<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xml:base="http://www.itworld.com" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
 <title>Windows 2000</title>
 <link>http://www.itworld.com/windows-2000</link>
 <description></description>
 <language>xx</language>
<item>
 <title>Microsoft: Patching Windows 2000 &#039;infeasible&#039;</title>
 <link>http://www.itworld.com/security/76985/microsoft-patching-windows-2000-infeasible</link>
 <description>Microsoft took the unusual step today and skipped patching one of the vulnerabilities addressed in its monthly security update, an omission that leaves users running Windows 2000 Server Service Pack 4 vulnerable to attack.
</description>
 <comments>http://www.itworld.com/security/76985/microsoft-patching-windows-2000-infeasible#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.itworld.com/security">Security</category>
 <category domain="http://www.itworld.com/windows">Windows</category>
 <category domain="http://www.itworld.com/news">News</category>
 <category domain="http://www.itworld.com/microsoft">Microsoft</category>
 <category domain="http://www.itworld.com/windows-2000">Windows 2000</category>
 <pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2009 11:41:47 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>ITworld staff</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">76985 at http://www.itworld.com</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Mozilla ponders dropping Firefox support for Win2K, early XP</title>
 <link>http://www.itworld.com/internet/66406/mozilla-ponders-dropping-firefox-support-win2k-early-xp</link>
 <description>Mozilla is considering dropping support for Windows 2000 and the earliest versions of XP when it ships the follow-up to Firefox 3.5 in 2010, online discussions show.
</description>
 <comments>http://www.itworld.com/internet/66406/mozilla-ponders-dropping-firefox-support-win2k-early-xp#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.itworld.com/internet">Internet</category>
 <category domain="http://www.itworld.com/windows">Windows</category>
 <category domain="http://www.itworld.com/news">News</category>
 <category domain="http://www.itworld.com/firefox">Firefox</category>
 <category domain="http://www.itworld.com/windows-2000">Windows 2000</category>
 <category domain="http://www.itworld.com/windows-xp">Windows XP</category>
 <pubDate>Tue, 14 Apr 2009 17:06:08 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>ITworld staff</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">66406 at http://www.itworld.com</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Is Windows Vista Like Windows 2000 or Windows ME?</title>
 <link>http://www.itworld.com/small-business/57217/windows-vista-windows-2000-or-windows-me</link>
 <description>Windows ME was the last gasp of the Windows 9x model. It came out seven months after Windows 2000, but failed miserably while Windows 2000 provided a nice upgrade from Windows 98, and a quick stepping stone to Windows XP, Microsoft&#039;s most popular and well received OS ever.
</description>
 <comments>http://www.itworld.com/small-business/57217/windows-vista-windows-2000-or-windows-me#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.itworld.com/operating-systems">Operating systems</category>
 <category domain="http://www.itworld.com/small-business">Small business</category>
 <category domain="http://www.itworld.com/software">Software</category>
 <category domain="http://www.itworld.com/opinion">Opinion</category>
 <category domain="http://www.itworld.com/microsoft">Microsoft</category>
 <category domain="http://www.itworld.com/windows-2000">Windows 2000</category>
 <category domain="http://www.itworld.com/windows-me">Windows ME</category>
 <category domain="http://www.itworld.com/windows-vista">Windows Vista</category>
 <pubDate>Tue, 04 Nov 2008 11:24:34 -0500</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>James Gaskin</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">57217 at http://www.itworld.com</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Worst Windows flaws of the past decade</title>
 <link>http://www.itworld.com/windows/55726/worst-windows-flaws-past-decade</link>
 <description>Though Microsoft and the entire software industry have labored tirelessly to handle zero-day exploits and to develop protocols for reporting potential security problems, we&#039;ve seen and experienced several colossal security meltdowns thanks to the humble Windows bug. These errors, buried in millions of lines of code, have steered great corporations and turned the tide of fortunes. It&#039;s high time they got the credit they deserve. Here are the worst Windows flaws we&#039;ve endured since the introduction of Windows 98.
</description>
 <comments>http://www.itworld.com/windows/55726/worst-windows-flaws-past-decade#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.itworld.com/security">Security</category>
 <category domain="http://www.itworld.com/windows">Windows</category>
 <category domain="http://www.itworld.com/feature">Feature</category>
 <category domain="http://www.itworld.com/vista">Vista</category>
 <category domain="http://www.itworld.com/windows-2000">Windows 2000</category>
 <category domain="http://www.itworld.com/windows-98">Windows 98</category>
 <category domain="http://www.itworld.com/xp">XP</category>
 <pubDate>Mon, 06 Oct 2008 15:53:13 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>ITworld staff</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">55726 at http://www.itworld.com</guid>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
