|
| Microsoft Windows 2000 Professional Upgrade [OLD VERSION] | ![Microsoft Windows 2000 Professional Upgrade [OLD VERSION]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/71FE5ZCNT9L._SL160_.gif)
 enlarge | From: Microsoft Software
Category: Software
List Price: $319.00
Buy New: $89.00
You Save: $230.00 (72%)
New (10) Used (9) from $62.00
Avg. Customer Rating:  124 reviews
Sales Rank: 1623
Format: Cd-rom
Platform: Windows 2000
Color: Microsoft Windows 2000 Professional
Media: CD-ROM
Edition: Professional Upgrade
Autographed: No
Memorabilia: No
Shipping Weight (lbs): 3
Dimensions (in): 9.6 x 7.7 x 1.9
MPN: B23-00079
Model: B23-00079
UPC: 013803044881
EAN: 0013803044881
ASIN: B00003JAU7
Release Date: February 17, 2000
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
|
| Customer Reviews:
WIN2K = relatively reliable Windows OS May 28, 2007
2 out of 2 found this review helpful
2000 Professional is relatively stable. It is less of a hog than Windows XP (although you can alter XP settings to optimize it for your particular PC).
It has the simple look of Windows 98, but it does not crash as often. 2000 is based on NT technology, a precursor of XP (unlike
Windows 2000 Professional will receive security patches until 2010. So if you buy it now, it will be officially secure until 2010.
You must take a few steps when installing this OS.
1. Download all windows updates.
2. Firewall. Zone Alarm's free firewall works well
3. Antivirus -- antivirus software is mandatory, try symantec corporate edition.
 Windows Getting Better & Milenium and 2000 were the worst ideas January 16, 2007
3 out of 4 found this review helpful
You actually think that windows2000 is stable and the XPs aren't? That is talking backwards. It is the other way around. I have used the XPs for 4 years and they have never crashed on me, but Millenium and 2000 have been always a hassle to my family and friends. There is nothing stable about either of those two. Maybe it is because I am a programmer, maybe not, but I do know this, what you are saying is wrong. The GUI in XP can be changed back to the original 95, 98, Millenium, and 2000 GUI so it doesn't take up extra resources. Have you tried doing that yet? Millenium and 2000 were not the successors of 98 2nd and WinNT 4.0 either; they were temps until the "true" successors, the "XPs", came out. If you believe they were the successors, then you need to do more homework on the subject, and using Microsoft as a refference is useless because they will tell you what ever they want you to know, whether lie or not.
 the best version of Windows, bar none September 24, 2006
8 out of 8 found this review helpful
I have used just about every version of Windows. These are my observations.
1. Windows 98. Windows 98 was easy on the memory-hogging a/v pizazz, but where Windows 98 ultimately fails is in the security department. I expect my OS to be secure. In addition, I expect my OS to be stable. Windows 98 frequently crashes...sometimes for what seems like no reason at all! Windows 98 fails these tests.
2. Windows XP. Windows XP is based on the stable Windows NT architecture, but XP fails with me on several issues. The first issue is too much a/v pizazz in the GUI. I want an OS with a GUI that "just works" without any frilly stuff. Number two, Windows XP has been very suspectible to security flaws since its release. And number three, Windows XP is not as stable as Windows 2000 Professional and crashes from time to time. So Windows XP fails these tests.
3. Linux. I mainly use Xandros and Linspire as my choices of Linux distributions. Linux was built to be secure and stable. Xandros and Linspire are both secure and stable, but sometimes their GUIs (the KDE desktop environment) seem memory-hogging. Ubuntu Linux has a GUI called GNOME which isn't as memory-hogging, but GNOME just doesn't feel the same as Windows. I don't consider any of these Linux distributions to fail my test because I use Linux more than any other OS, including Windows 2000 Professional.
4. Windows 2000 Professional. Windows 2000 Professional offers me many security options...even though a good firewall and antivirus tool helps out more, Windows 2000 Professional was BUILT to be secure and stable. Windows 98 crashed like a mofo, and Windows XP likes to crash from time to time. I have yet to have Windows 2000 Professional to crash on me. In addition, Windows 2000 Professional gives me a GUI which doesn't rely on frilly nonsense...the a/v pizazz I mentioned above.
Windows 2000 Professional is an OS that is stable, secure, and "just works". Next to the very secure and stable Linux distributions, you can't go wrong with Windows 2000 Professional.
windows 2000 professional April 21, 2006
3 out of 6 found this review helpful
I THINK WINDOWS 2000 PROFESSIONAL IS VERY HIGH ON SECURITY IT HAS BEEN VERY GOOD FOR ME I HAVE USED IT FOR 1 MONTH NOW AND HAS BEEN VERY GOOD. FROM JUDITH NOTHDURFT
Another Failure in the Windows Scepter January 31, 2006
3 out of 37 found this review helpful
Windows is crud, and everybody knows that. Windows 2000 is chief among the hall of failure. First, it has a blocky, chunky GUI. Second, EVERY TIME you lauch it, it prompts you with this ridiculous "Welcome to Windows 2000" statement. Welcome me to binary code? Wow, how appealing. Besides the fact that even if you check the box that say "Don't show this again", it continues to show it. Third, the "Open Microsoft document" option in the Start menu never works. It always says that it can't open it. The library is obviously faulty. Fourth, the Microsoft Office Applications ALWAYS have to do a "Connecting with Microsoft Office SR-Standard" message, which you promptly have to cancel, because it will cycle between connection and cancellation. Fifth, the bundled version of Internet Explorer does not allow you to redirect in websites. I know this because whenever I open my Yahoo! e-mail, I always have to click the link on the page that says "If you see this page, your browser prevents you from redirecting to other websites." Sixth, you cannot open files from a server or external drive without opening Microsoft and using Ctrl+O. It's a mess. It is (like other Windows OSs) completely unfriendly to the use of ',`,~,,, and so on. Seventh, there are very ambiguous shortcuts...in which case you might as well go to the symbols palette, which is nearly impossible to decipher because of the hundreds upon hundreds of tiny Unicode characters packed into tabular format.
So just don't buy it. If you do, either you're poor or stupid.
|
|
|
Copyright
©
2006 Adminpal LLC | |
