9 ms·
I completely agree. People fondly remember XP, but Windows 2000 was peak Windows. It almost looks like a real operating system :)
by qsort 5y ago
I completely agree. People fondly remember XP, but Windows 2000 was peak Windows. It almost looks like a real operating system :)
- laumars 5y agoI agree. People often forget that early releases of XP was basically just a re-skinned 2000 but with a few tweaks for games and fonts. The problem was those skins ended up doubling the memory and CPU requirements. In fact XP was a pretty bloated OS on hardware from 2002. It wasn’t until much later into the life of XP when hardware caught up and newer service packs added enough to the OS to really differentiate it from 2000. But for the first few years of the life of XP, it was an embarrassment.
- cesarb 5y agoPeople also often forget that Windows XP was the first Windows to have WGA, which was fairly controversial. Windows 2000 was the last Windows version you could truly own, instead of having to beg Microsoft for permission every time you reinstalled or replaced hardware.
- johnebgd 5y agoWindows XP volume licensing still gave customers full ownership without online activation. I remember a friend used magic jelly bean to pull keys off every pc he came across to stockpile new volume keys he could use after the initial key that went public got banned for windows updates.
- lhoff 5y agoI used to run around the big tech shops with my phone and took photos of the Windows Licence sticker (WinXP and later Win7) to have enough keys for my experiments.
- mixmastamyk 5y agoI preferred XP with the classic theme, some of its utils were improved.
- laumars 5y agoWhich utils? I think XP introduced the “switch user” option. But I couldn’t find much in XP to justify the additional drain on memory and CPU. However I might not have needed the same utils you came to prefer (Every user is different).
- abeyer 5y agoXP was the first that shipped the RDP server in the base... before that you pretty much needed to go up to one of the server SKUs of the OS, or buy third party remote access software. It also added a bunch of newer parts of 802.11 that were necessary for many wifi networks -- particularly corporate ones.
- laumars 5y agoA lot of the WiFi improvements came in later service packs rather than the first edition. I thought a Windows 2000 supported RDP? I’ve definitely RDPed onto 2000 servers. Was an RDP server not included in the ‘Professional Edition’? Or maybe I used VNC on those 2000 systems and forgotten it wasn’t RDP?
- abeyer 5y agoYeah, I don't think RDP was supported at all on the workstation sku (though it _could_ be made to work w/o support or a legal license) and I think may have been an additional license cost on the base server, then only included on advanced server.
- laumars 5y agoI’d forgotten how annoying it was/is picking between all the different Microsoft releases of the same OS.
- rbanffy 5y agoI’d go even further: XP was 2000 with some UI elements and ideas that came from Windows Me. That grouping in the control panel only made it harder to find what you needed.
- npteljes 5y agoIndeed. The good XP is the SP3.
- chrisseaton 5y agoWhy do you think Windows isn’t a real OS? It successfully powers I’d guess hundreds of millions of devices.
- IntelMiner 5y agoTo be fair, Linux powers quite literally billions of devices
- rbanffy 5y agoAnd those Windows boxes wouldn’t be able to do much without the ones Linux powers, but that’s beside the point: Windows is an OS. It’s quirky and feels weird for the Unix crowd, but a lot of it will be oddly familiar to the VMS elders.
- chrisseaton 5y agoAnd a hundred million isn't enough to be real?
- arendtio 5y agoIt is a joke to say that it is not a real OS. But if you want to argue: You could say that a 'real OS' must be 'mostly POSIX-compliant' [1]. That way most other OS (Linux, MacOS, iOS) but not Windows would be included in your definition of a 'real OS' ;-) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POSIX#Mostly_POSIX-compliant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POSIX#Mostly_POSIX-compliant
- chrisseaton 5y agoI wouldn’t get why POSIX is the only way to design an OS.
- rbanffy 5y agoIt’s not. It’s an API. IBM’s zOS has a POSIX-compliant Unix subsystem and it has absolutely nothing to do with Unix under its hood.