3 ms·
A lack of feature bloat. It would probably be fast as lightning on modern hardware. Though I don't use Windows regularly anymore, I always liked Windows 2000.
by ams6110 9y ago
A lack of feature bloat. It would probably be fast as lightning on modern hardware.
Though I don't use Windows regularly anymore, I always liked Windows 2000. It was stable, but only slightly more bloated than '95 from a GUI standpoint.
- cryptoz 9y agoI have more nostalgia for Windows 2000 than practically anything else from that era. I use mostly Mac and Linux these days but wow do I feel something for win2k.
- TomMarius 9y agoFor me it's XP. That thing was perfect - and would be even today if it had 64bit and 4K support - and of course modern apps and drivers.
- IncRnd 9y agoThere was a 64bit version of XP. The tiny little whispers on a 4k were unworkable, though. Besides, if an app can't run on 64bit XP, what's the point of running it, anyway?
- lowtolerance 9y agoWindows 2000 is far and away my favorite Microsoft operating system of all time.
- jlgaddis 9y agoSame here. I wish I could still run it today. As a desktop, it was awesome: separate user accounts, much more stable than previous versions, etc. I stayed with Win2K Professional as long as I could, holding out until the very end, only switching to XP when I had to. On the server side, Win2K introduced many new features, including, of course, Active Directory, which was amazing (at the time). Windows 2003 Server brought with it some cool new stuff as well, but (just like with my desktops) I had Win2K Server machines that I held onto as long as possible. I really did miss it. The stability (compared to its predecessors) was simply amazing. I've still got the ISO images around here somewhere.