3 ms·

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

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.
        p_ing 2y ago
        Core isn't close. It's still a graphical interface.
        EvanAnderson 2y ago
        I guess I misread you, then. I thought you were arguing that a text mode wouldn't be useful. That's why I suggested Server Core. It's CLI, but uselessly framed in a GUI framework. Like I said in my earlier post, text mode NT is my fever dream fantasy. Maybe you were saying the same thing.
        p_ing 2y ago
        Yes, I was saying the same thing. There are very few applications we could run on a text-mode DOS/Linux-CLI type NT due to the upstream dependencies that require (or implement) a graphical interface. Text-only mode would be wonderful even if all you could do is look at a blinking cursor.
_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.

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.
      - p_ing 2y ago
        Core isn't close. It's still a graphical interface.
        EvanAnderson 2y ago
        I guess I misread you, then. I thought you were arguing that a text mode wouldn't be useful. That's why I suggested Server Core. It's CLI, but uselessly framed in a GUI framework. Like I said in my earlier post, text mode NT is my fever dream fantasy. Maybe you were saying the same thing.
        p_ing 2y ago
        Yes, I was saying the same thing. There are very few applications we could run on a text-mode DOS/Linux-CLI type NT due to the upstream dependencies that require (or implement) a graphical interface. Text-only mode would be wonderful even if all you could do is look at a blinking cursor.

_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.