<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<rss version="2.0" xmlns:blogChannel="http://backend.userland.com/blogChannelModule">

<channel>
<title>Re: [W2K] Microsoft Windows 2000 Unofficial SP5 in Microsoft Help</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r20659778</link>
<description></description>
<language>en</language>
<pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 07:06:25 EDT</pubDate>
<lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 07:06:25 EDT</lastBuildDate>

<item>
<title>Re: [W2K] Microsoft Windows 2000 Unofficial SP5</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20659778</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1349487"><b>Jahntassa</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  Oleg <A HREF="/useremail/u/910278"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br>Why would someone want to download tons of updates after SP4.<br> </div>Why would someone trust a 3rd party app on something potentially mission critical?<br><br>I don't mind letting a computer go through and do a few rounds of windows updates to get it right. Either that or keep an image around that has everything updated to within a few months ago.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20659778</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 18 Jun 2008 00:04:15 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: [W2K] Microsoft Windows 2000 Unofficial SP5</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20659689</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/362882"><b>Ryno</b></A> : Thanks, and remember folks...Google is your friend.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20659689</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 17 Jun 2008 23:45:04 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: [W2K] Microsoft Windows 2000 Unofficial SP5</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20659663</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/910278"><b>Oleg</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  Tushmeister <A HREF="/useremail/u/870609"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br><div class="bquote"><small>said by  Oleg <A HREF="/useremail/u/910278"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A>  :</small><br><br>Microsoft Windows 2000 Unofficial SP5 combines 403 hotfixes into a single hotfix - fully automated. It's not just a matter of determining file versions, there's much more to it. The Microsoft Windows 2000 Unofficial SP5 interface is very easy to use since it's identical to a normal Windows update setup<br><i> link removed - auggy </i><br> </div>Why would anyone want it?  Am I missing something? Windows 2000 was a good operating system but as long as you keep it updated through the MS update site, there's no reason to use this so called "unofficial" patch.  Is there something in the "unofficial" patch you can't get through MS update?<br> </div>Why would someone want to download tons of updates after SP4.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20659663</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 17 Jun 2008 23:37:54 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: [W2K] Microsoft Windows 2000 Unofficial SP5</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20659647</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/870609"><b>Tushmeister</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  Oleg <A HREF="/useremail/u/910278"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br>Microsoft Windows 2000 Unofficial SP5 combines 403 hotfixes into a single hotfix - fully automated. It's not just a matter of determining file versions, there's much more to it. The Microsoft Windows 2000 Unofficial SP5 interface is very easy to use since it's identical to a normal Windows update setup<br><i> link removed - auggy </i><br> </div>Why would anyone want it?  Am I missing something? Windows 2000 was a good operating system but as long as you keep it updated through the MS update site, there's no reason to use this so called "unofficial" patch.  Is there something in the "unofficial" patch you can't get through MS update?]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20659647</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 17 Jun 2008 23:33:34 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: [W2K] Microsoft Windows 2000 Unofficial SP5</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20659461</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/545429"><b>auggy</b></A> : Please note from the <A HREF="http://www.dslreports.com/faq/799"> Microsoft Forum Posting Etiquette FAQ: </a><br><br>"Copyrighted applications protected against redistribution by the owner (manufacturer) will not be allowed to be posted or offered on this board."<br><br>If you wish to discuss "Microsoft Windows 2000 Unofficial SP5.1.2195.21" feel free but please do not post links to it.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20659461</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 17 Jun 2008 23:01:23 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>[W2K] Microsoft Windows 2000 Unofficial SP5</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20659221</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/910278"><b>Oleg</b></A> : Microsoft Windows 2000 Unofficial SP5 combines 403 hotfixes into a single hotfix - fully automated. It's not just a matter of determining file versions, there's much more to it. The Microsoft Windows 2000 Unofficial SP5 interface is very easy to use since it's identical to a normal Windows update setup<br><i> link removed - auggy </i>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20659221</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:13:26 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>
