4 ms·

People loved XP coming from '98 which was way more prone to crash, BSOD, data losses etc, from what I recall.

rnd0 7y ago
I think it's a mix of both? I "loved" XP once two things happened: I got a computer with more than 256mb of ram, and I installed SP2. After that it ran really well and yes, so much better than Windows 98 did.
tinus_hn 7y ago
Don’t forget Windows ME which was truly a turd in a class of its own.
- asveikau 7y ago
  I still don't completely understand why they didn't make Win2k into a "consumer" product. A lot of techies here who installed Windows themselves in that era probably skipped ME and went to that. But all the consumer PCs shipped with 98 or ME. I remembering hearing at the time that this was about hardware support and/or app compatibility. But my cynical side just thinks they wanted to justify charging more for a workstation SKU for another release cycle.
  - TheKarateKid 7y ago
    Actually, ME was the result of a development disaster similar to the one which resulted in Vista. Microsoft was planning on building an entirely new Internet-focused consumer version of NT. It was too ambitious for its time, so to meet deadlines, most of it was scrapped and some UI elements were backported into an updated Windows 98 which became ME. This is why Explorer for both ME and 2000 look similar despite having little else in common. Other elements of the scrapped project made its way into XP, but barely compared to what it was supposed to be. I think XP’s fancy login screen was one of them. If anyone’s interested I’ll try to find where I read all of this. It might’ve been on Paul Thurrott’s Windows Supersite or another site that collected Windows betas.
    - Lammy 7y ago
      Windows codename Neptune: https://microsoft.fandom.com/wiki/Microsoft_Neptune https://microsoft.fandom.com/wiki/Microsoft_Neptune It’s interesting to see twenty year old experiments with flat UI designs considering how dominant that style is today with Android 5, iOS 7, Windows 8, etc.
      - TheKarateKid 7y ago
        Indeed. Ironically, I think I remember reading that the Neptune apps’ UI was HTML-based, since Microsoft wanted IE to power everything. And now many apps use HTML/JS/CSS for styling and rendering.
      - garaetjjte 7y ago
        These apps looks like they are made in IE6-era Electron..
        Lammy 7y ago
        They are! The same tech powered Active Desktop and the "smart" Explorer sidebars in Windows XP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML_Application https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML_Application
  - andrewf 7y ago
    I think Win2K had higher memory requirements, which meant a more expensive machine for the same performance. (This was always an issue for WinNT and OS/2 versus the DOS/Win9x line) I think software compat was also lacking. DOS games were still in people's libraries (eg Quake from June '96), and I remember needing an extra 4MB to run those inside Win9x versus booting to DOS mode. That stuff didn't Just Work (tm) on Win2K. For example, http://sandmann.dotster.com/djgpp/DJGPP_W2K.htm http://sandmann.dotster.com/djgpp/DJGPP_W2K.htm is a list of issues with the most popular GCC port to DOS. (The Quake DOS binary was actually built with an earlier version of that compiler) I remember the WinXP DOS emulation was supposed to be much improved over Win2K, but don't recall specifics.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
Rapzid 7y ago
Not to mention plug-and-play finally started coming into its own. XP started the trend of having the massive generic driver repository so you could actually get your NIC to work so you could DL your other drivers without needing the CD/floppy with the NIC drivers :) Oh man, XP was great.
DayDollar 7y ago
I loved that with XP, that you could actually turn the gui back into something WIN98 like- which ment, it was boring, grey and minimal. And thats how i want my gui to be. I dont want some fashionfacista to redesign it to his/her whims. I dont want it to grab my attention for unimportant crap. I want it laying there in the sun, grey, damp and featureless like a new born island. My work has enough excitment and new stuff to focus on- i dont want to be bothered by what other people consider important- security center rages, advertisements and by bothering i ment to be reminded of there existence in any way (that includes gobbling huge amounts of system ressources) - so in XP you could still shut the worst offenders down permanently. It is, and it was for the user who took time to settle in, the perfect system. Everything that came after, is a lovecraftian horror that trys way to much to please a preconcived user- who wants nothing more then to strangle all this unpleasant attempts of servitude.

rnd0 7y ago

I think it's a mix of both? I "loved" XP once two things happened: I got a computer with more than 256mb of ram, and I installed SP2. After that it ran really well and yes, so much better than Windows 98 did.

tinus_hn 7y ago

Don’t forget Windows ME which was truly a turd in a class of its own.

asveikau 7y ago
I still don't completely understand why they didn't make Win2k into a "consumer" product. A lot of techies here who installed Windows themselves in that era probably skipped ME and went to that. But all the consumer PCs shipped with 98 or ME. I remembering hearing at the time that this was about hardware support and/or app compatibility. But my cynical side just thinks they wanted to justify charging more for a workstation SKU for another release cycle.
- TheKarateKid 7y ago
  Actually, ME was the result of a development disaster similar to the one which resulted in Vista. Microsoft was planning on building an entirely new Internet-focused consumer version of NT. It was too ambitious for its time, so to meet deadlines, most of it was scrapped and some UI elements were backported into an updated Windows 98 which became ME. This is why Explorer for both ME and 2000 look similar despite having little else in common. Other elements of the scrapped project made its way into XP, but barely compared to what it was supposed to be. I think XP’s fancy login screen was one of them. If anyone’s interested I’ll try to find where I read all of this. It might’ve been on Paul Thurrott’s Windows Supersite or another site that collected Windows betas.
  - Lammy 7y ago
    Windows codename Neptune: https://microsoft.fandom.com/wiki/Microsoft_Neptune https://microsoft.fandom.com/wiki/Microsoft_Neptune It’s interesting to see twenty year old experiments with flat UI designs considering how dominant that style is today with Android 5, iOS 7, Windows 8, etc.
    - TheKarateKid 7y ago
      Indeed. Ironically, I think I remember reading that the Neptune apps’ UI was HTML-based, since Microsoft wanted IE to power everything. And now many apps use HTML/JS/CSS for styling and rendering.
    - garaetjjte 7y ago
      These apps looks like they are made in IE6-era Electron..
      - Lammy 7y ago
        They are! The same tech powered Active Desktop and the "smart" Explorer sidebars in Windows XP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML_Application https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML_Application
- andrewf 7y ago
  I think Win2K had higher memory requirements, which meant a more expensive machine for the same performance. (This was always an issue for WinNT and OS/2 versus the DOS/Win9x line) I think software compat was also lacking. DOS games were still in people's libraries (eg Quake from June '96), and I remember needing an extra 4MB to run those inside Win9x versus booting to DOS mode. That stuff didn't Just Work (tm) on Win2K. For example, http://sandmann.dotster.com/djgpp/DJGPP_W2K.htm http://sandmann.dotster.com/djgpp/DJGPP_W2K.htm is a list of issues with the most popular GCC port to DOS. (The Quake DOS binary was actually built with an earlier version of that compiler) I remember the WinXP DOS emulation was supposed to be much improved over Win2K, but don't recall specifics.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

Rapzid 7y ago

Not to mention plug-and-play finally started coming into its own. XP started the trend of having the massive generic driver repository so you could actually get your NIC to work so you could DL your other drivers without needing the CD/floppy with the NIC drivers :) Oh man, XP was great.

DayDollar 7y ago

I loved that with XP, that you could actually turn the gui back into something WIN98 like- which ment, it was boring, grey and minimal. And thats how i want my gui to be. I dont want some fashionfacista to redesign it to his/her whims. I dont want it to grab my attention for unimportant crap. I want it laying there in the sun, grey, damp and featureless like a new born island. My work has enough excitment and new stuff to focus on- i dont want to be bothered by what other people consider important- security center rages, advertisements and by bothering i ment to be reminded of there existence in any way (that includes gobbling huge amounts of system ressources) - so in XP you could still shut the worst offenders down permanently. It is, and it was for the user who took time to settle in, the perfect system. Everything that came after, is a lovecraftian horror that trys way to much to please a preconcived user- who wants nothing more then to strangle all this unpleasant attempts of servitude.