5 ms·

I think it's a grossly underrated OS. As good as Windows XP but without the awful garish themes - it had all that made the Windows 98 GIU great but with the st

I think it's a grossly underrated OS. As good as Windows XP but without the awful garish themes - it had all that made the Windows 98 GIU great but with the stability of Windows NT. Also, I don't think you needed to activate it and it didn't have much in the way of telemetry. We'll never have a Windows version as great again.

stevekemp 3y ago
Windows 2000 was peak-Windows for me, for sure. Not quite as stable as Windows NT4, but pretty close, and it benefited from added support for USB and other "modern" things.
- cdchn 3y ago
  And compatibility with Windows 95 and MS-DOS.
  - M95D 3y ago
    What compatibility? What are you talking about? Can't even run Doom. https://www.doomworld.com/forum/topic/3353-cant-get-dooom-to-play-properly-under-windows-2000/ https://www.doomworld.com/forum/topic/3353-cant-get-dooom-to...
    - anthk 3y ago
      You can use, maybe, ReactOS' ntvdm.dll as a replacement. On W95 compatibility, in lots of older games (specially the Direct Draw ones) ran much better than XP.
Modified3019 3y ago
My only computer for a long time was old thinkpad, so I actually ended up skipping over windows XP entirely. I finally moved on after the first service pack for vista came out (in 2008), which was surprisingly alright in my experience. It ended up being more stable than win2000. The biggest problem with the older windows is that poorly written drivers (which is most of them) had a tendency to bluescreen the entire system when they fucked up. Newer windows is so much more resistant to that now.
- bandergirl 3y ago
  > [Vista] was surprisingly alright in my experience I never understood the hate for Vista. People were overly complacent and wanted a OS that ran on 128MB of ram like XP did. Vista was not that. When 7 came along, it was pretty much the same core, except now many computers were already Vista-capable. I was using the Vista Beta of my 2GB-RAM computer for 6 months before release and it was vastly better than XP.
  - nickweb 3y ago
    The hate came from it being pre installed on massively underpowered computers. The majority of users came to vista with a new PC and it just ruined the experience. I still remember trying to troubleshoot a minor issue and it took half a day just because of the performance on this new PC.
  - n8cpdx 3y ago
    Project Mojave was Microsoft’s attempt to correct this issue. It didn’t go well. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ihorvo2tEuA https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ihorvo2tEuA
  - serf 3y ago
    I don't remember the specifics, but I do remember that Vista broke a ton of drivers I used for industrial equipment. Serial controllers, that kind of stuff. If I remember right it had something to do with the transition to driver signing beginning around that era. So, it represented a lot of labor. >I was using the Vista Beta of my 2GB-RAM computer for 6 months before release and it was vastly better than XP. you were blessed to have 2gb in 06. a lot of us didn't. [0] [0]: https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/CrYAAOSwpOZgQFm7/s-l1600.jpg https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/CrYAAOSwpOZgQFm7/s-l1600.jpg
  - vctrnk 3y ago
    Up to that point, most Windows iterations didn't require (for the time) big upgrades to run fine. Many PCs designed for a given version could run the next, maybe with a little elbow grease, but the bottom line is: the out-of-the-box experience on new AND upgraded PCs was mostly okay. Then it came Vista. An OS designed for at least 1Gb RAM, preinstalled on machines who stubbornly refused to sell with more than 512Mb (even 384Mb, the horror!) for a looong time. I remember that, at least where I live, RAM prices sky rocketed just months afther Vista came out, because almost all people irremediably needed the upgrade. It also didn't help that vendors were happy to fill new systems with their auto-installing crapware. While this wasn't Microsoft fault, it certainly helped to cement Vista's reputation as a very heavy-weight OS. Having said that. I concede the point that Vista was pretty alright, provided your PC had the grunt to run it.
mepian 3y ago
XP had much better compatibility with Windows 95/98 software than 2000, especially games, as far as I remember.
- anthk 3y ago
  Windows 2000 had a compatibility mode a la XP, but you needed to activate it with a command. No, XP wasn't better, some Direct Draw games just ran under Windows 95, 98, ME or 2000 in compat mode.
EvanAnderson 3y ago
Windows Server 2003 had all the XP goodness but without the UI cruft. I ran it as a daily driver for a few years. Until Windows 7 came out it was the best version of Windows. Product activation was its downside.
cdchn 3y ago
No telemetry, no activation, efficient non-garish UI, "NT stability" which was great for the time. Yeah, we'll never be able to get that back. I have Windows 11 on my gaming PC and it is... sheeesh.

stevekemp 3y ago

Windows 2000 was peak-Windows for me, for sure. Not quite as stable as Windows NT4, but pretty close, and it benefited from added support for USB and other "modern" things.

cdchn 3y ago
And compatibility with Windows 95 and MS-DOS.
- M95D 3y ago
  What compatibility? What are you talking about? Can't even run Doom. https://www.doomworld.com/forum/topic/3353-cant-get-dooom-to-play-properly-under-windows-2000/ https://www.doomworld.com/forum/topic/3353-cant-get-dooom-to...
  - anthk 3y ago
    You can use, maybe, ReactOS' ntvdm.dll as a replacement. On W95 compatibility, in lots of older games (specially the Direct Draw ones) ran much better than XP.

Modified3019 3y ago

My only computer for a long time was old thinkpad, so I actually ended up skipping over windows XP entirely. I finally moved on after the first service pack for vista came out (in 2008), which was surprisingly alright in my experience. It ended up being more stable than win2000. The biggest problem with the older windows is that poorly written drivers (which is most of them) had a tendency to bluescreen the entire system when they fucked up. Newer windows is so much more resistant to that now.

bandergirl 3y ago
> [Vista] was surprisingly alright in my experience I never understood the hate for Vista. People were overly complacent and wanted a OS that ran on 128MB of ram like XP did. Vista was not that. When 7 came along, it was pretty much the same core, except now many computers were already Vista-capable. I was using the Vista Beta of my 2GB-RAM computer for 6 months before release and it was vastly better than XP.
- nickweb 3y ago
  The hate came from it being pre installed on massively underpowered computers. The majority of users came to vista with a new PC and it just ruined the experience. I still remember trying to troubleshoot a minor issue and it took half a day just because of the performance on this new PC.
- n8cpdx 3y ago
  Project Mojave was Microsoft’s attempt to correct this issue. It didn’t go well. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ihorvo2tEuA https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ihorvo2tEuA
- serf 3y ago
  I don't remember the specifics, but I do remember that Vista broke a ton of drivers I used for industrial equipment. Serial controllers, that kind of stuff. If I remember right it had something to do with the transition to driver signing beginning around that era. So, it represented a lot of labor. >I was using the Vista Beta of my 2GB-RAM computer for 6 months before release and it was vastly better than XP. you were blessed to have 2gb in 06. a lot of us didn't. [0] [0]: https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/CrYAAOSwpOZgQFm7/s-l1600.jpg https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/CrYAAOSwpOZgQFm7/s-l1600.jpg
- vctrnk 3y ago
  Up to that point, most Windows iterations didn't require (for the time) big upgrades to run fine. Many PCs designed for a given version could run the next, maybe with a little elbow grease, but the bottom line is: the out-of-the-box experience on new AND upgraded PCs was mostly okay. Then it came Vista. An OS designed for at least 1Gb RAM, preinstalled on machines who stubbornly refused to sell with more than 512Mb (even 384Mb, the horror!) for a looong time. I remember that, at least where I live, RAM prices sky rocketed just months afther Vista came out, because almost all people irremediably needed the upgrade. It also didn't help that vendors were happy to fill new systems with their auto-installing crapware. While this wasn't Microsoft fault, it certainly helped to cement Vista's reputation as a very heavy-weight OS. Having said that. I concede the point that Vista was pretty alright, provided your PC had the grunt to run it.

mepian 3y ago

XP had much better compatibility with Windows 95/98 software than 2000, especially games, as far as I remember.

anthk 3y ago
Windows 2000 had a compatibility mode a la XP, but you needed to activate it with a command. No, XP wasn't better, some Direct Draw games just ran under Windows 95, 98, ME or 2000 in compat mode.

EvanAnderson 3y ago

Windows Server 2003 had all the XP goodness but without the UI cruft. I ran it as a daily driver for a few years. Until Windows 7 came out it was the best version of Windows. Product activation was its downside.

cdchn 3y ago

No telemetry, no activation, efficient non-garish UI, "NT stability" which was great for the time. Yeah, we'll never be able to get that back. I have Windows 11 on my gaming PC and it is... sheeesh.