WORM in 2000

[zap2]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/internet/08/16/computer.worm/index.html


Ha Ha

There is NO reason CNN, ABC and The New York Times should be using Windows 2000, i think that they should also no be using any Windows but if you are going to use the evil OS at least stay up to date, and since they are all big companies therey is no way they should have to use an old out dated OS( yes i know they have a limited amount of money but they schould keep up to date)


They other places i do not know how big they are but if they are any where near the size of CNN the too should have an up to date OS.

The only people who SHOULD have had to deal with this was people who can not update to a new computer becuz of there $$ situation.

I have an XP computer with SP1 can that be attacked? If it ok if its not on or should i unplug it from the wireless router?

 

[stridey]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/internet/08/16/computer.worm/index.html


Ha Ha

There is NO reason CNN, ABC and The New York Times should be using Windows 2000, i think that they should also no be using any Windows but if you are going to use the evil OS at least stay up to date, and since they are all big companies therey is no way they should have to use an old out dated OS( yes i know they have a limited amount of money but they schould keep up to date)


They other places i do not know how big they are but if they are any where near the size of CNN the too should have an up to date OS.

The only people who SHOULD have had to deal with this was people who can not update to a new computer becuz of there $$ situation.

I have an XP computer with SP1 can that be attacked? If it ok if its not on or should i unplug it from the wireless router?

Actually, in many ways 2000 is better than XP. I don't blame them for continuing to use it. I do blame the operating system for being vulnerable, though.

Edit: And you probably ought to do a quick search before posting. There are already several threads on the topic.

 

[GFLPraxis]

2000 was the most stable version of Windows ever created, which is not saying much.


The reason is because 2000 was the pinnacle of the Windows NT lineup aimed at businesses.

Windows ME was the pinnacle of the 9x series aimed at consumers, but ME was worse than it's predecessors.

Windows XP combined the Windows 2000 kernel with a bunch of stuff from Windows ME and Windows 98 for compatability, so as a result has all the advantages of both and features, but is slightly less stable due to having all that piled on top.


And remember, I'm talking about relatively. In comparison to OS X, they all suck IMHO

 

[zap2]

Edit: And you probably ought to do a quick search before posting. There are already several threads on the topic.

Sorry! ME was CRAP an the looks of XP are nice and thats about it