4 ms·

If you've never used an older Windows, here is a Win 2000 in the browser: https://bellard.org/jslinux/vm.html?url=win2k.cfg&mem=192&graphic=1&w=1024&h=768 http

by sho_hn 4y ago

If you've never used an older Windows, here is a Win 2000 in the browser: https://bellard.org/jslinux/vm.html?url=win2k.cfg&mem=192&graphic=1&w=1024&h=768 https://bellard.org/jslinux/vm.html?url=win2k.cfg&mem=192&gr... (The Qemu.js post on the front page today lead me there via a readme link to jslinux.)

mostlysimilar 4y ago
Peak interface.
userbinator 4y ago
I wonder how much it would take to get explorer.exe and the rest of the UI (userland) from Win2k running on a newer version of Windows. Backwards-compatibility has been MS' strong point for a long time, and the majority of other applications from the 2k era would probably be fine on Win11 too.
- hestefisk 4y ago
  I would do anything for a modern version of Windows NT 4.0 Workstation. Now THAT was a professional OS. I would even pay for it.
  - xbar 4y ago
    I rode Windows NT 4.0 into the ground. It was a truly professional operating system. Honestly, Windows 7 and Windows 10 have been configurable into a mostly serviceable state. It was much more of a hassle to keep Windows 10 tamed, but tamed it can be. I worry that Windows 11 will require a bunch of disassembly to get it operational, so I will keep Windows 10 until it is no longer supported.
  - CamperBob2 4y ago
    Google "Enterprise LTSC IoT." Downside is that "I would do anything" doesn't begin to describe what will be necessary to obtain a legitimate license.
- toast0 4y ago
  Count me in. I'm willing to make sacrifices for this vision, too. HiDPI/scaling isn't required (well, no big deal for me, I try to buy monitors with the DPI I want to use). I can live without searchable start menu (although it would be nice). I'm willing to drop other features too. Honestly, I'm considering running fvwm95, but that's probably a bad idea.
WWLink 4y ago
It's probably my computer/browser, but that feels hella slow. For those getting ideas, Windows 2000 was lightning fast to use. Even on something humble at the time. Those windows and menus popped up instantly.
- userbinator 4y ago
  It's running through an emulator, and not even a native one at that. I'm not sure if JSLinux will run Win11, but my experience with using QEMU in emulation mode to run it is that even on hardware a decade newer, it's still slower than this Win2k in the browser.
- rafark 4y ago
  Not really. When I was a kid in the mid 2000s I remember the family computer was hella slow. The menus did not pop up instantly. You probably used it on a top of the line machine. For a lot of us, windows 2000 and xp was sluggish and slow. Our pc used to have 512mb of ram iirc.
  - WWLink 4y ago
    Family computers were only sold with 98, Me, or XP. Unless someone in your family intentionally installed windows 2000 it probably wasn't running 2000. 2000 lacked the compatibility layer that was added to XP, so a lot of games wouldn't run on 2000.
  - toast0 4y ago
    512mb should be plenty for win2k, I'd think. My college had a laptop program with Compaq Armada E500s that had maybe 64mb of ram. It shipped with win98se, but ran fine on 2k and xp. (With XP or 98se, but not 2k, you could use the internal display and the vga port independently). That was a nice laptop, but still, if you had 8x the ram, your machine was probably nicer in most ways. The key for 2k and XP is going to system performance settings and unchecking as many of the UI frivalries as you can stomach. Personally, I don't need window contents to move as I drag and resize windows... just the outline is fine, and it makes it more responsive, so it's better for me.
emodendroket 4y ago
I can't go back to not having a searchable start menu.
deafpolygon 4y ago
That UI is just.. perfect.

by sho_hn 4y ago

mostlysimilar 4y ago

Peak interface.

userbinator 4y ago

I wonder how much it would take to get explorer.exe and the rest of the UI (userland) from Win2k running on a newer version of Windows. Backwards-compatibility has been MS' strong point for a long time, and the majority of other applications from the 2k era would probably be fine on Win11 too.

hestefisk 4y ago
I would do anything for a modern version of Windows NT 4.0 Workstation. Now THAT was a professional OS. I would even pay for it.
- xbar 4y ago
  I rode Windows NT 4.0 into the ground. It was a truly professional operating system. Honestly, Windows 7 and Windows 10 have been configurable into a mostly serviceable state. It was much more of a hassle to keep Windows 10 tamed, but tamed it can be. I worry that Windows 11 will require a bunch of disassembly to get it operational, so I will keep Windows 10 until it is no longer supported.
- CamperBob2 4y ago
  Google "Enterprise LTSC IoT." Downside is that "I would do anything" doesn't begin to describe what will be necessary to obtain a legitimate license.
toast0 4y ago
Count me in. I'm willing to make sacrifices for this vision, too. HiDPI/scaling isn't required (well, no big deal for me, I try to buy monitors with the DPI I want to use). I can live without searchable start menu (although it would be nice). I'm willing to drop other features too. Honestly, I'm considering running fvwm95, but that's probably a bad idea.

WWLink 4y ago

It's probably my computer/browser, but that feels hella slow. For those getting ideas, Windows 2000 was lightning fast to use. Even on something humble at the time. Those windows and menus popped up instantly.

userbinator 4y ago
It's running through an emulator, and not even a native one at that. I'm not sure if JSLinux will run Win11, but my experience with using QEMU in emulation mode to run it is that even on hardware a decade newer, it's still slower than this Win2k in the browser.
rafark 4y ago
Not really. When I was a kid in the mid 2000s I remember the family computer was hella slow. The menus did not pop up instantly. You probably used it on a top of the line machine. For a lot of us, windows 2000 and xp was sluggish and slow. Our pc used to have 512mb of ram iirc.
- WWLink 4y ago
  Family computers were only sold with 98, Me, or XP. Unless someone in your family intentionally installed windows 2000 it probably wasn't running 2000. 2000 lacked the compatibility layer that was added to XP, so a lot of games wouldn't run on 2000.
- toast0 4y ago
  512mb should be plenty for win2k, I'd think. My college had a laptop program with Compaq Armada E500s that had maybe 64mb of ram. It shipped with win98se, but ran fine on 2k and xp. (With XP or 98se, but not 2k, you could use the internal display and the vga port independently). That was a nice laptop, but still, if you had 8x the ram, your machine was probably nicer in most ways. The key for 2k and XP is going to system performance settings and unchecking as many of the UI frivalries as you can stomach. Personally, I don't need window contents to move as I drag and resize windows... just the outline is fine, and it makes it more responsive, so it's better for me.

emodendroket 4y ago

I can't go back to not having a searchable start menu.

deafpolygon 4y ago

That UI is just.. perfect.