5 ms·

I don't understand why people like XP so much. Windows 2000 was the ultimate OS: lean, fast, focused, and absolutely zero crapware installed. No stupid internet

I don't understand why people like XP so much. Windows 2000 was the ultimate OS: lean, fast, focused, and absolutely zero crapware installed. No stupid internet accounts needed to run your local OS and it did what it was supposed to do.

tonyedgecombe 3y ago
2000 was also the last version that didn't require activation.
dagmx 3y ago
XP was likely the first memorable intro to windows for many developers in the home context. It was designed to be appealing to look at and a fresh coat of paint. By comparison, you’d be hard pressed to find a non-enthusiast who really remembers the differences between 95/98/ME/2000 because they largely looked similar. Unlike 2000, it was also aimed at home use. The prior home use system was ME which was also not very well received at the time. XP unified the business and home segments. Add to that, the immense PR failure that was Vista, and a very long life for XP, it’s not surprising that it has the most fondness in people’s psyche.
- mrweasel 3y ago
  > 95/98/ME/2000 because they largely looked similar. That was a feature, for me it was 95, 98, NT4, Windows 2000 then it all started falling apart and Linux and MacOSX because the more attractive alternatives. For those who don't remember, we used to call the Windows XP UI the "Fisher Price" UI. It was the first dumbed down Windows UI. I'd agree, the nostalgia for Windows XP is misplaced, when the version before that was the more attractive option. Overall the quality of Windows 2000 just felt like it was way above Windows XP. All the Windows UI inconsistencies started showing up in Windows XP. In the "Windows XP 2024" video I think it's interesting that that the two worst features, the Windows XP UI and the online account activation, have both been preserved.
  - dagmx 3y ago
    Windows 2000 wasn’t the version before Windows XP for most people though. It was Windows ME. Most people would not have experienced 2000. Windows 2000 was the last of the separate business targeted operating systems. Therefore I’d argue the nostalgia isn’t misplaced because most people under 45 just couldn’t have the nostalgia for 2000 to begin with. XP unified the two lines into one OS with multiple SKUs instead of completely different kernels.
    - mrweasel 3y ago
      > Windows 2000 wasn’t the version before Windows XP for most people though. That's probably a fair observation. Windows 2000 came out before Windows ME, so it you had just a slight interest in computers, you'd try it out and after that Windows 98 and even ME felt like a downgrade, so you'd stay on 2000. I remember getting an beta release of Windows 2000 in late December 1999 and that was basically it, every other version of Windows since then, even XP was a downgrade.
      - dagmx 3y ago
        Yeah though that was also the period before wide spread internet use, and when operating systems cost significant money to upgrade to . 2000 was $319, or over $500 today. That’s more than the cost of a full console or even some PCs. So you’d REALLY have to be into the OS scene to look it up, or care enough to buy it.
        mrweasel 3y ago
        > or care enough to buy it. Yeaah, we didn't necessarily pay back then.
        brnt 3y ago
        Sneakernet and your local friendly CD burner owner with a huge catalog were readily available here in NL. Internet made it a little easier, sure, but not much. At least for software. No, for music Napster was really what showed what the internet could offer but CD burners couldn't.
- cesarb 3y ago
  > XP was likely the first memorable intro to windows for many developers in the home context. (emphasis mine) IIRC, there were two separate lineages of Windows. There was the "home" lineage which went 3.1, 95, 98, ME, XP, and the "business" lineage which went NT 3.1, NT 4, 2000, XP; for those using Windows in the home context, it's likely they jumped from 9x to XP (possibly with a stop at ME in between, but IIRC Windows ME was somewhat disliked).
  - dagmx 3y ago
    Exactly. You posted coincidentally just as I edited my post to add that distinction as well, because I saw other comments missing that path distinction. (Just in case anyone later thinks you’re just reiterating my comment) Most people under 45 wouldn’t have experienced 2000 for that reason.
- bejk22 3y ago
  Windows 2000 was nothing like Windows 95/98/Me. 2000 isn't remembered as much as XP because it was never marketed to end-users but as an upgrade to NT4 and a workstation os. Home computers at the time came pre-installed with Windows Me, that was barely usable. When XP came out, it was so much better than Me that people loved it fondly, but in fact it was mostly Windows 2000 with a shitty Telletubbies theme.
  - dagmx 3y ago
    I’m making two distinct but related points: 1. Windows 2000 was visually like the 9x series. XP introduced a whole new and very memorable look, subjective opinions aside. Even if you used Windows 2000 in your workplace, it was visually non-distinct from the Windows 98 you’d have at home. 2. Windows 2000 was for business use. Windows XP unified the segments.
- bee_rider 3y ago
  Plus, for those of us who were kids at the time, the fisher price ui was actually pretty nice.
- wkat4242 3y ago
  That's true, windows ME was as terrible as Windows 2000 was great. The story goes that they wanted to launch with Windows 2000 Home just like they did with XP, but ran into some issues and decided at the last minute to ship a pimped up version of Windows 98. That was absolutely terrible.
  - The_Colonel 3y ago
    > and decided at the last minute to ship a pimped up version of Windows 98 That's more or less false. Releasing 2000 for home usage was planned, but it was realized early on that there's not enough time for that. It's not possible to develop on a short notice, ME contained some notable improvements (mostly ports from 2000).
- LeFantome 3y ago
  Windows 2000 looked quite distinct ( at the time ). It looked quite “professional”.
zbrozek 3y ago
Probably a lot of folks were simply not introduced to it. I would love to run an OS with support for current APIs but with the Windows 2000 UX.
EvanAnderson 3y ago
Windows Server 2003 was a great desktop OS. I ran it as a daily driver on a laptop many years ago. You got all the XP kernel improvements but it was more minimalist than XP.
mixmastamyk 3y ago
XP was 2001, aka 2000 with a few extra features. You could turn off the Fischer-price and turn on extensions with a few clicks. SP3 brought a decent, necessary firewall. Firefox supported it for years afterward. No benefit to go earlier really.
znpy 3y ago
I agree, but I also acknowledge that most people haven’t used windows 2000 at the time. But yes, windows 2000 professional was the best windows ever.
deafpolygon 3y ago
I ran win2k for gaming for years, even while winxp came out.
smegger001 3y ago
Because most people who used windows prior to windows XP used one of the 9x line (95, 98, 98se, Me), which were shal we say sub par to say the least, windows 2000 was part of the NT line which the masses didn't really get to use until XP. then after XP came Vista which suffered from security pop up fatigue. and bad drivers. 7 was stable but microsoft had learned their lesson had tried to cut its life cycle short (not releasing service packs pushing os updates etc...) rather than let it it go one for decades like XP costing them licenses revenue. Ever since we have instead we have starting with widows 8 been given an unending pile of shitty os's that get worse with each forced update.
ornornor 3y ago
I loved w2k, it was the last good windows imho and it’s around the time when I dropped windows for more open alternatives. AFAIK, win2000 didn’t do games very well. I think I remember it not supporting d3d or OpenGL, or something along these lines. It’s problematic when most of the value in windows for home users is the gaming library.

tonyedgecombe 3y ago

2000 was also the last version that didn't require activation.

dagmx 3y ago

XP was likely the first memorable intro to windows for many developers in the home context. It was designed to be appealing to look at and a fresh coat of paint. By comparison, you’d be hard pressed to find a non-enthusiast who really remembers the differences between 95/98/ME/2000 because they largely looked similar. Unlike 2000, it was also aimed at home use. The prior home use system was ME which was also not very well received at the time. XP unified the business and home segments. Add to that, the immense PR failure that was Vista, and a very long life for XP, it’s not surprising that it has the most fondness in people’s psyche.

mrweasel 3y ago
> 95/98/ME/2000 because they largely looked similar. That was a feature, for me it was 95, 98, NT4, Windows 2000 then it all started falling apart and Linux and MacOSX because the more attractive alternatives. For those who don't remember, we used to call the Windows XP UI the "Fisher Price" UI. It was the first dumbed down Windows UI. I'd agree, the nostalgia for Windows XP is misplaced, when the version before that was the more attractive option. Overall the quality of Windows 2000 just felt like it was way above Windows XP. All the Windows UI inconsistencies started showing up in Windows XP. In the "Windows XP 2024" video I think it's interesting that that the two worst features, the Windows XP UI and the online account activation, have both been preserved.
- dagmx 3y ago
  Windows 2000 wasn’t the version before Windows XP for most people though. It was Windows ME. Most people would not have experienced 2000. Windows 2000 was the last of the separate business targeted operating systems. Therefore I’d argue the nostalgia isn’t misplaced because most people under 45 just couldn’t have the nostalgia for 2000 to begin with. XP unified the two lines into one OS with multiple SKUs instead of completely different kernels.
  - mrweasel 3y ago
    > Windows 2000 wasn’t the version before Windows XP for most people though. That's probably a fair observation. Windows 2000 came out before Windows ME, so it you had just a slight interest in computers, you'd try it out and after that Windows 98 and even ME felt like a downgrade, so you'd stay on 2000. I remember getting an beta release of Windows 2000 in late December 1999 and that was basically it, every other version of Windows since then, even XP was a downgrade.
    - dagmx 3y ago
      Yeah though that was also the period before wide spread internet use, and when operating systems cost significant money to upgrade to . 2000 was $319, or over $500 today. That’s more than the cost of a full console or even some PCs. So you’d REALLY have to be into the OS scene to look it up, or care enough to buy it.
      - mrweasel 3y ago
        > or care enough to buy it. Yeaah, we didn't necessarily pay back then.
      - brnt 3y ago
        Sneakernet and your local friendly CD burner owner with a huge catalog were readily available here in NL. Internet made it a little easier, sure, but not much. At least for software. No, for music Napster was really what showed what the internet could offer but CD burners couldn't.
cesarb 3y ago
> XP was likely the first memorable intro to windows for many developers in the home context. (emphasis mine) IIRC, there were two separate lineages of Windows. There was the "home" lineage which went 3.1, 95, 98, ME, XP, and the "business" lineage which went NT 3.1, NT 4, 2000, XP; for those using Windows in the home context, it's likely they jumped from 9x to XP (possibly with a stop at ME in between, but IIRC Windows ME was somewhat disliked).
- dagmx 3y ago
  Exactly. You posted coincidentally just as I edited my post to add that distinction as well, because I saw other comments missing that path distinction. (Just in case anyone later thinks you’re just reiterating my comment) Most people under 45 wouldn’t have experienced 2000 for that reason.
bejk22 3y ago
Windows 2000 was nothing like Windows 95/98/Me. 2000 isn't remembered as much as XP because it was never marketed to end-users but as an upgrade to NT4 and a workstation os. Home computers at the time came pre-installed with Windows Me, that was barely usable. When XP came out, it was so much better than Me that people loved it fondly, but in fact it was mostly Windows 2000 with a shitty Telletubbies theme.
- dagmx 3y ago
  I’m making two distinct but related points: 1. Windows 2000 was visually like the 9x series. XP introduced a whole new and very memorable look, subjective opinions aside. Even if you used Windows 2000 in your workplace, it was visually non-distinct from the Windows 98 you’d have at home. 2. Windows 2000 was for business use. Windows XP unified the segments.
bee_rider 3y ago
Plus, for those of us who were kids at the time, the fisher price ui was actually pretty nice.
wkat4242 3y ago
That's true, windows ME was as terrible as Windows 2000 was great. The story goes that they wanted to launch with Windows 2000 Home just like they did with XP, but ran into some issues and decided at the last minute to ship a pimped up version of Windows 98. That was absolutely terrible.
- The_Colonel 3y ago
  > and decided at the last minute to ship a pimped up version of Windows 98 That's more or less false. Releasing 2000 for home usage was planned, but it was realized early on that there's not enough time for that. It's not possible to develop on a short notice, ME contained some notable improvements (mostly ports from 2000).
LeFantome 3y ago
Windows 2000 looked quite distinct ( at the time ). It looked quite “professional”.

zbrozek 3y ago

Probably a lot of folks were simply not introduced to it. I would love to run an OS with support for current APIs but with the Windows 2000 UX.

EvanAnderson 3y ago

Windows Server 2003 was a great desktop OS. I ran it as a daily driver on a laptop many years ago. You got all the XP kernel improvements but it was more minimalist than XP.

mixmastamyk 3y ago

XP was 2001, aka 2000 with a few extra features. You could turn off the Fischer-price and turn on extensions with a few clicks. SP3 brought a decent, necessary firewall. Firefox supported it for years afterward. No benefit to go earlier really.

znpy 3y ago

I agree, but I also acknowledge that most people haven’t used windows 2000 at the time. But yes, windows 2000 professional was the best windows ever.

deafpolygon 3y ago

I ran win2k for gaming for years, even while winxp came out.

smegger001 3y ago

Because most people who used windows prior to windows XP used one of the 9x line (95, 98, 98se, Me), which were shal we say sub par to say the least, windows 2000 was part of the NT line which the masses didn't really get to use until XP. then after XP came Vista which suffered from security pop up fatigue. and bad drivers. 7 was stable but microsoft had learned their lesson had tried to cut its life cycle short (not releasing service packs pushing os updates etc...) rather than let it it go one for decades like XP costing them licenses revenue. Ever since we have instead we have starting with widows 8 been given an unending pile of shitty os's that get worse with each forced update.

ornornor 3y ago

I loved w2k, it was the last good windows imho and it’s around the time when I dropped windows for more open alternatives. AFAIK, win2000 didn’t do games very well. I think I remember it not supporting d3d or OpenGL, or something along these lines. It’s problematic when most of the value in windows for home users is the gaming library.