back to article So long then, Windows 2000

Windows NT 4.0 made Microsoft an operating system player for file servers and crushed NetWare, but it was Windows 2000 Server and Advanced Server that stormed the walls of the glasshouse and smashed enough windows to actually get inside and start taking over the joint. And now, it is dead. At least as far as Microsoft is …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Pirate Dave Silver badge
    Pirate

    meh

    Funny. For a dead OS, it still seems to be running fine on this machine.

    But it does put those of us who still like it (I know I'm not the only one) in a bit of a pickle. We didn't upgrade to XP for various reasons (abhorrence of a crayola-inspired desktop being one), and I personally like Win7's crappy desktop even less. Linux isn't there yet, not really. And I'd get about as much use out of OS X as I would out of a Ford engine manual written in Chinese. I don't know what to do at this point - my preferred desktop OS is fading, and I've nowhere to go to.

    1. Penguin herder
      Linux

      All but the Linux comment

      Win2k will continue to run on various machines of mine that are not connected to the outside world and are (until that power line network thing gets going) not a risk from malware. You say Linux is not yet ready. For what? I find it very ready. The hardest things for me to port will be a couple of places that I used printer canvases to great benefit.

    2. Rick Giles
      Linux

      Not to beat the Linux drum (too hard)

      But seriously? There are many wonderful Linux distros out there that will scream on even an old workhorse and you shouldn't have any hardware compatibility issues either. Now if you have some ancient legacy software that wouldn't run on XP or higher, then the no Linux argument really isn't very valid. But there is always WINE.

      1. Pirate Dave Silver badge

        @Rick Giles

        Yeah, I know all that, but I still have numerous admin apps that need Windows (of some sort), as well as still running the ancient Netware rconsole over rspx (I HATE the new replacements for rconsole) to admin my Netware 6.5 boxes - yes I still have some. And the Groupwise 6.5 client (which we still use) isn't as good in Linux as in Windows. And some of the webpage-based admin interfaces for some of my network stuff just doesn't render properly in anything other than IE - poor programming decisions on their part, but not a lot I can do about it.

        I love Linux on my servers, but find it requires too many compromises (at least in my case) to use on my desktop.

      2. BlueGreen

        Some of us are devs

        We need win-specific apps. There's no choice in the matter (yet), we must have it.

        Won't stop me from installing tux-y soon[*] but it will have VMs with windows on them. We're not all casual home users.

        And BTW as devs we need rock-solid stability, stuff like wine doesn't cut it.

        [*] because I've come to bloody hate MS.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        ubuntu

        On Linux, I recently installed Ubuntu 10.04 on an old desktop box - Dell optiplex GX 260, Pentium 4 (After using an earlier ubuntu version dual boot with wubi/windows setup) Liked it, so installed 10.04 removing Win2k. (Read the reg linux guide and was convinced)

        Long story short, since then I'm plagues with black screens at random points. After reading the forums it seems to be very common with compatibility issues due to decisions about which video driver versions to come with 10.04

        I regret my decision now and have a completely unstable OS.

        Ya I know...."there's a better distro"

    3. Piro Silver badge

      Windows Server

      Windows Server 2003 R2, then

    4. Geoff Campbell
      Gates Halo

      Just a passing thought:

      Have you given the XP and 7 user interfaces a fair go? I dismissed them both as eye candy when I first saw them, but after using each for a couple of days, I grew to like them, and now going back to previous versions is quite painful.

      GJC

    5. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Eh?

      You've got to be joking, I couldn't stand the XP standard desktop, so I switched it off and used the old-style desktop. It took about a minute.

    6. Number6

      Change the Theme

      My solution on every Windows XP machine I've used is to change the desktop theme to Windows Classic with a cyan-ish uniform background colour. Same look and feel all the way.

      My father is still running Win2K on his home machine and I've just about persuaded him that next time I'm there, I'll upgrade him to Linux because it'll do just about everything he wants (email, web and a bit of word processing) and that'll save him having to pay for Win7 and new hardware on which to run it (his machine is old, but not worth upgrading for the amount of time he uses it).

      1. Pirate Dave Silver badge

        it's deeper than that

        we don't use AD here, as we are an eDirectory shop, so we use a lot of local-user stuff. I dislike the way MS has re-arranged the "group membership" dialog in lusrmgr - it drives me nuts on my W2k3 servers to add a user to a group - it's so much simpler in Win2k.

        Then there's the way MS has tweaked services.msc so that it's got that entire blank column on the left side - does nothing but waste space. Yes, I know that can be authored out, but it's still a PITA.

        And the shutdown monitor thingy in W2k3, another PITA that has to be tweaked.

        There are more, I just can't remember them now.

        As to Win7, I tried to give it a fair shot, but after a week it was driving me nuts. Things are buried too deeply and take too much clicking to get to. Not to mention that horrible ribbon menu creeping into old standbys (can't remember if it was in Paint or in Wordpad/Notepad). And the lack of a "classic" Win9x/2k Start menu just turned me off completely. Now if some enterprising company would come out with an Explorer replacement that looks and works like Win9x/2k, I might consider Win7. But until then, bleh. I'll pass.

  2. Dr Trevor Marshall
    Thumb Down

    Maybe I will upgrade to XP someday...

    The Windows 2000 on my main workstation has been running so reliably these past few years, a pleasant change from the early days when it had to be rebooted at least once a week. Partly that is maturity in the applications, especially the anti-virus programs, and partly the reliability seems to have come from the successive MS bugfixes.

    So why would I need to change to XP? I run XP on my 3 netbooks, and my laptop, and my 4CPU backup desktop system. XP works well enough, probably as well as this Windows 2000. And it has one or two multimedia improvements, notably improved webcam support.

    But Windoze 7? Why would I want to upgrade to server 2008 or Windoze 7? What I have works well, a Core 2 Duo CPU at 3GHz and a couple of gig of RAM, and 3+ terabytes of RAID disks on multiple drives.

    It will be interesting to see how things evolve...

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      More RAM ?

      you could upgrade to be able to use more than 3.7 Gigs of RAM. vista would be enough for that too actually (the 64 version)

  3. Shinku
    Heart

    RIP Win2k...

    ...who will be sorely missed, having made Windows NT user-friendly and lead the crusade against that icky old Windows 9x line.

    Speaking of said icky 9x line, the codename Memphis was that of Windows 98, not Windows 2000. The latter didn't really have a codename, unless you include simply "NT5" which if I recall was its prerelease name for a few betas.

    1. .james
      Happy

      nt4

      I found that using the desktop update from IE4 made it just as user friendly as win98.

  4. FIA Silver badge

    wibble

    Wasn't Memphis the codename for Win 98?

    I think 2K was just NT5 up until just before release.

    1. No, I will not fix your computer
      Boffin

      Yes!

      98 Was originally Memphis (and 4.1 and humouressly 97), but 2K was codenamed Memphis NT and I have a beta somehere that boots up as NT5 in the white logon banner.

  5. Bamba

    Eh?

    Windows XP's Luna theme is pretty horrible granted, but as you can switch from that to the Classic theme (which is a carbon copy of 2000's look and feel) with about four mouse clicks, using that as a decision to stick with such an ancient OS is pretty much insane.

    1. Penguin herder
      Alert

      Not quite a clone

      (Re XP's look out of the box) It is true that the Fisher-Price theme can be pretty readily suppressed, but the result is still (IMHO) not as solid as Win2k's user interface. There are subtle regressions in usability (drop down lists come to mind) and the explorer was not nearly as elegant (if that word can apply to *anything* from Redmond).

      1. Number6

        XP Theme

        I don't know if it dates me, but I always associated the XP default theme with the final sequence of Doom. Just don't turn around...

      2. Dale Richards
        Thumb Up

        Re: Not quite a clone...

        * Control Panel > System > Advanced > Performance Settings and choose "Adjust for best performance"

        * Tick any features you want to keep ("Smooth edges of screen fonts" can be handy) and hit OK

        * Control Panel > Display

        * Change theme to "Windows Classic"

        * Hit Appearance tab and change "Color [sic] scheme" to "Windows Classic". OK.

        * Control Panel > Taskbar and Start Menu > Start Menu

        * Choose "Classic Start menu". OK.

        It only takes a minute ans should be enough to satisfy most Windows 2000 hold-outs. For the really hardcore, there are further tweaks you can make, but it depends how much time and effort you want to put into it.

  6. Henry Wertz 1 Gold badge

    @Bamba

    "... using that as a decision to stick with such an ancient OS is pretty much insane."

    heh ancient OS... I think if you are suggesting going from 2000 to XP, you are not one to talk. XP is also ancient.

    I don't suggest going to Win7 either BTW -- I recommend sticking with 2000 until you can't, then seriously look at all your options -- Mac, Ubuntu, and so on.

  7. petur
    Stop

    @Pirate Dave

    Yes, RIP Windows 2000... served me well for about 8 years. The last sane (non-bloated) OS that MS made.

    Linux is pretty much there, just install the latest Ubuntu and tell me what is missing ;)

    1. Penguin herder
      Linux

      Not much

      There isn't much missing AFAICT. One thing that MS did well (or maybe I used used it well) was printer canvases. I have some fairly slick device-independent code that is going to a bear to port :( If anyone wants to use the boffin icon while they tell me how easy it is it replace, I'm listening...

  8. Anonymous Coward
    WTF?

    "Windows server platform ... positioned against mainframes"

    "the Windows server platform could credibly be positioned against mainframes, midrange gear, and Unix boxes"

    I read that and realised that there are very few people qualified to come up with that sort of comment. The Register should be proud it has one on the staff, shouldn't it.

    VMS 8.4 will be out in the field soon, will there be a writeup of that? Thirty years young (and a bit) and still going strong (at least in technical terms), despite Compaq and then HP's best efforts to ignore it.

    Even if HP don't do any easily-recyclable NDAs or press releases for VMS 8.4, there's likely to be enough to make it interesting to people *really* interested in Reliability, Availability, Security (or whatever RAS is short for), without having to pay mainframe-class hardware or software prices.

    That Matt Bryant's usually good with Itanium stuff isn't he?

    Or more seriously, HP UK still employ at least one "VMS Ambassador" last time I checked; hi Ray, how are you?

    1. No, I will not fix your computer
      Boffin

      Did you know....

      VMS is alphabetically one down from WNT, I have heard this was *why* [W]NT was chosen as it was a "step up" from VMS, they just made the "New Technlogy" fit.

      Who knows? probably just a coincidence.

  9. DEAD4EVER
    Thumb Up

    windows 2000

    ah well i must say 2000 has had its time its done well it was a great os for its era better than 98 me and 95 it just had that stable sorta feeling like xp without the fancy color anyway it had to come its done its job well done 2000. i once had a old pc and had 2000 on it it was awsome at the time professional edition it was i used to love the windows 2000 logo the bar moving because thats when you new it was gonna boot in now now where its hard to tell.

    1. Alex Rose

      Your nickname,

      ...does it refer to your opinion of grammer and/or punctuation?

      Seriously, try reading what you typed out-loud, and then come back and try to tell me I should take you seriously.

      I'm not trying to be a dick, but if you can't be bothered to try to communicate in a comprehensible fashion why on earth should I be bothered to try to understand you?

      1. DEAD4EVER
        WTF?

        alex

        i wish you would give it a rest abnout my puncuation and typing if you cant understand then stfu

        1. Sarah Bee (Written by Reg staff)

          Re: alex

          If you're not dyslexic then I suggest you raise your game a bit.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Unhappy

            Re: Sarah Bee

            I'm not Alex, but I do not wish to identify myself simply in case a future employer might do a web search on my name and see this post to hold it against me. Anyhow...

            I myself *am* dyslexic. I barely have any idea what the hell he said. Punctuation is very, very important in English, though overuse can become equally confusing. Basically what I got from his comment after reading it twice is "Windows 2000 good, 9x bad, progress bar gone now." I can't see anything at all in the post that warrants an upvote.

  10. N2
    Thumb Up

    The benefits of Windows 2000

    1, It works really well, without any annoying 'are you sure' messages

    2. It lacks the Fischer-Price interface

    3. All my software runs really well on it

    4. That silly Windows Genuine Disadvantage stuff is absent

    5. & I dont need a brand new computer to run it

    I may have to get rid of IE what ever came with it & do some configuration, but seriously who would connect to the Internet with IE?

    1. KayKay
      Pint

      What's wrong with connecting with IE?

      I use it every single time I install XP on a new hard drive, to connect to the internet (where else?) and download Firefox.

      1. Hans 1
        Boffin

        ie?

        When I install windows, I use the ftp command line tool to download ff from releases.mozilla.org ...

  11. Pawel 1

    Wikipedia...

    says:

    "Windows 2000 is a continuation of the Microsoft Windows NT family of operating systems, replacing Windows NT 4.0. Originally called Windows NT 5.0, then Windows NT 2000, Microsoft changed the name to Windows 2000 on 27 October 1998.[16] It is also the first Windows version that has been released without a code name, though Windows 2000 Service Pack 1 was codenamed "Asteroid"[17] and Windows 2000 64-bit was codenamed "Janus"[18]"

    1. The First Dave
      Grenade

      @Wiki

      Hold on just a moment and it will say something very different indeed...

  12. Paul Crawford Silver badge

    Last MS OS for me

    I got the desktop w2k professional with my PC around 2001, replacing an older NT4 box. It is the last MS OS I have willingly paid for. It worked fine, and I saw no compelling reason for XP, in fact, the whole product activation aspect left a bad taste in my mouth.

    Almost 8 years later, my PC failed with the 'bulging capacitors of death' and I turned it in to a VM and now run it under Ubuntu when needed. I can still dual boot, as I was able to install w2k on the new box (but it borked if I fitted 4GB memory, or by using a SATA DVD drive) but almost never do.

    For me at least, that looks like the future where *I* control my own PC, and have no long-term worries of it being remotely broken by a lack of activation support, or hardware change.

  13. Rogerborg
    Pint

    Upgrade path is 2K -> Ubuntu

    Even the wife is on 10.04 now, and not missing the Vista malware that came on her box.

    Granted, XP is better for gaming - even though 2K shares a kernel and DirectX 9 with NT5, there are too many lib snafus to make it practical as a gaming OS.

    But I still keep a 2K partition for the sheer joy of it. Rock solid, stable as all get out, no DRM gubbins, and it runs like a freaking rocket. Let's raise a glass to the best OS Redmond ever made, and no mistake.

  14. windywoo
    Jobs Horns

    I was in the Three Store

    Getting a new contract and phone and the machine they used to sign me up was running Windows 2000. I couldn't believe that even a company who are supposed to promote the cutting edge of hardware were using an operating system that was probably out of date around the time they started business.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      FAIL

      Hah

      Royal Bank of Scotland still use NT systems.......

      All the High End management get top of the line kit, with new versions of most software.. So often the Peons at the low end have to send MS Excel, and MS Doc files to the IT department so it can be converted to a early version to work on their NT systems running OLD SCHOOL versions of office ;P....

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Stop

        You're talking shite

        There are a few NT systems, almost no desktops (only legacy take-on that RBS bought out not migrated as it's uneconomical), there's probably more people using Fedora desktops with OO and they cause more document transfer problems, at least the MS Office compatibility pack works perfectly on 2007 (and a phone call will deliver a 2003 install to an executives desktop in minutes).

        And what's the "IT department" that you mention?

  15. tony72
    Flame

    Luddites!

    And tight-fisted, commie Luddites at that. Yes, 2000 was a decent OS in its day, but that was a long time ago. XP SP2 on was better, Vista was even... just kidding, but Windows 7 is better still. Now to add to the increasing amount of software that doesn't support Win2k (ok, so the luddites are probably running 10 year old software on their 10 year old OS, so that probably isn't so much of an issue for them), MS is pulling the plug on its updates. It's 2010 now, but it's not too late, you can still join in with the 21st century. This is a great opportunity to dust the cobwebs out of your wallets and BUY SOME NEW SOFTWARE!

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Coffee/keyboard

      Buy? Windows?

      Are you nuts?

    2. Penguin herder
      Linux

      Buy??

      I'm getting new software, but I don't buy it. As somebody said earlier, win2k->Ubuntu.

    3. asdf
      Linux

      why buy?

      > It's 2010 now, but it's not too late, you can still join in with the 21st century. This is a great opportunity to dust the cobwebs out of your wallets and BUY SOME NEW SOFTWARE!

      You don't have to spend any money to run some of the best most stable software out there including even an OS far more secure than winblows (Linux and BSD getting better all the time). Still even if you are a windows lover plenty of great modern open source software to be had for free. Much of it is far better than anything you can buy.

    4. Lou Gosselin

      Re: Luddites

      One objection I have to the upgrades is that each new release got more and more bloated, each new version was a significant downgrade in performance, even with the latest hardware.

      There is no justification for an operating system to require more ram than the applications running under it.

    5. Andy Enderby 1

      whilst not being one of this select group.....

      I appreciate the opinions of those that do still run 2000. But the truth is this, if all my apps, and all my hardware ran on 2000, then that is where I'd be, still on 2000.

      Why buy another piece of bloated software that does the same job, but does it worse (apps and hardware allowing of course) if you have no need of it ?

      For an org to run Vista on every desktop would be stupid (given MS stated policy on Vistas lifecycle), for them to run Win 7 they'd need major investment in hardware in comparison with XP or 2000, and if their current software does the job, why bother ? The west is in recession.

      I assume this was a humorous post, but it's worth stating that the purpose of an OS is to allow the user to run applications, not an end in itself.

    6. Anonymous Coward
      Grenade

      Frankenstein with lipstick

      Vista is a horrid Frankenstein. Its been cobbled together from all the dead MS OS's before I.

      You can see it how well MS's own tools handle things like, Alternate Data Streams, Junction Points, Hard links, Repair installation.

      With windows7 you get the duct tape version of vista.

      Some people actually would like an OS that can do OS stuff.

    7. N2

      Tight Fisted Commie Luddite?

      Im sure my MD will warm to this title when used as a reason to 'upgrade', but that & the prospect of saddling the company with a very large bill & no definite advantage is just not on the agenda.

      For business models that havnt really changed but exploited new ways of doing stuff over the last decade, any 'upgrade' is completely pointless if the existing software & hardware does the job well.

      Perhaps, the resistance to such pointless expenditure is one reason why some companies have been around a lot longer than others.

      1. N2

        Lipstick on a pig

        Me thinks

    8. Magnus_Pym
      Stop

      Shouty

      "BUY SOME NEW SOFTWARE!"

      NO?

  16. Glen Turner 666

    Win2K not a great desktop choice

    I'm not so sure it was so great compared to other Microsoft OSs. Look at it from a investment point of view. If you moved to Win Xp in 2001 you would have got nine years out of your OS before really needing to upgrade, and you would have been running the mainstream OS for most of that time.

    Interestingly, Win7 is starting to look like it will also have a good run. Vista looks like Win2k -- you've just installed it and it is already time to toss it overboard.

    Having written all of that, I run Ubuntu these days.

  17. Anonymous Coward
    Paris Hilton

    Still Available (I think)

    I noticed recently that my MSDN subscription was still showing Windows 3.x versions for me to download - and those are 1980's operating systems! So I don't think the W2000 die-slowlies should get too worried about not being able to get a version of Windows 2000 if they want a copy to take with them as they screw down the lid.

    Paris because whilst past her sell-by date she still has her uses.

  18. scuttled monkey

    W2K was horrible

    At the time MS touted it as the most secure computing environment...it ended up being the least secure OS.

    In addition to being plagued for years with security bugs it was ugly. That's when I decided to only use a more secure OS.

    Good riddance

  19. AndrueC Silver badge
    Thumb Down

    Damn

    I don't use it very much these days but when I do I appreciate the UI. Menus stay open for you to browse despite other applications launching in the background. Applications don't grab the focus if you're working on something else. Clicking once on a text box places the cursor there ready for editing instead of selecting the entire text. Menus pop up almost immediately rather than taking half a dozen seconds to decide what should be in them.

    I'm a Win7 and XP user mostly these days and they do the job but sometimes I get pissed off with the UI. It seems like with every release it becomes less tolerant of a multi-tasking user. If I launch an application then switch to something else while it loads the UI should leave the focus where I am. Applications should never be allowed to steal focus. As for menus - it's bad enough waiting for Windows to finish booting but if it's going to enable the desktop then let me bloody use it. Don't keep closing the [Start] menu just because things are loading!

  20. Al fazed Bronze badge
    WTF?

    2K ? It's still here !

    and since I disconnected it from t'internet, it runs smoother than ever.

    I've had my gripes about 2K over the last 10 years, but it's still my OS of choice for getting the majority of my work done on a daily basis.

    Surfin' n eMail are handled by OpenSuse 11 on a 10 year old box. My 3 kids play on and everyone else uses an XP'd P4 machine - which I use as a base line for fixing other peoples PC problems, as XP has had loads of 'em. Still, that box is about 9 years old and it has taken a lot of stick.

    IMHO, Linux on the desktop still has a long way to go, unfortunately.

    It's easy to set up now, but WELL flakey in the field, sadly, both Ubuntu up to 9.0 and OpenSuse 11 suffer.

    Is there a GUI Linux distro that doesn't ?

    Seriously, if there is, please let me know. And cut the bull shit.

    I do NOT recommend Linux to the majority of my clients.

    While 2K still sets the grade for functionality in my world.

    What was that about MAC ?

    As far as I am concerned, with Apple MACs it's a case of, F*ck the scenery mate I'm here to work !

    ALF

    1. Chemist

      Re : s there a GUI Linux distro that doesn't ?

      OpenSUSE 11.2/KDE - rock solid on everything I've installed it on

    2. Peter Gathercole Silver badge
      Unhappy

      More specific please

      "It's easy to set up now, but WELL flakey in the field, sadly, both Ubuntu up to 9.0 and OpenSuse 11 suffer."

      You don't say what it suffers from. And in the next sentence you ask if there is a Linux distro that doesn't.

      If by flakey (sic) you mean unreliable or prone to crashes, then I would look at your hardware because I use Ubuntu LTS releases from 6.04 and have responsibility for many SuSE systems, and find them all incredibly stable (longest to hand, SLES 10.2 - OK, not OpenSuse, at 344 days uptime).

      I'm sure we could answer if we knew what your detailed concerns were.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Happy

      Wide variety, Debian or CentOS on the most stable end

      "Is there a GUI Linux distro that doesn't ?

      Seriously, if there is, please let me know. And cut the bull shit."

      Ubuntu is like the bleeding edge on the Linux-environments. ;)

      It has the latest gadgets but overall quality is something like late beta (personal opinion as a sysadmin). Even worse than Fedora which might be the next step on sliding scale from 'latest gadgets' to 'stability'. Usually you can't have both, so you have to choose.

      On the stable end of the spectrum there are something like CentOS or Debian.

      Our company is using CentOS because many of our sysadmins have RedHat-background and CentOS tries to be as stable RedHat-derivative as there can be and very near to Red Hat Enterprise LInux. Debian stable would be the alternative.

      Many will say that both are not only stable but stagnated. ;)

      I see it as a good thing, when I'm running a server on either.

  21. Head
    Pint

    Ha

    It will be a long time before i give up my copy of 2000 and XP.

    Why the hell is Windows 7 such a horribly bloated OS? Why not just a small, efficient and tight OS like 2k???

    1. Chris Byers
      Go

      It's Called 'Evolution'

      Win 2000, in it's day was quite groundbreaking. Those of us that migrated from NT 4.0 will never forget the tears of joy as AD and GPO's made our lives so much easier when managing Windows networks, but sadly, things move on. Just as humans are no longer the tiny scurrying mammals our prehistoric ancestors were, Windows has evolved. It has got rather large, I will admit, but it has to carry compatability librarys for several previous Windows incarnations, has a LOT more bells and whistles than 2000 (Media Center being a good example) and has to deliver what home users want, rather than the business users that 2000 was aimed at.

      Windows 2000, it came, made our lives brighter, but we moved on, and it's time it was laid to rest.

      1. Lou Gosselin

        Re: It's Called 'Evolution

        Down at the core, we all know this is all about selling more copies.

        But, when we get right down to how it ought to be, then it's pretty clear that the OS should be secure, stable, efficient, and lean.

        Your example of media center is a prime example of something should be installed on top of the OS, not built into it. This is true for most of the bloat which comes with windows these days.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Planned obsolence

      "Why not just a small, efficient and tight OS like 2k???"

      When 2k was introduced, it was hugely bloated version of NT (because of active directory) and offered only USB-support for ordinary users and even that was supposed to be in NT SP6.

      It wasn't because 2k wouldn't have sold a copy if NT had USB support. Planned obsolence, once again.

  22. Nate Schamp
    Thumb Up

    W2K FTW

    I still use Windows 2000 for the simple reason that Cakewalk Sonar works on it, straight out the box. I've spent DAYS trying to configure it on XP and Vista, but it just plain won't work.

    Also, my W2K box NEVER crashes any more. Which is more than I can say for my XP and Vista machines.

  23. Cameron Colley

    Everything you needed in a desktop.

    2K got the job done with minimal fuss and little in the way of eye candy. As far as I am concerned, barring the odd nice little touch, desktop OSs haven't got any more usable since the days of 2K.

    All I need are Windows, menus and task bars -- works as well for me under XP, KDE or Gnome.

    You can keep your flashy Fisher-Price graphics and effects, your processor hungry Emerald, your bloated Aero or your comedy OSX. I want a desktop where I can just get on with it -- no distractions and no bloat.

    It could be argued, of course, that once configured correctly NT4 did all that -- but I have to admit I wouldn't want to do without plug-and-play USB device support.

    1. ThomH

      Windows 2000 is why I started to like Microsoft again

      Though I was also a big fan of Visual C++ 6.0 back in the day. I've since switched to Mac but my only gripes with Windows 2000 are that the typography is a bit rubbish (Microsoft's patented super-agressive font hinting and no ClearType) and window hunting is a bit of a chore without Exposé (or, ummm, whatever Windows Vista or 7 has to achieve the same thing — a quick preview showing all open windows at the same time by some combination of temporary shrinking and moving). It's also annoying that a bunch of modern software, including some of the modern web browsers (well, Chrome, but that's my favourite Windows browser), have dropped support for 2000 while continuing to support XP.

    2. Tim99 Silver badge
      Big Brother

      Comedy OS?

      My comedy OS X is a certified Unix. I run W2K in a Parallels VM for when I need to do some old SQL Server stuff. I also run Debian 5 CLI, Ubuntu and XP on it - The last time I ran XP was 9 weeks ago.

      I too use Classic mode when I have to use XP, it is nowhere near as shouty. I often use the Graphite appearance setting in OS X - It makes using bash nice and restful...

      Big Brother, because he is a nice washed out colour too.

  24. Dave Bell

    To everything there is a season under Heaven

    I jumped from Win98 to WinXP, and it was worth it. I ran an old laptop on Win2000 until the power socket failed in a shower of sparks.

    I'm looking at how I might replace my current desktop--it's old and creaky--and the Ubuntu option is very tempting. But i must check the options for a printer: so much seems to be intended to lock us into the Windows world.

    I think I could take this old version of Windows, upgrade the motherboard, and have things running. There'd be some hassles over the process, I know.

    The corporates still running Win2000 knew this day was coming. How much of the hardware they use is as old as the OS? I know there can be issues over bespoke software, but they've had plenty of time to sort them out.

    The rest of us? If that laptop were still running, it still wouldn't be worth paying for a newer version of Windows. What I did replace it with was a netbook running Linux. For what I need, that's fine. For what you need? Your choice.

  25. MontyPole
    Gates Horns

    W2k RIP

    I know I'm repeating what others have said, but Win2k was one of the best. Again like others here I still run it on a stand alone machine and will continue to do so. Something I will never do with XP.

    RIP old friend.

  26. Anonymous Coward
    Thumb Up

    Title

    Loved Win2K, best MS OS ever imo.

    Fast, stable, and lean.

    Hardly a gig on my HDD, compared to what Vista / WIn7 take nowadays...

    1. sT0rNG b4R3 duRiD

      Fast, stable and lean...

      That's only because you're looking at it today... :)

      But yes, agree completely. Arguably, it still does the job very well indeed.

      But one must go with the times and the bloat, hey?

      If microsoft only honestly pared the OS down and made it more modular and customisable... Or made it easier for us to dissect out bits we do not need.... Instead of lumping us with a huge load of cruft....

      Needn't even have to be open sourced... (but ideally would, the source of windows opened would be truly something).

      Hear that M$, you actually COULD make a more modular OS and still keep your source closed ?

      You may not want to do that for everybody understandably (I can see your support staff crying if you did) but you could make a true 'windows professional' edition. We break it, we own the bits, that sort of thing....

  27. Chika
    Happy

    EJ Thribb-a-like

    So,

    Goodbye then, Windows 2000.

    You were

    An operating system

    That ran the world's

    Servers.

    You gave us

    Stability and security

    On our

    Servers

    And took our minds off

    That steaming pile of

    Crud

    That was

    Windows ME.

    <splash>

  28. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Re: meh @Pirate Dave

    Time to give up on computers /b/ro

  29. Tom 13

    Fisher-Price interface?

    What Fisher-Price interface?

    ...

    ...

    Oh! That. never really noticed it because one of the first things I always did was go into System Properties, Advanced and set the devices for best performance, which turns off much of the glitz.

  30. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    at least

    XP SP3 is good till 2014.

    I just installed it on an SSD (which was a right pain in the ass given that the standard setup couldn't recognise the drive, even though it recognises regular SATA drives fine, yet weirdly, using nlite to bundle my motherboard's SATA drivers fixed the problem)

    I also took the opportunity to strip out most of the bundled drivers and other useless crap. Anyway, its fast as hell. Boots to the desktop in 16 seconds and there's pretty much no waiting for anything.

    It's a 29.8GiB drive so Vista and Windows 7 are ruled out even if I could stand to use them which I most definitely can't.

    That said I intend to only use it for games and audio stuff (read: almost never), even though speed wise (on a fresh install granted) it's putting my ubuntu installation to shame. That's mainly due to the clunky mechanics of a hard disk though tbh. But I don't mind suffering some load times for an OS that leaves me feeling confident about the security of my data.

  31. edwardecl

    Was a good OS...

    I ran it since the beta versions,

    My fond memories was with an old IBM pentium (233mhz), with a faulty hard drive.

    When it came up with the message saying that I had improperly removed my IDE hard drive and not to do it again, and it continued running when it redetected the drive. I did that in XP once it just crashed so it was better in some ways.

    Windows 2000 and XP are pretty much almost the same operating system, just a different version of explorer, XP always seemed to me like Windows 2000 with a new gui, it wasn't until the service packs that it actully got any new features to speak of.

    But seriously anyone running Win2k, upgrade to Linux (Ubuntu works for most stuff out of the box). Wine can run a lot of stuff. Windows Vista did suck quite a bit, Windows 7 (Bloated I know) does work obviously with new hardware, I just use it from playing DX games.... if it wasn't for that then Windows would be no more.

  32. Anonymous Coward
    Alert

    Windows

    "it was Windows 2000 Server and Advanced Server that stormed the walls of the glasshouse and smashed enough windows to actually get inside and start taking over the joint. And now, it is dead."

    Unlike it's replacements, which were "dead on arrival"

  33. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Win2k

    Can't play games, can it?

    1. Andy Enderby 1

      No Games ?

      Maybe not the newest ones (ie designed for XP onwards), no. My first Win2000 desktop was more than happy running Homeworld, IL2 with all the trimmings, Battlezone II and heaps more. It was pretty bloomin excellent actually. The motherboard went bump before the O/S did (bad electrolytics on an Epox). The server edition was appropriately without DirectX if I remember correctly, but the desktop edition was fine.

    2. Richard Mason
      Thumb Up

      Yes

      I have loads of games that list XP as the minimum spec running quite happily on my Win2k desktop.

      I've finally succumbed this week to buying a Core i7 machine with 64-bit Win7 on it but only because the latest incarnation of Eve Online has started randomly rebooting my 2k desktop (P4 3.05Ghz, 2Gb DDR, 512Mb PCI ATI X1600) if I have 3 copies of the client open at the same time and I'm doing certain things in game (PI for those who play).

      Don't know if I'll keep Win7 or downgrade to XP on the new machine, need to see how much I can get Win7 to look and feel like 2k

  34. irrelevant
    Unhappy

    2k upstairs still

    My desktop machine is still running Win2K, and up to now I've seen no reason to change it. My laptop was XP, customised back to work how 2K did, until it broke... Picked up a new laptop that came with Win7, and I'm trying my best with it, but Explorer is seriously horrible: they've dumbed it down, and removed the ability to make it behave like it did before. You can't even arrow-down the list of folders and see the files listed change any more...

    I've installed ubuntu in a VM to try and get used to it, (I'm familiar with 'nixen, but have never bothered with a GUI on one before as mostly I use it on servers and embedded stuff..) so will probably move over eventually, as soon as I can find suitable replacements for the various windows based apps..

  35. Nazar
    Thumb Up

    @Pirate Dave - Windows Explorer

    @PirateDave - Google for Directory Opus. Windows Explorer like it should be done....

    1. Pirate Dave Silver badge
      Pirate

      Thanks Nazar

      I've seen that and a few others like it. They look like good file managers, but I'm looking for a complete Explorer replacement - Start menu, Desktop, Control Panel, the works. That's a bit harder to find. Or at least it was when I was looking for one back when Win7 first came out - maybe I should go googling again.

  36. Yeah Right 2
    Unhappy

    Goodbye, W2K

    You will be sorely missed.

    Now, can we have a replacement? Can we PLEASE have a desktop OS for BUSINESS users? Crayola interfaces, even if they can be disabled are unprofessional and undesirable. I really don't need translucent window borders and crippled windows explorer. I don't need dump trucks worth of extraneous garbage loaded on top of the OS. I don't need buttons and menus to get moved around at random, hidden or made unusable every few years. And I really, really don't need to be forced to fundamentally change infrastructure just because some arbitrary period of time has gone by.

    Can I please have an OS with a clean and utterly minimal interface, no extra garbage software loaded, proper and easy task automation (sorry, but wsh is shit) and kernel/driver/library/security updates that will continue INDEFINITELY? I want an OS that is designed to minimize disruption to running business systems.

    Some things improve with times in ways that make radical change worthwhile. Game systems and home systems can benefit from extra software and flashy, new interfaces. Accounting/sales/purchasing/other cube farm/CAD/CNC/industrial monitoring and control do not benefit.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Unbeliever! Off with his head (and slash his IT Dept's expenses budget).

      Look, just because you're focusing on what the IT dept can do for the business rather than how MS's hangers-on can use the IT dept to maximise the company's spend on irrelevant MS-centric rubbish doesn't necessarily mean you're right.

      But you are.

  37. mmm mmm

    Good ridance

    It's old, it's senile and now, thank the Lord, it's dead. Move on and learn how to turn the graphics off if modern times send you chills.

  38. Robert E A Harvey
    Gates Horns

    t i t l e

    What happened to all those W2K powered warships?

    1. Hi Wreck
      Grenade

      W2K For warships

      Were they not towed back to port? (hopefully, for a refit).

  39. Anonymous Coward
    Flame

    Abuse of monopoly, once again

    "Windows NT 4.0 made Microsoft an operating system player for file servers and crushed NetWare, "

    Half-truth.

    MS licencing changed also so you had first buy a machine with NT (no plain hardware for you, mister) and then replace it with Netware, tripling your cost. And even if you used Netware, MS got your money.

    Abuse of monopoly status, once again.

    Nowadays file servers use Linux, of course. No-one fully sane would use windows 7 as a file server (server version of XP might be possible, though).

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022