4 ms·
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
by 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 agoWhile 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.