I am not one of those fools who gets all misty when reminiscing about old computers and the software they run. Not even close. I remember Windows 3.1 being crappy, enigmatic and unstable, but it was all we had if we did not have the three thousand bucks to drop on a crappy, less enigmatic and unstable Mac - let's be honest. Windows 95 came along and slowly, but surely got more stable (yet still crashed occasionally). I remember being so proud of the Windows 95 OSR 2 version, which was not for sale in stores without a new computer, that I "borrowed" from my old job and used, and used, and used. I skipped Windows 98 completely at home, but it was a necessary evil at work because I needed ICM (color matching) and Windows NT which was deployed at the work did not have ICM. The greens looked blue and red was a toss up.Then Windows 2000 came. It had ICM. Red was red.
2000 was good. 2000 was very good. 2000 IS STILL GOOD. I know with Vista being released Win2K is 2 versions old. So the question becomes what can't Win2K do?
Nothing that matters (as far as I can tell, at least).
Oh, it can't run Internet Explorer 7 or Office for Vista. It does not have the built in firewall of Windows XP (or the better Service Pack 2 Firewall). No built in anti-virus. End of list. Well... you get Firefox, OpenOffice or something else faster, ZoneAlarm and AVG. Done.
Actually I am hard pressed to find non-Microsoft programs that run on XP that do not run on Win2K. You tell me - what can't Win2K do?
Because I am not one to only say and not do, I will tell you about places I put Win2K recently and had tremendous success. Under Parallels on Mac OS X, Win2K works wonderfully since Win2K has a smaller memory footprint than Windows XP and an order of magnitude memory footprint smaller than Windows Vista. Also older hardware can sing with Win2K. I have an old Dell Optiplex GX 110 (900ish Mhz) that chugs happily with Win2K (Side-note: the GX-110 Intel based on board video sucks - and you get only 2 PCI slots, for expansion - pity, because it has a great form factor.)
If you can't use Ubuntu, for what ever reason, I say go Win2K.
So, an eight year old operating system that was done so well, it can compete, and compete well, with more modern OS's (if you look beyond bells and whistles.)
What's an old OS to do to get noticed around here?
18 comments:
You are right, XP and Vista add mostly eye candy and all sorts of mechanisms to restrict the use of your personal computer for corporate use.
K<o>
Chief screen caster at Plan-B for OpenOffice.org
I second your opinion, I too use Windows 2000.
I recently bought a Thinkpad on Vista home premium, and I actually formated to go back to 2000 pro. It's a LOT faster now.
I also use windows 2000 for last 8 years. I use duel boot with windows xp to run the latest adobe software.
Couldn't agree more.
I agree! I still use 2000, every day.
However, it is very important to install the SP4 BEFORE any internet connexions.
yep, i'm still using win2k on my everyday comp -have no need/desire to "upgrade". Only problem is driver support for next comp, time for linux i guess
I agree, I run all 3 of my PCs on Win2000 and only use XP if I want to run some newer software.
Yes, you are entirely right guys... I hate those stupid comments "Ah Windows 2000 is old, how can you use this, you must be up to date..." and that kind of sh**...here is an example: "Perhaps it's time to replace the 10 year old(ish) OS with something a bit more up to date?" I have it for 3 years, done with him all the possible and impossible things and the system crashed not once. Long live to our Windows 2000!!!
Last comment on your blog here was more than a year ago. Still, I find a needy clause to express my personal gratitude in regards of this beloved operating system. Windows 2000, like your say, probably the best Micro$oft OS ever. Now, with the arrival of W7, W2K is suddenly three generations back, but still worth its cost. Like you say, there's very few applications that doesn't run with W2K. Also, I, personally, find myself very disappointed with the stability of W7. I find lots of old applications (eg. threads of Total Commander) crashing more or less constantly, plus the new enhanced RDP protocol is slower than ever before. The eye candy is sharp, indeed, but that's that. End of story. Better yet get errhm say some Stardock eye-candy bar or likewise, running through good ol' W2K, instead of running into the bloated mad world of Vista/W7.
Windows 2000 has to be the most underrated OS of all time. I still use it to this day; it'll be a cold day in hell when (or rather, if) I ever am forced to upgrade. Hulu, youtube, facebook, firefox 3 - they all work flawlessly on this PC, as do Nero for burning DVD's and InterVideo MSIPVS (also made in the year 2000) for watching tv over my tuner card. Windows 2000 installed on modern hardware (provided you can find drivers) is a real treat - it runs incredibly fast, uses next to nothing for system resources, is stable as a rock (I can't ever remember a crash in the 8 years I've been using this OS, and I'm not exaggerating), and with no anti-virus or firewall software running whatsoever, is completely virus resistant (its been over 5 years since I've had a virus on here). Everybody else in this world can have their flashy Windows Vista or 7 or whatever versions come out in the future, I'm perfectly content using Windows 2000 into the distant future.
OK Enough! I'm loading Win2000 today, but too bad I can't a bottable cd iso
I use Windows 2000 Professional because it recognizes all 4GB of my RAM, while XP and Windows 7 only recognize 3.5.
I still use Windows 2000 on all my laptops, as it just works really well and is very fast. I even installed it on the Asus eee PC netbook, which was struggling to run XP, but now works much more efficiently.
I will definately continue to use Windows 2000 for as long as I can find computers that will support it.
I agree with all of you. I love exploring other operating systems, and I've heard all the hype of how stable, fast, and reliable Windows 2000 has been. That's the one MS operating system I've never tried before, so I decided to wipe XP off of a semi-modern (2006-ish) computer of mine and give Windows 2000 a try. Boy does this thing fly.
After the initial install, I updated to SP4, installed anti-virus, an audio player, CCleaner, K-Meleon, and a few other software. Now I regularly use this computer just about every other day.
Too bad MS doesn't support this beautifully simple (and strong) OS anymore. What a shame, but that doesn't mean I'll stop using it.
I swear I will quit computing the day my good old Windows 2000 will not be able to run any longer. I have successfully used all versions from Windows 3.0 to XP (W2K being the best), and declared real crap Vista and 7: no sense of UI continuity at all, confusing and frustrating at every new minute. I hope Windows 2000 users like us will be able to hold on to it forever more.
XP is Windows 2000 with some performance improvements and some additional crap installed. However you can use nLite to remove the crap and keep the improvements at the same time.
For that reason, you should consider changing to XP -- it's really the same fast OS you are used to, just faster and more updated. Also, everyone supports XP.
I run Windows 2000 SP4 with update rollup pack 1. Be sure to install 48bit LBA support for hard drives larger than 137GB or you can run into problems with file corruption. Google it. Other than that, Win2k is more professional-looking in my opinion and really flies on my older system (1.8GHz AMD Duron and 2 gigs of RAM).
I could not agree more. I used 'em all - 1.02, 2.0, 2.1, 3.0, 3.1, NT, 2k, XP, Vista, and since two days ago 7 as well. Win2k is fast, reliable, and most of all, has a very uncluttered user interface. From today's perspective, it almost shares the mac-like soberness. It remains my favorite MS product, and I keep it on two of my home PCs. Too bad my company just went from 2k to 7.
Post a Comment