2 ms·

> 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

> 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.
  - dagmx 3y ago
    My point around internet availability wasn’t around how you could download stuff but how you could find information. At the time, the way operating systems were advertised was in trade/enthusiast publications or the occasional tech article within a news publication or campaigns within stores. There weren’t prompts in the OS to upgrade, and most people didn’t think about their OS beyond what came factory installed. Each of the above required people to go out of their way to even know new OS versions were out unless they were enthusiasts.
    - brnt 3y ago
      Windows releases, being not that frequent, would make the national news here, so everyone would know, if they had any interest.
LeFantome 3y ago
Agreed. If Windows 2000 could run 64 but applications, I would find a way to keep using it.
Dwedit 3y ago
Fun fact, you can indeed run the Windows ME installer from within Windows 2000, and it will perform an "Upgrade".
burnerthrow008 3y ago
It’s not even the relative timing: 2000 couldn’t run many games because (being a descendant of the NT line) it didn’t support all the 9x graphics APIs. Very few home users had it. I tried running games on it back in the day, and some didn’t work. XP was the first Windows that had BOTH support for all “home windows” APIs AND the multi-user NT kernel (windows 95/98/me didn’t truly have a concept of user ownership of files outside the context of network file shares, for example)
- ygra 3y ago
  While I've heard that Win2k didn't run games well back in the day I never actually had any problems. DirectX worked fine. Perhaps the caveat pertained to DOS games where NTVDM is lacking compared to running more or less directly in DOS.
- neuromanser 3y ago
  > 2000 couldn’t run many games because (being a descendant of the NT line) it didn’t support all the 9x graphics APIs. I don't dispute that Microsoft used DirectX support to push XP sales, but I played at least Quake and Half-Life on NT4, and Unreal Tournament and StarCraft on W2k.

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.
- dagmx 3y ago
  My point around internet availability wasn’t around how you could download stuff but how you could find information. At the time, the way operating systems were advertised was in trade/enthusiast publications or the occasional tech article within a news publication or campaigns within stores. There weren’t prompts in the OS to upgrade, and most people didn’t think about their OS beyond what came factory installed. Each of the above required people to go out of their way to even know new OS versions were out unless they were enthusiasts.
  - brnt 3y ago
    Windows releases, being not that frequent, would make the national news here, so everyone would know, if they had any interest.

LeFantome 3y ago

Agreed. If Windows 2000 could run 64 but applications, I would find a way to keep using it.

Dwedit 3y ago

Fun fact, you can indeed run the Windows ME installer from within Windows 2000, and it will perform an "Upgrade".

burnerthrow008 3y ago

It’s not even the relative timing: 2000 couldn’t run many games because (being a descendant of the NT line) it didn’t support all the 9x graphics APIs. Very few home users had it. I tried running games on it back in the day, and some didn’t work. XP was the first Windows that had BOTH support for all “home windows” APIs AND the multi-user NT kernel (windows 95/98/me didn’t truly have a concept of user ownership of files outside the context of network file shares, for example)

ygra 3y ago
While I've heard that Win2k didn't run games well back in the day I never actually had any problems. DirectX worked fine. Perhaps the caveat pertained to DOS games where NTVDM is lacking compared to running more or less directly in DOS.
neuromanser 3y ago
> 2000 couldn’t run many games because (being a descendant of the NT line) it didn’t support all the 9x graphics APIs. I don't dispute that Microsoft used DirectX support to push XP sales, but I played at least Quake and Half-Life on NT4, and Unreal Tournament and StarCraft on W2k.