[tomasz86]

I'm thinking about "transplanting" a few useful functionalities of XP/2003 to Win2k. Please keep in mind that I'm not a programmer so I haven't got any skills to modify/recompile system files, etc.

At the moment I'm thinking about two things:

- MDAC 2.82 (2.8 SP2) from Win2003
- Volume Shadow Copy (VSS) from XP

I've had just a brief look at them and I think there shouldn't be any serious problems with MDAC. In case of VSS the current XP files have dependency problems... but the older files from XP beta (Whistler) seem to be compatible. I'm also thinking about IIS 6.0 but I've got no idea about the IIS itself and can't test it. If there's anyone interested and willing to be a tester please tell me about it.

In this topic I'd just like to ask all of you for ideas. Are there are any particular features you would like to have?

This post has been edited by tomasz86: 06 July 2012 - 05:06 PM

[otetz]

tomasz86 hello,
I'm not a programmer or anything such, however, I'm following w2k thread because I really appreciate what you're doing. I would just like to let you know that you are doing is really in need. Wish I could help. Thank you very much for doing it!

[tomasz86]

Thank you very much for sharing your opinion

For this particular topic you don't actually need any advanced programming skills. If there are any XP / 2003 features which you think may be useful to have in Win2k then just list them. We'll try to see if it's possible to port them.

[Tommy]

Did we ever try System Restore? I think that would be a super helpful thing for many people.

[tomasz86]

I've thought about it but doing so would require VSS (already mentioned in #1) to work... and I can't get it to work (already tried several different versions but no success). The service just doesn't start Win2k.

[Sp0iLedBrAt]

How much is IIS and its available tools really used outside of a domain / working environment?

[Tommy]

It's interesting, Wikipedia says that Shadow Copy is available for Windows 2000.

Whether it is what you need or something a little different, I'm not sure. http://en.wikipedia....iki/Shadow_Copy

Nonetheless, it says that it is available.

[tomasz86]

Sp0iLedBrAt, on 26 December 2012 - 07:57 AM, said:

How much is IIS and its available tools really used outside of a domain / working environment?

Frankly speaking, I've got no idea. The reason why I mentioned IIS6 is that Windows 2000 comes with IIS5 anyway so I thought that it might be nice to have it updated to the newer version. I don't know whether it will be possible as I did check IIS6 files some time ago and there were some unfixed dependencies.

SearanoX, on 26 December 2012 - 08:32 AM, said:

It's interesting, Wikipedia says that Shadow Copy is available for Windows 2000.

I think it's only about Shadow Copy Client

[Sp0iLedBrAt]

Quote

Windows 2000 comes with IIS5 anyway so I thought that it might be nice to have it updated to the newer version

http://en.wikipedia....mation_Services
Paragraphs "History" and "Security" explain why updating it would be a reasonably good security fix, but in my opinion, that's about it for the common end-user.

Cheers

[tomasz86]

I think that some other applications may require IIS6. Even some of the .NET Framework 2.0's tools ask for it (I don't remember which exact tool it is now but I'll try to check later).

[otetz]

I just thought of ClearType. Not sure whether it is possible to transplant though.

[tomasz86]

otetz, on 15 February 2013 - 08:31 AM, said:

I just thought of ClearType. Not sure whether it is possible to transplant though.

Impossible at least for such a person like myself who's not a programmer. I know two different 3rd party applications which add ClearType support to Win2k but none of them is perfect and they don't work well for all languages / fonts.

[Tommy]

I've personally never liked the alternatives to cleartype for Windows 2000. I've tried them out and it's just not up to my standards. I find I'd rather just use standard font smoothing myself. Except I'm one that hates how all LCD makers want you to have your resolution cranked up to the max, I really don't like that because it does make things harder to read, even with cleartype. For my 20" widescreen, I forced it to use 1280x800, everything is easy to read so I don't even need cleartype.

[tomasz86]

I still use a CRT monitor but in case of LCDs the most important specification for me is how large is its pixel pitch. I personally wouldn't take anything with pixel pitch smaller than 0.290 mm, especially if you read / write a lot (like I do).

[Tommy]

It's getting offtopic just a little bit, but since you bring up CRT, I just have to mention it....what ever happened to this kind of technology? They come out with all this stuff that is suppose to be 'better', but what about the people who still prefer stuff like this? I actually like LCDs myself, but I personally prefer the standard 4:3 as opposed to 16:9/16:10. I do have a CRT downstairs on my work computer and to me, it's still a great piece of hardware. I run it at 800x600 purposely too. XD I know most websites want at least 1024x768, but I always used to use that resolution so I'm doing it for good old times.

This post has been edited by Tommy: 16 February 2013 - 01:51 PM