4 ms·

I still consider Windows 2000 the best Windows ever made. NT under the hood, slim, up-to-date, extremely stable, it ran all the games I wanted. I managed to gra

I still consider Windows 2000 the best Windows ever made. NT under the hood, slim, up-to-date, extremely stable, it ran all the games I wanted. I managed to grab a burned CD with a full version somewhere, the keys were not yet checked online for multiple installs. For a long time, all software and every driver for XP also worked for 2000. I think I should find an old retro PC and install W2000 on it, just for fun.

NikkiA 2y ago
NT5 beta 2, before 2000 was enshittified. I would have stayed on it, but my video drivers (Rendition Vérité 2200) at the time were time limit locked and the next set of drivers released didn't support the betas anymore. 2000 was the next best thing, but it was definitely a step backwards from beta 2.
pndy 2y ago
I really liked both stability and that subtle change from dark grey GUI colour to gray with a really subtle yellow hint that made it more pleasant to my eyes. So was the default blue background colour instead of teal green more appealing. > I think I should find an old retro PC and install W2000 on it, just for fun. I made a W2000 install in VirtualBox with most of the old software I was using back then - of course without network connection outside. IMO that's much easier than dusting out old machine and wondering if it'll work at all after so many years but ofc there are people who dig that - I admire their dedication
mcny 2y ago
I remember things differently. Perhaps it was because I was working with older hardware or something I don't know but Windows 2k felt so slow to boot. I know it isn't a fair comparison since the computer with windows XP was newer and I don't remember the details but I remember thinking windows XP boots faster than 2k.
- reginald78 2y ago
  IIRC with XP they late loaded a lot of things to get the desktop showing faster than 2000. My experience at the time was that while the desktop might have loaded faster it wasn't actually usable for quite awhile after I was looking at it, but that might have had more to do with all the crapware on many XP machines I used at the time. XP definitely needed more ram than 2000 to function acceptably. I remember 128mb being slow but tolerable on 2000 and absolutely brutal on XP.
  - pndy 2y ago
    > IIRC with XP they late loaded a lot of things to get the desktop showing faster than 2000 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prefetcher https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prefetcher - that's the thing they introduced in XP to speed up loading the system and programs
  - Suppafly 2y ago
    >My experience at the time was that while the desktop might have loaded faster it wasn't actually usable for quite awhile after I was looking at it This, I think the fastboot stuff probably seemed good on development machines used at microsoft, but on the cheap computers loaded with OEM garbage that they were pushing as being capable of running xp, it mostly loaded the desktop and then locked up for several minutes to finish actually booting.
- recursive 2y ago
  Interesting. I have the opposite recollection. Perhaps it has more to do with the hardware I was using.
trollbridge 2y ago
Or you could just run it in a browser tab: https://bellard.org/jslinux/vm.html?url=win2k.cfg&mem=192&graphic=1&w=1024&h=768 https://bellard.org/jslinux/vm.html?url=win2k.cfg&mem=192&gr... This was written 7 years ago, and rather amusingly, part of it is called TEMU.
- enopod_ 2y ago
  cool, thanks! :)
rollcat 2y ago
Agree, W2k was peak Windows. Even the UI effects, like subtle drop shadows and fade-out animations looked tasteful, and were smooth on pretty average HW. Speaking of "workstation grade" Windows, you can still approximate this kind of experience by using "deshittification" scripts from around the Internet. IIRC I've used <https://github.com/Raphire/Win11Debloat https://github.com/Raphire/Win11Debloat>. There are also enterprise-oriented release channels that keep some of the new bloat away, I think you can convince your existing installation. Personally I'm more offended by recent macOS updates - probably since it's my daily driver, so I notice it more. I had to resort to things like MDM profiles to keep it in check. Modern software just feels worse. I don't think it's nostalgia. A few years ago I've had my first experience with OS X 10.5 on a PowerBook. The system looked and worked better than modern macOS, even while the hardware was hot and somewhat struggling. Everything I needed from the OS was there (except for a performant web browser and less heat/noise). I'd switch.

NikkiA 2y ago

NT5 beta 2, before 2000 was enshittified. I would have stayed on it, but my video drivers (Rendition Vérité 2200) at the time were time limit locked and the next set of drivers released didn't support the betas anymore. 2000 was the next best thing, but it was definitely a step backwards from beta 2.

pndy 2y ago

I really liked both stability and that subtle change from dark grey GUI colour to gray with a really subtle yellow hint that made it more pleasant to my eyes. So was the default blue background colour instead of teal green more appealing. > I think I should find an old retro PC and install W2000 on it, just for fun. I made a W2000 install in VirtualBox with most of the old software I was using back then - of course without network connection outside. IMO that's much easier than dusting out old machine and wondering if it'll work at all after so many years but ofc there are people who dig that - I admire their dedication

mcny 2y ago

I remember things differently. Perhaps it was because I was working with older hardware or something I don't know but Windows 2k felt so slow to boot. I know it isn't a fair comparison since the computer with windows XP was newer and I don't remember the details but I remember thinking windows XP boots faster than 2k.

reginald78 2y ago
IIRC with XP they late loaded a lot of things to get the desktop showing faster than 2000. My experience at the time was that while the desktop might have loaded faster it wasn't actually usable for quite awhile after I was looking at it, but that might have had more to do with all the crapware on many XP machines I used at the time. XP definitely needed more ram than 2000 to function acceptably. I remember 128mb being slow but tolerable on 2000 and absolutely brutal on XP.
- pndy 2y ago
  > IIRC with XP they late loaded a lot of things to get the desktop showing faster than 2000 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prefetcher https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prefetcher - that's the thing they introduced in XP to speed up loading the system and programs
- Suppafly 2y ago
  >My experience at the time was that while the desktop might have loaded faster it wasn't actually usable for quite awhile after I was looking at it This, I think the fastboot stuff probably seemed good on development machines used at microsoft, but on the cheap computers loaded with OEM garbage that they were pushing as being capable of running xp, it mostly loaded the desktop and then locked up for several minutes to finish actually booting.
recursive 2y ago
Interesting. I have the opposite recollection. Perhaps it has more to do with the hardware I was using.

trollbridge 2y ago

Or you could just run it in a browser tab: https://bellard.org/jslinux/vm.html?url=win2k.cfg&mem=192&graphic=1&w=1024&h=768 https://bellard.org/jslinux/vm.html?url=win2k.cfg&mem=192&gr... This was written 7 years ago, and rather amusingly, part of it is called TEMU.

enopod_ 2y ago
cool, thanks! :)

rollcat 2y ago

Agree, W2k was peak Windows. Even the UI effects, like subtle drop shadows and fade-out animations looked tasteful, and were smooth on pretty average HW. Speaking of "workstation grade" Windows, you can still approximate this kind of experience by using "deshittification" scripts from around the Internet. IIRC I've used <https://github.com/Raphire/Win11Debloat https://github.com/Raphire/Win11Debloat>. There are also enterprise-oriented release channels that keep some of the new bloat away, I think you can convince your existing installation. Personally I'm more offended by recent macOS updates - probably since it's my daily driver, so I notice it more. I had to resort to things like MDM profiles to keep it in check. Modern software just feels worse. I don't think it's nostalgia. A few years ago I've had my first experience with OS X 10.5 on a PowerBook. The system looked and worked better than modern macOS, even while the hardware was hot and somewhat struggling. Everything I needed from the OS was there (except for a performant web browser and less heat/noise). I'd switch.