10 replies to this topic

[theponderism]

I feel particularly inclined to use Windows 2000 and Office 2000, among other Microsoft products bearing the 2000 moniker, for the following reasons:

• Last versions without activation
  
• Classic style is far more consistent than anything since
  
• Arguably best balance between performance and features (such as Windows finally combining the NT kernel with Plug and Play)
  
• Less integration of Microsoft-specific features (such as Windows Messenger in XP and links to Windows Live in Vista and 7)
  
• Fewer editions

Unfortunately, I am often forced to use later versions due to hardware and software incompatibilities. Whenever possible, though, I choose to use the 2000 versions. Does anyone else feel the same way?

[-Razorfold]

Oh I definitely feel the same way.

I prefer to use BASIC for my computing needs actually, for the following reasons:

- No activation, serial key, DRM at all.
- Who needs visual styles when you have the power of white text on black backgrounds
- Amazing performance. No need to waste valuable resources displaying the GUI
- Absolutely no integration with anything. No third party software either.
- Only 1 edition. Who needs a pro edition when BASIC gives you everything you could possibly need.
- No security like ASLR, NX. Who needs them, I live in a basement and the only things that touch my computer are my greasy fingers and the fast food I'm always eating.
- No multi-core support. Who needs it when a single core processor from 1980 is all you need to run BASIC at its maximum performance.

Screw Windows, Mac OS X, or Linux. BASIC is the way to go.

[FalsePositive]

While I don't use Windows 2000, I feel that everything after it have gone downhill.

Neowin is strange. If you're not using Windows 7, your considered a retard. Go to MSFN.org. They have hacks that allow newer programs to run on Win2K. They even have a forum devoted to Windows 9x. You won't be made fun off there.

[+imachip]

That's interesting, I used Windows 2000 for a very long time, it was a stable and fast and generally solid operating system. I certinally used it far more frequently than Windows XP. However, that did change when Windows 7 came out and as I game on the platform, there wasn't really an option of staying on 2k but I'll always look back at it with a fondness.

OS's are more consumer orientated now, and thus will have more marketing and a slightly dummed down feel. I don't feel as techy to be in Windows 7 as 2K. I miss the complete control I had with it, as with Windows 7 I just have to trust it.

Good luck with it!

[THolman]

I like the Apple II. Really consistent interface, just those two colors and that one font. Simplicity at its finest.

[greenwizard88]

Windows 2000 was the end of an era for Microsoft. I always felt like XP -> 7 were flashier, although I think it's because by that point computing power was able to keep up with visual effects.

I think Windows 8 (shock) will be much like Windows 2000, very... basic. If you ignore the metro side of things.

[Javik]

Windows 2000 was extremely stable, probably the most stable version of Windows ever up until 7, but it's so dated now I could never justify using it.

[whitebread]

Windows 2000 is still one of my favourite OSes. I'd rank my favourite OSes in this order:

1. Windows 7
2. OS X
3. Windows XP
4. Windows 2000

[threetonesun]

If you like Windows 2000, try Linux some time.

[+littleneutrino]

while i agree with most of what you have said, not sure why you would want to get away from the activation step its nice to have to protect legitimate users. As far as stability I do personally find even XP to be more stable than 2K from my own personal experience.

[Javik]

threetonesun, on 23 July 2012 - 13:49, said:

If you like Windows 2000, try Linux some time.

Have done, plenty of times. The over complexity of Linux coupled with the fact that it's not a great gaming OS keeps me away at the moment.