4 ms·

Someone forgets how long Windows 2000 took to boot ;-)

• LooseMarmoset 11mo ago
  I recall it booting more slowly than 98 or ME, but I don't recall it being obnoxiously bad. I do remember disabling a lot of services I didn't think I needed, though.
  • p_ing 11mo ago
    The serialized service startup is what caused the slowness. Disabling services would have improved boot times.
    • LooseMarmoset 11mo ago
      well it has been a couple years since I've used it ;)
      • p_ing 11mo ago
        Sometimes I question why I remember this stuff.
• chungy 11mo ago
  A heck of a lot faster than Windows XP or newer versions, that's for sure.
  • p_ing 11mo ago
    It was much slower than current OSes. Windows 2000 initialized Windows Services in a serialized order which caused lengthy boot times, even for an OOTB copy. XP changes this to a parallel + delayed service start up, but 7 and 8 really focused on boot times.
• jim180 11mo ago
  given the current state of things, I'd take that slow boot over anything else ;)
• keyringlight 11mo ago
  Back then (probably xp era) I remember quirks like needing to configure the IDE controllers so if you didn't have both connectors on the PATA cable used it would spend a ton of time trying to detect a device where there wasn't one. You needed to go into device manager and disable that connector (unless you added a drive)
• theandrewbailey 11mo ago
  If you turned off a PC booting Windows 2000, you'd have an unbootable install of Windows 2000. Source: I did that. Twice.