4 ms·

Windows 2000 server was peak windows. All the subsequent versions just got harder to maintain as they gradually ruined the user interface. Nobody cares about

Windows 2000 server was peak windows. All the subsequent versions just got harder to maintain as they gradually ruined the user interface. Nobody cares about the UI on consumer windows but if you’re spending a lot of time in RDP the vista based server products are terrible. I don’t hate windows 2019 but Linux is better, easier, faster and a relief after any futile attempts to use IIS or sql server in 2025.

aloha2436 2y ago
> vista based server products are terrible. The first generation of tabletised 8/Metro interfaces made me audibly groan every time I had to RDP into machines running 2012.
- smackeyacky 2y ago
  Oh yes. I still have a client that has 2012 and it physically hurts to use
- 9dev 2y ago
  The stuttering over RDP when the start menu animation tried to slide in the tiles was amazing.
genewitch 2y ago
windows xp x64 edition was pretty slick; and so was NT4. I agree that 2000 was pretty cool, but perhaps a lot of that is design nostalgia. It was very "serious business OS" where XP and Me looked like jellybeans and cartoons. My favorite windows, though, is win 7 ultimate, Steve Ballmer Edition. i was sad when i had to upgrade to winten. ninja proof: https://i.imgur.com/l29rDVo.jpeg https://i.imgur.com/l29rDVo.jpeg
- smackeyacky 2y ago
  I get the nostalgia for XP, it was the first windows consumer edition that didn’t suck, but for a server OS 2000 was so lean and easy to manage it makes me wonder how MS lost to Linux. Back then, it was a genuine competition, now you’d have to be crazy to choose windows to deploy anything.
  - genewitch 2y ago
    i never used windows XP, i went from 2000 pro to XP x64 edition, which came out 2 years after XP did.
  - Hnrobert42 2y ago
    Maybe, but Win 3.1 was good for me.
  - p_ing 2y ago
    Windows Server still has it's place. AD DS, file services, and SQL Server being the big ones. Linux doesn't have apps that do these things 'better'.
    - EvanAnderson 2y ago
      I wish MSFT could build Active Directory and the associated constellation of services on Linux. You can make a reasonable simulacrum with Samba but it isn't as well-integrated. (My fever dream wish is for a "distribution" of NT that boots in text mode and has an updated Interix subsystem alongside Win32. Throw in ZFS and it would be awesome.)
      - p_ing 2y ago
        An NT that boots into text mode wouldn't be terribly useful for software designed for NT today given the high dependency on UI libraries. I too wish for an NT that was CLI-only, striped of services as much as possible. Starting Windows NT... C:\> It's too bad Microsoft has no interest as a business in on-prem software.
        EvanAnderson 2y ago
        Server Core is close to what you're talking about re: CLI only. I agree re: MSFT having no interest in on-prem software. It saddens me.
        2y ago
- _blk 2y ago
  After SP2 the worst wrinkles are taken care of. Oh, and skip ever second OS release, of course. I'm not as much against windows as I uses to be but I'm not budging off Ubuntu LTS even though they too try really hard to rock the boat.
andy81 2y ago
Powershell was 2006, so I suppose the real "peak windows server UX" was 2016 when PS was relatively mature and came out-of-the-box with the latest version.
- EvanAnderson 2y ago
  If MSFT had back ported servicing stack updates to 2016 it would still be usable. As it stands it bogs down unreasonably when applying updates and needs lengthy DISM /CleanupImage processes to be run periodically to reclaim disk space.

aloha2436 2y ago

> vista based server products are terrible. The first generation of tabletised 8/Metro interfaces made me audibly groan every time I had to RDP into machines running 2012.

smackeyacky 2y ago
Oh yes. I still have a client that has 2012 and it physically hurts to use
9dev 2y ago
The stuttering over RDP when the start menu animation tried to slide in the tiles was amazing.

genewitch 2y ago

windows xp x64 edition was pretty slick; and so was NT4. I agree that 2000 was pretty cool, but perhaps a lot of that is design nostalgia. It was very "serious business OS" where XP and Me looked like jellybeans and cartoons. My favorite windows, though, is win 7 ultimate, Steve Ballmer Edition. i was sad when i had to upgrade to winten. ninja proof: https://i.imgur.com/l29rDVo.jpeg https://i.imgur.com/l29rDVo.jpeg

smackeyacky 2y ago
I get the nostalgia for XP, it was the first windows consumer edition that didn’t suck, but for a server OS 2000 was so lean and easy to manage it makes me wonder how MS lost to Linux. Back then, it was a genuine competition, now you’d have to be crazy to choose windows to deploy anything.
- genewitch 2y ago
  i never used windows XP, i went from 2000 pro to XP x64 edition, which came out 2 years after XP did.
- Hnrobert42 2y ago
  Maybe, but Win 3.1 was good for me.
- p_ing 2y ago
  Windows Server still has it's place. AD DS, file services, and SQL Server being the big ones. Linux doesn't have apps that do these things 'better'.
  - EvanAnderson 2y ago
    I wish MSFT could build Active Directory and the associated constellation of services on Linux. You can make a reasonable simulacrum with Samba but it isn't as well-integrated. (My fever dream wish is for a "distribution" of NT that boots in text mode and has an updated Interix subsystem alongside Win32. Throw in ZFS and it would be awesome.)
    - p_ing 2y ago
      An NT that boots into text mode wouldn't be terribly useful for software designed for NT today given the high dependency on UI libraries. I too wish for an NT that was CLI-only, striped of services as much as possible. Starting Windows NT... C:\> It's too bad Microsoft has no interest as a business in on-prem software.
      - EvanAnderson 2y ago
        Server Core is close to what you're talking about re: CLI only. I agree re: MSFT having no interest in on-prem software. It saddens me.
        2y ago
_blk 2y ago
After SP2 the worst wrinkles are taken care of. Oh, and skip ever second OS release, of course. I'm not as much against windows as I uses to be but I'm not budging off Ubuntu LTS even though they too try really hard to rock the boat.

andy81 2y ago

Powershell was 2006, so I suppose the real "peak windows server UX" was 2016 when PS was relatively mature and came out-of-the-box with the latest version.

EvanAnderson 2y ago
If MSFT had back ported servicing stack updates to 2016 it would still be usable. As it stands it bogs down unreasonably when applying updates and needs lengthy DISM /CleanupImage processes to be run periodically to reclaim disk space.