4 ms·

I didn’t use 200 much, but I feel this way about windows Xp. It just worked. It seemed super stable and not bloated.

by pwned1 6y ago

ianlevesque 6y ago
That Fisher Price colored theme though...
- rbinv 6y ago
  XP's classic mode looked somewhat like Windows 98/2000.
- Sohcahtoa82 6y ago
  Not sure why so many people complain about it when it was trivial to enable a classic theme to make it look like Win2K.
  - smcl 6y ago
    I did the same but I recall there was a few elements that remained - the windows logo on the start menu was a bit colourful, and a few other bits couldn’t be changed too
    - ajtjp 6y ago
      The Windows logo in the Start menu was a bit colorful in Windows 95 and NT 4.0 as well. I'll grant you that the logo itself is slightly different in XP, but it had been colorful for years by that point.
  - jcfields 6y ago
    It was also commonplace to use the UXTheme patcher to enable third-party custom window themes. I used the Watercolor theme, which was modeled after the Whistler beta builds before they (bafflingly) switched it out for Luna. I have a soft spot for Windows 2000 because I was very impressed with it when it first came out (coming from Win9x), but there wasn't much point to using it over XP after XP came out. Windows XP is just an improved version of 2000, and it was updated for much longer. Windows 2000 doesn't even support wi-fi without third-party utilities.
SteveNuts 6y ago
Really? My experience was driver nightmares and having to reinstall the OS every 6 months with XP. It wasn't til 7 that most of that went away.
- nix23 6y ago
  Yes Win2000 was perfect from the start, xp really was a nightmare until sp2 and got really stable when sp3 came. But W2k is still my favorite windows version.
proverbialbunny 6y ago
Windows XP is Windows 2000 with a theme. Though the difference in resources was Win2k could run on 32MB of ram, and XP ran on 256, despite being the same OS with the same functionality, even the same drivers. If you had beefy enough hardware, which we all eventually did years after XP came out, it ran as fast and almost as stable as 2000. If you didn't mind the bland theme, and wanted higher FPS while gaming, with more responsiveness (less of a delay when double clicking on a window, for example) then running Windows 2000 over XP was a no brainer. In competitive first person shooter circles at the time, people preferred Win2k to XP for these reasons.
- anthk 6y ago
  xp ran under 64 and 128 too. But with 128 was a bit slow.
Koshkin 6y ago
Interestingly, 'bloated' was exactly the word used most often to describe XP on forums back then.

I didn’t use 200 much, but I feel this way about windows Xp. It just worked. It seemed super stable and not bloated.

by pwned1 6y ago

I didn’t use 200 much, but I feel this way about windows Xp. It just worked. It seemed super stable and not bloated.

ianlevesque 6y ago

That Fisher Price colored theme though...

rbinv 6y ago
XP's classic mode looked somewhat like Windows 98/2000.
Sohcahtoa82 6y ago
Not sure why so many people complain about it when it was trivial to enable a classic theme to make it look like Win2K.
- smcl 6y ago
  I did the same but I recall there was a few elements that remained - the windows logo on the start menu was a bit colourful, and a few other bits couldn’t be changed too
  - ajtjp 6y ago
    The Windows logo in the Start menu was a bit colorful in Windows 95 and NT 4.0 as well. I'll grant you that the logo itself is slightly different in XP, but it had been colorful for years by that point.
- jcfields 6y ago
  It was also commonplace to use the UXTheme patcher to enable third-party custom window themes. I used the Watercolor theme, which was modeled after the Whistler beta builds before they (bafflingly) switched it out for Luna. I have a soft spot for Windows 2000 because I was very impressed with it when it first came out (coming from Win9x), but there wasn't much point to using it over XP after XP came out. Windows XP is just an improved version of 2000, and it was updated for much longer. Windows 2000 doesn't even support wi-fi without third-party utilities.

SteveNuts 6y ago

Really? My experience was driver nightmares and having to reinstall the OS every 6 months with XP. It wasn't til 7 that most of that went away.

nix23 6y ago
Yes Win2000 was perfect from the start, xp really was a nightmare until sp2 and got really stable when sp3 came. But W2k is still my favorite windows version.

proverbialbunny 6y ago

Windows XP is Windows 2000 with a theme. Though the difference in resources was Win2k could run on 32MB of ram, and XP ran on 256, despite being the same OS with the same functionality, even the same drivers. If you had beefy enough hardware, which we all eventually did years after XP came out, it ran as fast and almost as stable as 2000. If you didn't mind the bland theme, and wanted higher FPS while gaming, with more responsiveness (less of a delay when double clicking on a window, for example) then running Windows 2000 over XP was a no brainer. In competitive first person shooter circles at the time, people preferred Win2k to XP for these reasons.

anthk 6y ago
xp ran under 64 and 128 too. But with 128 was a bit slow.

Koshkin 6y ago

Interestingly, 'bloated' was exactly the word used most often to describe XP on forums back then.