOH if I run Win 95 on a 600MHz machine WITHOUT "Active desktop" explorer is so very much faster it's still horrible to go back to a modern windows OS and machine. As for crashing 95 (no active desktop) was stable if you didn't mess with it, and didn't use MS-Office; OTOH, Windows 2000 didn't crash unless the video driver was crap. 86.16.135.53 07:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

windows 2000/xp never crashes, windows 9x crashes a lot. so yea, stop being silly 86.135.49.223 23:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that Windows 2000 and-or Windows XP never crashes. Win2k has limits and restrictions with devices and would sometimes freeze or crash when the kernel is loading (splash screen). User:A Raider Like Indiana|A Raider Like Indiana]] 22:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, this is all very silly. Define a "crash"? The Windows 2000 architecture is much better than the Windows 9x architecture, and most crashes that I've seen have been either hardware failure or buggy hardware drivers. With Win9x, you could write a user-space app that would take out the OS. A "criticisms" section, incidently, is not needed as we've incorporated criticisms into the main text. Much more NPOV that way. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Discontinued.

This comes up from time to time, where people insist on removing the Category:Discontinued Microsoft software category from the article. Nobody ever explains why they're removing this, but my guess is that people are making a faulty assumption that somehow Windows 2000 is still somehow current. Let's get this straight: Microsoft does not market, sell, plan to improve upon, or provide support for Windows 2000 anymore, except for critical security updates, self-help via their web site, and paid, per-incident support. Now on Wikipedia, we have this category for software that Microsoft isn't continuing to update, hence the term "discontinued". Wiktionary defines "discontinue" as To stop a process; especially as regards commercial productions; to stop producing, making, or supplying something. ... dictionary.com gives To stop doing or providing (something); end or abandon: discontinued her visits to the museum; discontinued ferry service to the island. and To cease making or manufacturing: discontinued the sportscar in the 1960s.

Frankly, that sounds precisely like Windows 2000 to me. I am fully aware that there are fans of Windows 2000 who hate Windows XP and later products (for whatever reason), and I suspect it's people from that crowd that are somewhat in denial about the fact that Microsoft has pretty much completely moved on from Windows 2000, and are thus changing this article to suit their view. Now if someone wants to argue that "discontinued" in Microsoft parlance means something other than discontinued does in English, then feel free to make a case of it here. In the meantime, I'm going to revert removals of this category and treat it as vandalism. -/- Warren 06:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Proof that Windows 2000 is not Discontinued

Warren, here is a link that supports my reason for taking the Discontinued Microsoft software category off of the Windows 2000 article.

• How to Buy a Windows 2000 Volume license

64.126.42.123 00:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Dude, that page is over five years old. Windows XP and Server 2003 weren't even out when it was published, and if you actually try to follow through on any of the information on that page, you only get access to Windows XP or Server 2003. You cannot purchase Windows 2000 on a volume license agreement these days, nor does Microsoft offer Windows 2000 to OEMs, system builders, or retail channels. What you can do, however, is purchase Windows XP or Server 2003 licenses, and take advantage of downgrade rights to run older operating systems, including NT4, Windows 98 SE, and Windows 95 (but not ME or XP Home) .... but see, that doesn't count; that's there to support people who already have these operating systems and want to be covered by Software Assurance. Read carefully my message above about what "discontinued" means as a word, accept that you're wrong, and move on to something else. -/- Warren 01:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Windows 2000 is not discontinued. It is currently in its Extended Support phase, which means Microsoft is still helping out other users for support. However, Windows 2000 will become discontinued in 2010. A Raider Like Indiana 11:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Overall, the article looks very good to me as it is now. I suggest quit using the word discontinued even though it is correct in it's useage (under one of five definitions of the word.) Instead clarify by using Microsoft's system of "Support Lifecycle" as per: http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?LN=en-us&p1=7274&x=9&y=12 AND http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifepolicy. Microsoft does not use the word discontinued, which is why these other people are moaning (or confused?) It's a silly semantics arguement. The word discontinued sounds a bit "fuzzy" to me considering Microsoft's 3 more years of extended support. Yes, "discontinued" from being able to buy it ( a point easily added to clarify) but not discontinued by Microsoft to the point of no support at all. After all the idea is to create a beautiful www encyclopedia that is as lucid as possible to readers of all walks of life. At the very least the word discontinued should be defined or clarified within the article-as a footnote or between commas within the sentence etc. My 2 cents worth, Lance May

WPA

any chance of a note on lack of WPA, and solutions.. ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.107.93.248 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

DirectX and games

I'm surprised this article does not even mention DirectX. Windows 2000 was the first NT-technology operating system widely adopted by power users partly because of its greatly improved support for DirectX based videogames, which NT 4.0 did not work very well with. Windows 2000 was the first NT-technology operating system to reach near-parity with the non-NT operating systems, in compatibility with the latest videogame releases of the time (even if not always games released before Windows 2000), where power users were holding back from NT 4.0 and other operating systems because of the lack of videogame compatibility. New DirectX updates was now finally being released much more quickly (or simultaneously?), very shortly after the updates released for the non-NT based Windows. Mdrejhon 15:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I added a brief section about this. It's not worth writing too much about it though, since Windows 2000 was primarily a business operating system. I'm pretty sure those features were only added for the sake of Windows XP. Redquark 03:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Ta bu shi da yu 06:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

added criticism section

Was surprised to see this article made it to FA status without containing a "criticism" section; I've made a start on one. Sdedeo (tips) 01:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I renamed the section to "security flaws", since that's what almost all the criticisms were about. As for the Scientology investigation thing, I don't think that's notable enough to mention since nothing came out of it. Redquark 03:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

How is that note about scientology possibly a CRITICISM of Microsoft??

Sure, np. It would be nice to get some statistics on patches, etc. Sdedeo (tips) 04:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Market share?

Just how dominant was Windows 2000 during its heyday compared to its competitors (Novell, Linux and commercial Unix I guess)? It would be relevant to have some market share percentages in the article. Redquark 03:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

No information on source leak?

This article doesn't have any information on the Win2K source leak which took place withink the past two years or so- I don't know enough offhand to edit, but this should be fixed by someone in the know. Scott! 10:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe that should be in a separate article, if it isn't already. It's newsworthy, but I don't think its central enough to be in the main article. Oh, and I'm not in the know...Ojcit 02:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

"Windows 2000 Source Leak" redirects to this article. If this article contains no information about it, the redirection should be elimintated. 68.102.127.239 17:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I added a short section on the source leak under "History". Wesha 18:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

History

"The only elements of the Windows project which were included in Windows 2000 were the ability to upgrade from Windows 95 or Windows 98, and support for the FAT32 file system." What does this actually mean? 'the Windows project' is vague and odd - is it calling Windows Neptune 'the Windows project'? It seems erroneous in that case, as Windows 2000 is just as much a Windows project as Neptune was, surely? And I didn't get the impression that Windows 2000 was developed from Windows Neptune from the article, so why would elements of Project Neptune be included in Window 2000? Does it in fact mean to say 'The only elements of Windows Neptune that were included in Windows XP were...'? Whatever it is, I think it needs clarifying. Scatterkeir 21:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I also assume that neptune is the windows project that sentance refers to. Also, Neptune came after Windows 2000, designed to be the successor to ME, using Windows 2000 as its base to prevent stability issues. And also, it can't be XP, as included more elements from netpune than is listed. -- From derangedfirewire --- 17:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I have removed this material. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Why is this article semi-protected? Per Semiprotection#When not to use semi-protection, the FA should almost never be semi-protected. I suggest the tag should be removed. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 10:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, except that people evidently aren't watching the page carefully enough. A huge bit of vandalism escaped for several hours. Maybe if admins or others can be more diligent? And besides, as this is semi-protection I am not stopping vandals. You should also be aware that this article was on the main page and was being attack via a concerted effort. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

OK. Sounds like you were unlucky if vandalism wasn't spotted for several hours; normally vandalism to the FA gets removed in a matter of minutes. I realise it was on the main page - more than that; it was the FA - that was my point. Semiprotection of the FA is normally frowned upon because:

• the FA is invariably improved by being the FA;
• vandalism is normally spotted and removed quickly;
• it goes against the WP ethos - first-time visitors should be able to come to the site and see how easy it is to make constructive changes.

However, I don't have a stake in the article like you do, so I'm relaxed about your retaining the tag. Now that it's no longer the FA, though, the vandalism will surely abate. I just thought I'd better make you aware of the semiprotection policy, in case you weren't already. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 13:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Richard, I realise you probably didn't mean to do this, but it seems to me you're lecturing me about semi-protection and FA articles! Believe me, I'm well aware of when and when not to apply protection to articles. I've placed the article under semi-protection for a few hours, I'm about to go to bed however. If someone wants to remove it while I'm asleep, that would be fine. If people could watch it after it is unprotected, that would be great. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

You're right, I'm not lecturing you at all. Sleep well :-) --Richardrj ^{talk email} 13:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Subsystems

It says there are 3 subsystems in user mode, but then lists a fourth, the integral subsystem. Might that information be better listed elsewhere? I'm not qualified to judge its notability. Ojcit 02:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there are two main subsystems of user mode Windows 2000: environmental and integral. It actually says that the environmental subsystem has three subsystems of its own. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Development of Windows 2000

I created the article, Development of Windows 2000, but is incomplete yet. Please help to retrive from SuperSite: http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/win2k_gold.asp

--Jigs41793 12:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Um, I noticed the page is a red link.. FYI

--Illyria05-- 00:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

217.235.244.45's Recent Edit

Hi, I was just now correcting some grammar errors, and I was curious as to what 217.235.244.45 added, as the person did not include an edit summary (this is their edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Windows_2000&oldid=98656925), and I noticed that NTFS 5 was changed to NTFS 3, I do not know anything really about that, but I thought it was noteworthy to talk about here.. You decide.. --Illyria05-- 00:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The NTFS versioning thing is a bit of a pain. It's mostly explained in the NTFS article, but to summarise, calling it version 3 (for the on-disk format) and version 5 (for the OS it ships with) are both correct. We should go with whatever is most prevalent in the sources we use. -/- Warren 01:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

This is correct, and why I didn't revert (I have a watch on this article). --Ta bu shi da yu 20:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, okay, thanks, I just was not sure, and I do not know much about NTFS versioning anyway.. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 01:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Service packs?

Ive heard people say that windows 2000 SP2 and 3 ran faster than SP4. Someone even said they were more secure than SP4. Is there any truth to any of this? Just curious. Mr toasty 21:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Windows 2000 SP4 is said to be slower than SP3 as well as less stable. However, SP4 allows for some new security updates not avalible to SP3 such as the Update Rollup 1. This update includes some final bug fixes and security updates to Windows 2000 and can only be downloaded on machines running the SP4. Further more, June 30th 2005 marked the end of support for SP3. Because of this, all current security hotfixes install only on Windows 2000 SP4. This means that SP4 is probably more secure overall. Jdlowery 04:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Did window 2000 have a firewall and how can I access it?

I have looked around for a firewall for one of our server without success. It runs 2000, and haven't thought of messing around with firewall till today. On XP, this is obvious, which make me suspect 2000 may not have had a firewall. Is this feeling correct? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.128.164.51 (talk) 14:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

First, this is not a question/answers forum. Please don't post such questions on here.

In response to your question, the answer is yes and no. There is no 'simple' interface for configuration, but you can craft IPSec rules - take a look at this.-Localzuk^(talk) 16:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

"Discontinued" status

If a product is still being supported (even though extended support), then how can you call it discontinued? - Ta bu shi da yu 01:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Microsoft no longer markets, sells, or fully supports Windows 2000 any more. Extended support is provided, but you can no longer go to a computer store and purchase Windows 2000 software from a shelf, let alone order it from Microsoft. Extended support is given as a second phase of support giving large businesses more time to migrate from a product.See Microsoft Lifecycle Policy for more details. Jdlowery 04:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

What I am trying to say is: it is not entirely discontinued if it is still being supported. I'm not sure what part of the product you can call discontinued if you can still continue to get support for it. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Look up "discontinue" in the dictionary... you're going to find definitions like "to stop manufacturing something, usually a particular model or type of product". The way we're using the word here is correct. Leave it alone. -/- Warren 09:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, manufacturing. "Manufacturing, a branch of industry, is the application of tools and a processing medium to the transformation of raw materials into finished goods for sale." Given that if extended support is provided for a product, which means bug fixes (mostly security fixes, granted), then I believe that this would fall within this definition. Technically they are still developing the product. Incidently, do you feel like a big man by trying to belittle me? - Ta bu shi da yu 08:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The last two words, "for sale", are the key here. Microsoft is no longer selling Windows 2000. -/- Warren 22:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. This is a stupid argument. They still sell support. But hey, if you want inaccurate information in Wikipedia (and on an article I worked bloody hard on) then you go right ahead. If you want to belittle me in the edit history, you go right ahead. Bloody Wikipedia. I'm getting quite disillusioned. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Selling support for a product is not the same as selling a product. Anyways, you've been reverted multiple times by multiple people. Doesn't that tell you something? If you'd rather blame "bloody Wikipedia" than accept that you're wrong on this issue, that's fine... just remember to hand in your mop before you leave. -/- Warren 16:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem, happy to do so. Hope you enjoyed your fun, I'm leaving. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Discontinued is not the same as unsupported. — Alex^(T|C|E) 09:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Prove that. They are continuing to support Windows 2000, therefore it is not a discontinued product! Sheesh. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

wiktionary:discontinue: To stop a process; especially as regards commercial productions; to stop producing, making, or supplying something.

They're not supplying Windows 2000 anymore, are they? — Alex^(T|C|E) 07:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The process is support of Windows 2000. They are supplying things like bugfixes for those who get extended support. Sure, they aren't selling new copies anymore, but it's the process of supporting the product in the extended lifecycle that makes it a continued product. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

No, for example, parts for a car are available for a while after a car is discontinued. Not the same but still... Supported? In a way. Discontinued? Yes. — Alex^(T|C|E) 09:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Can I just point out that if you have access to the MSDN Academic Alliance, Windows 2000 with SP4 is stil available for download. So Id say its not quite discontinued Ludicro 23:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

System Requirements

I'm having a bit of trouble finding this, what are the requirements for Windows 2000:Server? Peachey88 05:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Same as they are for Windows 2000 Professional. However, it's tough to say what is recommended, as it depends on what you are doing with the server. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking about just running a couple of brief roaming profiles (maybe six/sevenish at the most) just to try out and muck around with

Common functionality section

Image:Win2000 logo.png is common to all versions of Windows 2000. I don't see what the harm of having this there. To be honest, I think the whole screenshot debacle is ridiculous. I can understand the valid controversy over the category, but the logo? Come on! Perhaps we could all do so some real and productive work on articles? - Ta bu shi da yu 03:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, I was a bit out of line with the last comment. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Even though the logo is common to all versions of Windows 2000, it still has nothing to do with their common functionality. (Isn't that obvious?) If it's considered an offense even to relocate an image from one irrelevant section to another, then I'm giving up. --tyomitch 21:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Please don't give up. I was a little too harsh (annoyed!). I apologise if I've caused you too much grief. My intention wasn't to cause you to stop editing the article! - Ta bu shi da yu 14:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Common functionality

Currently the introduction states that "All editions of Windows 2000 have common functionality". I think I understand what this is trying to say, but it could be read to imply that all editions of Windows 2000 are identical. Perhaps it could say "a core set of common functionalities", or "a certain degree of common functionality", but as I am not an expert on Windows 2000 I would prefer an expert to make that edit. -Ashley Pomeroy 20:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

No, that sounds reasonable. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Screenshot... again

I'd really like to hear a good reason as to why a 1024x768 screenshot is better than an 800x600 screenshot for demonstrating the basic Windows 2000 desktop. We have a tendency on other articles to show the "first use" screen, and the screenshot with the Windows 2000 welcome screen does this ably and clearly. It should not be replaced. -/- Warren 04:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, it's a fair use image and should be lower resolution. Nevertheless, I don't see what the argument is, whether it is 1024x768 doesn't matter. So what if it is 1024x768 or 800x600? Secondly, we don't have that tendency at all. Please see Windows XP, Windows NT 4.0 and Windows Vista. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

What exactly are the advantages of Image:Win2000.PNG over Image:Windows 2000 Professional.png? The disadvantages are already listed (high resolution, mostly empty). --tyomitch 14:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Now look here, this isn't a contest, I only changed the picture twice! And the advantages of a higher, less detailed screenshot? For one thing, it's cleaner, and 1024x768 was the recommended resolution at the time. 800x600 is the default, true, but that applies to all Windows 95-xp systems; it is also alot less pleasing to the eye, as it has a cluttered look. Astroview120mm 23:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Darn it, you guys. There was a previous discussion about it and consensus was reached. In addition to that, the default resolution of Windows 2000 is 800 by 600, not 1024 by 768. Would you give it a rest and leave the screenshot per previous consensus? I'm reverting to User:tyomitch's version because it was previously agreed on. This one is still disputed. Discuss it here. — Alex^(U|C|E) 00:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

No, darn it yourself. There are three editors here who don't like the screenshot, mainly because it's cluttered. Consensus has not been reached! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I never said it was 1024x768. I said it was recommended. Where's the other discussion?Astroview120mm 01:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

If that was indeed the "recommended" resolution, do cite the source for this "recommendation"; it could possibly make a valuable addition to the article. --tyomitch 07:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

To me, Tyomitch's screen shot isn't a good. It's not a default installation of Windows 2000. Service Pack 4 was not integrated with any Win2000 CD. Windows XP, however came with their service packs integrated in its CD. The "Make Program Default" option in the start menu wasn't added until SP4. I think it should be reverted back to its original state. A Raider Like Indiana 01:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Why nitpick on something that small? Not all screenshots are taken this way, loads of screenshots on Wikipedia have something like Messenger running in the system tray. Does anybody complain about that? I don't think so. Just leave this issue alone, it is a good screenshot. — Alex^(U|C|E) 02:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree with Raider. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Right above on this talk page, User:Ludicro noted that Windows 2000 with integrated SP4 is available for download under the MSDNAA program. And in fact, they sent out very physical discs with Windows 2000 SP4 to MSDNAA subscribers; and that's exactly the way how I obtained the OS for the screenshot. Even if Windows 2000 SP4 wasn't sold in retail boxes, my screenshot does show the very friggin' default installation of Win2000. --tyomitch 07:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

They also sent out discs with 2k+SP4 to volume license customers such as businesses and schools.-Localzuk^(talk) 07:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer the version uploaded by Tyomitch. While the other screenshot is less populated, it is a bit too sparse. Much of the shot is nothing but a blank stretch of blue. Why waste so much space? Instead having something which is unique to Win 2K is better. And the welcome screen is such a thing which adds to the identity without resorting to any application included with Windows 2k. As for the resolution, we are trying to show how Windows 2000 looks like without being modified to the likes (or needs) of the user. So, we should prefer the default resolution, though I would not object to a 1024x768 one. --soum ^talk 10:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. OK, I'll rollback my change. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Sigh... I guess I'll have to admit defeat, don't I? Astroview120mm 00:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

If you disagree, then put the original image back. Just because Warrens wants to bully, doesn't mean he's right. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Not a lot of people have are subscribers to MSDNAA. I recommend Windows 2000 without its service pack installed (for the screen shot). Meaning, revert the screen shot back to its original state. A Raider Like Indiana 13:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

But a lot of people are VL customers (see above). And Win2000 SP4 was available to OEMs. [1] [2] [3] (Couldn't you do a Google search yourself?) --tyomitch 04:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Feel free. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Ta bu shi da yu, what's up with the aggression toward Warren? If you don't agree with something I suggest you resolve things peacefully and without edit warring. If Wikipedia is stressing you out, go take a Wikibreak. Nobody's forcing you to stay here if you don't want to. And I don't see how one window could be considered cluttered. You guys are using the argument I used a while back, and it's a bit fishy. — Alex^(U|C|E) 02:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Aggression? What aggression? I'm going to ignore this comment. I should point out that Warren has battled with me over many aspects of this article. As for being fishy, ah well, that's up to you if you think that. So much for WP:ASSUME though. And I do consider the window to be cluttered - so do others. Unless you think that this is fishy also. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I've rolled out my next version of Win2000.PNG; it is now Win2000.png and desplays Welcome.exe, the start menu, desktop, and an explorer Window. Should we try that one? - Astroview120mm 05:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I still don't understand why we're stepping away from 800x600. — Alex^(U|C|E) 07:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Here are my reasons for liking Tyomitch's screenshot better: first of all, it displays Windows 2000 at the default resolution. All of the windows are sized for that resolution, as you can see in Astroview's screenshot (the window doesn't take up the whole desktop but sits in the corner). In addition to that, At a higher resolution, Windows 2000's windows tend to go a bit off-center, making the screenshot look a bit weird. Tyomitch's screenshot only has one window open, and demosntrates the start menu. Many people have more than one window open at a time, and use the start menu repeatedly. In addition to that, the Windows Vista screenshot has a similar layout while drawing no complaints from anybody. That doesn't make too much sense to me. — Alex^(U|C|E) 07:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to know why an 800x600 picture is better than a 1024x768 one. I mean, it's more detailed and includes an explorer window. I know 800x600 is original, but... yeah. I've probably said this tons of times, it's way to small and cluttered (that's because the small size combined with the large start menu and welcome screen makes the picture look a bit messy.) Astroview120mm 03:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

1. High resolution screenshots produce blurry detailless thumbnails. Besides, the fair-use policy presumably requires us to use as little unfree content as possible, and stuffing too many objects into a screenshot goes against this guideline.
2. The Explorer window has been rejected by what seemed to be consensus a while ago. See the image talk page that I referenced earlier.
3. Whether or not SP4 is "original" does not matter. The article covers all versions of Win2000, not just the RTM release. The Windows XP has a screenshot of SP2 (with the Media Player version even newer than SP2, btw), and noone objects. --tyomitch 07:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is very true, but we need a more classic, more original look. We also need the explorer window to show readers what an Windows explorer looks like in Windows 2000. Astroview120mm 06:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Break

Mediation-style: I'd like to know where everybody stands. People who oppose the current screenshot (A Raider Like Indiana, Ta bu shi da yu, and Astroview120mm), please list your criteria for a good screenshot below, including what you consider is important (such as resolution or what makes a screenshot look less cluttered). — Alex^(U|C|E) 07:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

User:A Raider Like Indiana

User:Ta bu shi da yu

• It's ridiculous to say that 800x600 is any better than 1024x768 when it comes to fair use. If you look at the screenshots, they are the original resolutions. Fair use implies that the quality will be lesser than the original. Fundamental misunderstanding of how fair use works. If you want to use that argument, then you'll shrink the image to something like 400x300.

In my comment above, I noted that (as far as I understand) the fair use requirement is to use as little unfree content as possible, and going up in resolution just as means of stuffing more objects into the screenshot violates this requirement. It has nothing to do with the resolution per se. IANAL, but anyway. --tyomitch 06:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

In that case, please review fair use for the criteria. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

In case you actually meant WP:FU, then I'm referring to the item 3(a) now. --tyomitch 06:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope, I'm talking about fair use. In particular, the 17 U.S.C. § 107, item 3 "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole". Like I say, it doesn't matter it if is 800x600 or 1024x768, the amount is practically the same! - Ta bu shi da yu 09:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe that "the copyrighted work as a whole" in this case means Windows 2000, whose copyrighted GUI elements got captured, and not just the single screenshot as an indivisible item. (But once again, IANAL.) According to my interpretation, a screenshot with (for example) 20 icons has twice the "amount of the portion used" compared to a screenshot with 10 icons, regardless of their actual resolutions. --tyomitch 09:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that an 800x600 screenshot with 10 icons is more legal than a 1024x768 screenshot with 20 icons? Come on! That's ridiculous. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, exactly like that. (I think the whole FU policy is ridiculous when applied to self-made screenshots, but we nevertheless have to comply.) --tyomitch 11:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, I don't think this matters. At 800x600 you haven't sampled it at a lower resolution, you have still sampled it at the same resolution as the original! - Ta bu shi da yu 10:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

(indentation reset) I have sampled less of it. Should I repeat the whole story again? The screenshot is not the "original copyrighted work"; it's Windows 2000 which is the "original copyrighted work".

(Microsoft doesn't own copyright to our screenshots of their software. They only own copyright to the bitmaps, icons and text that got captured. If there's none of their IP, such as icons, in the screenshot, then I'm free to release it as PD-self even though it's technically a Windows screenshot.) --tyomitch 17:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Original theme, on top of this it doesn't have SP4 features in it.
• Prominently branded as Windows 2000 Professional in the start bar.
• The compromise image has windows open in it. Shows blue screen, but also has Windows explorer in it. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Astroview120mm

I have changed the picture for now so you guys can see what it looks like with the article.

The old image was too small and I think a change would be nice. - Astroview120mm 06:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Please don't put the screenshot into the article, disucssion isn't over. — Alex^(U|C|E) 01:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

All right, fine. I'll just give you my point of view.

• It's got a higher resolution, meaning there will be better detail on close-ups.
• The new picture has both the welcome screen and an explorer window.
• It has prominent "Windows 2000"s in the picture, on the Start Menu, and on the Welcome window.
• No traces of SP4 (No set program defaults). It's more original.
• Has a large, clean look and feel. Not small and/or messy.

user:Astroview120mm|Astroview120mm]]06:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Warren

• Arguments along the lines of "better detail on close-ups" are completely invalid. There aren't any more details to show after 800x600 with Windows 2000!
• 800x600 also looks better when resized to thumbnail size than 1024x768. How the screenshot looks within the article is extremely important.
• Arguments along the lines of "Set Program Access And Defaults doesn't belong" are also completely invalid. We tend to show the latest version or service release on other operating system screenshots -- Windows XP's screenshot shows SP2, Mac OS X v10.4's has been routinely updated with newer versions, and so forth. OEMs most certainly did sell machines with the extra menu item: SP3 and SP4 were also available as an install option for years from vendors like Dell to users that weren't ready to move to Server 2003 or Windows XP. Just so we're clear about something here, this menu item was added in service pack 3, not 4.
• Windows Explorer doesn't belong in the default screenshot. We can use multiple screenshots to demonstrate specific applications if need be... there's absolutely no need whatsoever to complicate the default screenshot with additional applications. The subject matter is complicated enough as it is without also using complicated screenshots.

-/- Warren 09:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

What I mean by close-ups is when you zoom in on the the 1024x768 image, it will be more focused and not blurry or anything. Astroview120mm 03:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Another thing -- it could be argued that the Getting Started screen shouldn't be included at all, because it's only included with the Professional edition of Windows 2000. The server editions don't have this screen.[4] Likewise with Set Program Access and Defaults.[5] If both these things are left out, we'd have a screenshot that fairly reasonably represents all editions of Windows 2000. Which, by the way, describes the screenshot we had for quite some time. I should know -- I uploaded it a year ago.[6] -/- Warren 10:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I largely agree. I never agreed with the getting "start" screen on that new screenshot, or on the old one! - Ta bu shi da yu 11:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Just so we are clear, do you mean a screenshot like this one? - Ta bu shi da yu 11:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Akhristov

User:tyomitch

• Low resolution (otherwise the thumbnail is too blurry, and stuffing too many objects into the screenshot makes the fair-use claim fainter)
• Default appearance scheme, no additional software visible
• Prominently branded as Windows 2000 (either Start menu or System properties or About Windows visible)
• A window or two open, to avoid the solid blue background occupying most of the image area —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyomitch (talk • contribs) 05:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Soumyasch

Another break

Actually, how about we also list those who oppose our screenshot? Mediation requires the feedback of all parties. Why should we be the only ones to justify ourselves?!? No offense, but you make it sound like we are the ones causing all the problems. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to do that a tad bit later. I want to hear out the people who oppose the new screenshot first. — Alex^(U|C|E) 07:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, what are you waiting for? You're telling me to hear out your point of view and you seem a bit reluctant to show it. — Alex^(U|C|E) 01:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

What about you? At least one of us has made our move; why don't you guys go ahead? Astroview120mm 01:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, what about it Alex? It's all very well for you to demand that I respond in a manner that suits you, but I don't see Warrens or any other party adding their comment. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I will comment soon. I'm waiting for everybody to get their comments in before I'll proceed, but I might comment before then. I'll see. But I won't be the one holding this up. — Alex^(U|C|E) 09:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I'm thinking about having involved people (who made a statement) comment on other statements after everybody's done. After that, we'll work on a compromise. — Alex^(U|C|E) 09:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I have now. -/- Warren 09:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

---