Tfw everyone says that Windows 2000 was the best Windows in terms of UI and stability yet I've never used it nor do I...

It was great when XP pre-SP2 was still a pile of garbage. I used Win2K for many years, even put the WinXP boot files on it so it would boot as fast as XP.

Quality OS right there. I replaced my Mandrake Linux box with it since I used that only for NAT (ip masquerading) and NAT actually worked very well on 2000.

I used XP only for a short time since I used 2000 as long as it was generally supported and quickly after getting XP I switched to Linux for my desktop needs due to better support for university CS courses.

Xp and 2000 were gods compared to the trash they have out now.

Attached: noway.gif (240x228, 857K)

>same thing was better than same thing

ok

I hope you don’t actually believe that XP was nothing more than a reskinned 2000.

of course not. They changed the name as well

but they were though. so much so a lot of applications made for xp can be run in 2000 if you use a kernel extension, which bypasses most artificial compatibility problems

Who the fuck used windows 2000? Nobody.
It was 95 -> 98 -> straight up to XP

I guess in a few years retards will start praising Vista.

Same. I was on 2k til summer 2012. Only then xp then to 7 Jan'15.
>be me partying like 1999
>2k idle at 170mB
>pings to other side of planet launch piggiest of apps and couldn't mouse over/kb shortcut to file menu before open
To the developers maybe. But, oobe not much more performance wise. And you had to really know your way around, under the hood, to get that much. Idle desktop from a cold boot consumed over double the memory compared with 2k.

This board loves to praise Vista if you didn't already know

protip: windows xp x64 edition aka windows server 2003 with classic theme looks almost exactly like win2k but has 64 bit support and more. Was running that shit well into the windows 7 gen.

This is the route most plebeian faggots who only wanted to play video games took, since a proper operating system like NT was too secure for their awful hackish nightmares.

But plenty of people who weren't mentally twelve used 2000 and NT4 on their systems, it was absolutely superior for everything but shitty old DOS software and games.

Thing with xp64 was drivers, a nightmare to get something to work on it. Strange enough a friend of mine had some chink audio card that only worked on xp64

XP x64 is essentially useless because it already dropped DOS/16-bit support. That's one of the biggest advantages of plain XP (over Vista and later, where even x86 doesn't have full support).

I've used this. I had Celeron machine with 64 megs of ram (in 1999's) and it ran pretty good, but XP was to heavy.

>tfw p3 in 2005 with win2k

Windows Me tarnished 2000's reputation by mimicking the UI

a lot of ignorant ppl will say it's terrible because they think it's the same OS
>it's not. they're a whole world apart

at the start it was. I mean one's NT 5.0 the other's NT 5.1
heck they didn't need to give it a new name or UI. just stick with what works and enhance it like they did up to XP SP3. instead they kind of abandoned 2000.

people who had it as their first OS will

similar setup. XP was really slow on a K6-2 500. 2000 worked much better.

I actually still love Vista. Last to have the old taskbar before Microsoft tried to do their copy of the Mac's dock.

But I've used it in 2003-2008 I guess, and it had 64 megs until 2006 I believe.

>XP was really slow on a K6-2 500. 2000 worked much better.
Heh, I used to have a system like that with XP. Wish I had been able to try 2000. It wasn't so bad except for SP2 on 128MB RAM.

You're forgetting ME.
But yeah I didn't know anyone who used 2000. I think it was only used in business environments.

>Windows Me tarnished 2000's reputation by mimicking the UI
i remember plenty of people used to confuse ME and 2000
after all, they both refer to the new millenium

>only used in business environments
Mainly used in biz and being exposed through work is probably how most personal use was created. I have a friend who used me and vehemently opposed the thought of moving to 2k. Always got a chuckle when over at his place because there was always some issue with his machine. Patches failing, upgrading this s/w or non-support of drivers for that h/w. Comedy.

Quality OS right there. I replaced my Mandrake Linux box with it since I used that only for NAT (ip masquerading) and NAT actually worked very well on 2000.

I used XP only for a short time since I used 2000 as long as it was generally supported and quickly after getting XP I switched to Linux for my desktop needs due to better support for university CS courses.

95 -> 98 -> 98SE* 2000 Advanced Server -> XP -> Vis.. -> XP again -> Win 7 Ultimate x64 -> Win10 Enterprise x64

Went back and forth because 3dfx Glide wasn't working on NT based system as much as they did on 98SE.