upvote

points

by spyrja4 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby roadbuster4 hours ago|
next
[-]
> It really wasn't a bad operating system

It was a wonderful operating system. It provided consumer desktop essentials (Plug & Play, DirectX 7, ACPI power management, Windows Driver Model (WDM), and support for consumer I/O interfaces like USB and Firewire) alongside a modernized UI, all running atop the NT kernel. I was extremely lucky to receive a free copy of Windows 2000 Pro as a student, because I rode that horse for years.

Then Microsoft added a green start button and dark blue backgrounds and packaged Win2k for home users as Windows XP.

reply
upvoteby gosub1003 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
the drawback for me was the startup time. it really seemed to hang out on the splash screen for quite a while (just as NT4 did, and ofc they were from the same core)
reply
upvoteby sjsdaiuasgdia3 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
IIRC, Win2000 would wait for most/all services to complete startup before showing the login UI. XP would allow login as soon as enough of the system was started to support it. The tradeoff is that you might have slow performance from HDD thrashing while everything else finishes starting up.

It's been 20+ years so it's possible I had it wrong then, or remember it wrong now.

reply
upvoteby toast02 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
> The tradeoff is that you might have slow performance from HDD thrashing while everything else finishes starting up.

You would often get audio buffer underuns on the startup sound, if enabled, especially if you had auto login.

reply
upvoteby classichasclass2 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
No, that's pretty accurate as I recall. Windows 2000 took a bit, but when it was up, it was up. Windows XP would pop you into what appeared to be a functional desktop quickly, but it was still loading in the background, and some things just sort of sat there for awhile. Win2K was much more predictable. When I wasn't on a Mac during my consultant days, it was on Windows 2000, because it was much more stable than the 98 clients.
reply
upvoteby doublerabbit3 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Windows 2000 was the first release of NT5. That's what made it 2000.

Windows ME on the other hand...

reply
upvoteby Borg33 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
[dead]
reply
upvoteby userbinator1 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
I personally think the hypervisor architecture of 9x and its predecessors (starting at Windows/386) was far more interesting and innovative; while Win2k and the NT line are "traditional" OSes, 9x and 3.x are effectively VM hypervisors that have default hardware pass-through. DOS applications had dismal performance on NT, if they even ran at all.
reply
upvoteby jeffbee3 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
Win9X wasn't Win2k's ancestor. Win2k was from the house of Windows NT. WinXP was the merger of the two lines.

Probably very few people switched from Windows 98 to Windows 2000. That wasn't considered an upgrade path. That was installing a different operating system.

Technically Windows ME existed, I guess.

reply