TPU's Nostalgic Hardware Club

[AUTOEXEC.BAT]

I have never heard someone saying they preferred 2000 to XP?
What is the reason you prefer 2000 over XP?

Oh i did a couple of times here...
It worked very stable all the time for me.
As Lex says, no activation crap. When it has no 2000 drivers, try XP driverss.
I can say that Windows 2000 was the more stable OS for me. Also ME, 7 and 10

And i wonder how long it takes that someone quote me, saying "ME was bad, 98 is better bla bla"

 

[Greenslade]

Oh i did a couple of times here...
It worked very stable all the time for me.
As Lex says, no activation crap. When it has no 2000 drivers, try XP driverss.
I can say that Windows 2000 was the more stable OS for me. Also ME, 7 and 10

And i wonder how long it takes that someone quote me, saying "ME was bad, 98 is better bla bla"

Yes i know you did.It seems apart from Lex most people say ME is
better than 98se ,i like it myself but have not used it much.Does anyone use Linux on a Retro PC?

 

[lexluthermiester]

And i wonder how long it takes that someone quote me, saying "ME was bad, 98 is better bla bla"

What are you talking about, I say that all the time. You would be quoting me sir!

Yes i know you did.It seems apart from Lex

Wait what?!? Whacho talkin bout Willis? I always say ME is the best 9X OS! It's a little bit my PC retro mantra..

 

[Greenslade]

What are you talking about, I say that all the time. You would be quoting me sir!


Wait what?!? Whacho talkin bout Willis? I always say ME is the best 9X OS! It's a little bit my PC retro mantra..

Thar

What are you talking about, I say that all the time. You would be quoting me sir!


Wait what?!? Whacho talkin bout Willis? I always say ME is the best 9X OS! It's a little bit my PC retro mantra..

That,s what i said ,you told me ME was better than 98se.

 

[Ruru]

I have never heard someone saying they preferred 2000 to XP?
What is the reason you prefer 2000 over XP?

Hella more stable than XP. And I guess that I want(ed) just be in the minority since almost everyone used XP. Also more friendly for older systems since it's a bit more lightweight.

Sucked when software developers stopped supporting it so I had to go with XP in daily usage.

 

[mtosev]

I remember running Windows 2000 on my then pc. I had a Celeron 466mhz, 10gb HDD, 128mb ram, Riva TNT, Nokia 447Zi. Got nice memories of that time.

 

[rusty caterpillar]

I have. Win2k runs a bit leaner and cleaner than XP. There's also no activation nonsense. With ServicePack4 and DirectX9c, Win2k is a very solid retro gaming OS. 99% of all XP drivers work with Win2k.

Apart from the fact that XP needs more RAM than 2000 even the requirements are similar( XP really needs 128mb otherwise is sluggish) I really don't see the point of win 2000.
2000 was more stable on servers than XP but, that was back in time. Well, XP was not design with server in mind.

The point is, XP with a nice installation and a bit of luck will be more stable and error free than 2000 IMHO.
NTFS issues on win 2000 shown at some point and not sure was ever fixed. As I remember NTFS was implemented in win OS in 2000 version for the first time, but how well was introduced in Win 2000....

Hella more stable than XP. And I guess that I want(ed) just be in the minority since almost everyone used XP. Also more friendly for older systems since it's a bit more lightweight.

Sucked when software developers stopped supporting it so I had to go with XP in daily usage.

Most of the users in that era and where I leaved was in 2 bands: Win 98 and XP for those who had the hardware to run it.
2000 was a rarity, never came with PCs and used mostly on servers. 2000 was far better than 98 or Millennium but, support for normal daily applications including games, was nowhere and was intended for servers.
ME was on the skeleton of 2000 but, very bad coded.
When XP came out the hardware stores had a huge load over their shoulders and XP just sweep it away, the amount of errors compared with 98 was very small and some new issues start when the clients couldn't afford 128 Mb ram so had to run it on 64Mb. The HDDs taking blows form the OS, failure rate increased, caused mostly by overheating. Each and there arms falling off and rattle on the platters. The usual victims Seagate and some Maxtors, Fireball was the one that had endurance and Big Foot to the heat stress. Big Foot resisted well but, was damn slow. Well the amount of of the metal in the wide case acted as a radiator.
Than the RAM went cheaper quiet fast after XP launch and all went normal, 128Mb was a norm now, some drives was still screaming and grinding hard but slowly people jumped to 192Mb. HDDs was resting again, and than some more RAM 256Mb and 512 Mb was often seen. When 1Gb and 2 GB was there the big monster fallout was imminent >>> Vista
Systems screamed : "I want out" but Vista and his acolytes(several OS processes and spyware) was engulfing them fast and "efficient" with each "encouraged" sale by MS . The stench was pungent and nobody is seeing the light...

 

[Greenslade]

Hella more stable than XP. And I guess that I want(ed) just be in the minority since almost everyone used XP. Also more friendly for older systems since it's a bit more lightweight.

Sucked when software developers stopped supporting it so I had to go with XP in daily usage.

What browser can you use with it?Not that i will be doing much browsing with it.You know about tech stuff i have Sony power shot Camera ,and when i plug it in to my PC it says it is a mass storage? And on my other camera a Cannon ixus 125hs the photos come out dark see below.I must admit i have not mucked about with the settings on both cameras.

 

[Ruru]

What browser can you use with it?

Browser? I don't go online even with Win7 anymore, let alone with OSes from the turn of the millennium.

 

[rusty caterpillar]

What browser can you use with it?Not that i will be doing much browsing with it.You know about tech stuff i have Sony power shot Camera ,and when i plug it in to my PC it says it is a mass storage? And on my other camera a Cannon ixus 125hs the photos come out dark see below.I must admit i have not mucked about with the settings on both cameras.

NetEscape

 

[Greenslade]

Browser? I don't go online even with Win7 anymore, let alone with OSes from the turn of the millennium.

I was just wondering what one would work with it MYPAL or K-Meleon.

 

[lexluthermiester]

I really don't see the point of win 2000.

That's cool, use XP then.

The point is, XP with a nice installation and a bit of luck will be more stable and error free than 2000 IMHO.

That's an opinion, there's no real evidence one way or the other.

I was just wondering what one would work with it MYPAL or K-Meleon.

Either one of those should work, just be careful where you go.

 

[Ruru]

I was just wondering what one would work with it MYPAL or K-Meleon.

Browsing the interwebz is already a PITA with a Core2 Duo, so I wouldn't even try with a Pentium M, even with a supported OS.

 

[jak_2456]

When 1Gb and 2 GB was there the big monster fallout was imminent >>> Vista

Oh man; Vista was a complete mess. It was in development for six years (2001-2007) and they even reset the development in 2004. Vista became very bloated and demanding over the course of the development due to the sheer amount of features the dev teams were trying to add without much communication between each other. However, the reason why Windows 7 was better was because Microsoft put the dev team from Office '07 in charge because it was well-received.

 

[Ruru]

Oh man; Vista was a complete mess. It was in development for six years (2001-2007) and they even reset the development in 2004. Vista became very bloated and demanding over the course of the development due to the sheer amount of features the dev teams were trying to add without much communication between each other. However, the reason why Windows 7 was better was because Microsoft put the dev team from Office '07 in charge because it was well-received.

I'd say that Vista got most of its negative feedback for its hardware requirements, OEMs shipped cheap laptops with a slow single-core CPU and 512MB-1GB RAM which just wasn't enough. With a decent dual-core and 2+ gigs of RAM, worked fine, at least I didn't have anything to complain anymore. I had an E6400 @ 3.2GHz & 2GB RAM, ran just as fine as XP did before it.

 

[rusty caterpillar]

That's an opinion, there's no real evidence one way or the other.

Of course it is an opinion. It is a discussion. That's why we are here to bring our opinions backd up by evidence or not. I must say I'm too lazy to bring up any evidence now.

Back in time I had enough evidence as I tried to find OS to run on less RAM than XP and not so many errors as 98, so 2000 was my best bet. Guess what? very few games ever run on 2000 and customers was not happy. They barley could handle an OS(customers) as Win, nevermind Linux. Even people purchasing PC for their business wanted to play games and 200o didn't like many things about games, specially those as came as free Demos in PC magazines(better security than 98 and that free software had to meet some standards)
That is my little "evidence" only. 2000 was not viable in that market/location.

I'd say that Vista got most of its negative feedback for its hardware requirements, OEMs shipped cheap laptops with a slow single-core CPU and 512MB-1GB RAM which just wasn't enough. With a decent dual-core and 2+ gigs of RAM, worked fine, at least I didn't have anything to complain anymore. I had an E6400 @ 3.2GHz & 2GB RAM, ran just as fine as XP did before it.

Yeah, that was one factor very true, but I had a lot of people screaming about audio quality on their sound banks and that was nasty to. A lot of processes compared with XP harder to manage and control from the security point of view.
I had myself both flavors 32 and 64, 32 bit installation was much better than 64 bit one for some reason. I had 4 Gb RAM that time but, I remember HDD led still bleeping like it was shorted.
Was so much worst than XP as responsiveness but, the sales pushed hard Vista in any new PC or Laptop regardless if those machines could handle it. Was chaos. Ppl wanted refund for a PC cause Vista made out of it steaming pile with fans.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Of course it is an opinion. It is a discussion. That's why we are here to bring our opinions backd up by evidence or not.

No, opinions need to have merit, be accurate and have some basis in reality. Otherwise we get people visiting the site and reading information and thinking it's factual. As a rule, and detailed here, everyone is welcome to join and discuss topics freely. However, information needs to be grounded in the realm of reality. Now opinions about personal preference? That's different. Go to town. You like XP more than 2k? That's cool, so do I. But for you to state that 2k is less stable than XP is not personal opinion, it's information presented in a factual manner that has no merit whatsoever.

I must say I'm too lazy to bring up any evidence now.

That's because there isn't any. In reality the opposite of your suggestion is correct. Win2k never had the glitches and problems XP did. That's not to say it didn't have a few, but they were entirely minor compared to the sheer mountain of problems XP had.