Linked by Howard Fosdick on Mon 24th Jun 2013 03:00 UTC
Linux I volunteer as tech support for a small organization. For years we relied on Ubuntu on our desktops, but the users didn't like it when Ubuntu switched to the Unity interface. This article tells about our search for a replacement and why we decided on Xfce running atop Linux Mint.
Thread beginning with comment 565697
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Partition lock-down
by lucas_maximus on Wed 26th Jun 2013 19:11 UTC in reply to "RE: Partition lock-down"
lucas_maximus
Member since:
2009-08-18

It interesting to hear that you're still using Windows 2000 though. That's a fantastic OS in my opinion (in fact it's the only release of Windows that I've genuinely loved). But Windows 2000 isn't secure by default (the default user is administrator, telnet is enabled by default, etc). Granted all these things are easily fixable, but my point is that you're applying an old and insecure Windows paradigm (lets be honest, Windows security has come along way since Win2k) to Linux and then bitching when a different OS behaves differently. The fault here is entirely with you.


Why is Windows 2000 is considered good? It was terrible until Service Pack 3, hardly anything worked on it and was completely redundant after XP came out which was miles better in comparison.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Partition lock-down
by Laurence on Wed 26th Jun 2013 20:06 in reply to "RE[2]: Partition lock-down"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26


Why is Windows 2000 is considered good? It was terrible until Service Pack 3, hardly anything worked on it and was completely redundant after XP came out which was miles better in comparison.

I love how short some peoples memories are :p

Given the alternatives on the desktop 2000 was epic. WinMe was just a clusterfuck of fail, Desktop Linux was still in it's infancy, and BeOS -while awesome- was failing to gain traction. Then let's look at what 2000 was superseding (the 9x era - which were never good. Not even in their day. And NT4 that had so much potential but just failed to really deliver and wasn't practical outside of corporate environments). Even outside of x86, most Apple users were still stuck on OS 9 (which was buggy as hell) with OS X due to hit the shelves a few months later.

Windows 2000 supported DirectX, OpenGL and ASIO, which made it practical for gaming and music production. It was the first and only time Microsoft had released a desktop edition of 'Windows' which wasn't chocked full of bloat. It was lean, yet had all the features you'd need available to install on demand. It was clean, lacked unnecessary clutter and "bling" while still adding some missing usability features (eg hotkeys in notepad.exe). Even the bundled Windows Media Player followed the design guides at that time (in fact it spawned a clone after MS decided to "XPify" it: MPC, Media Player Classic)

Windows 2000 was also the most stable x86 desktop at that time. We all know how poor the 9x range was, but Me just took the piss. It was up and down more often than a whores draws. In fact Win2k even outperformed Linux desktop environments in terms of bug-free stability.

Everything that made Windows 2000 great, Microsoft did a U-turn with XP (dumbed down control panel et al, ugly and highly unnecessary skins, etc). While XP has since evolved into much more, originally it was little more than an uglier and stupider version of Win2k (and those skins nearly doubled the system requirements - Win2k being 128MB and XP being 256MB). In fact The only improvement that XP offered at launch was a significantly improved boot time.

Basically people revere Windows 2000 because it was the start of NT on desktops and the first time most home users were offered a glimpse of a stable desktop OS for x86. Windows 2000 was basically the first time (and only time, in my opinion) Microsoft pulled ahead their competition. It was simply awesome. It's just a pity MS decided all their users were idiots in every release of Windows since.

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[4]: Partition lock-down
by lucas_maximus on Thu 27th Jun 2013 07:07 in reply to "RE[3]: Partition lock-down"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

I like the words "stable" and "bloat" handed around that mean absolutely nothing. Lots of people at the time said Windows 98 SE was stable and lean.

9x series wasn't as bad as you make out. Yeah Windows 2000 was more stable, but almost nothing worked with it. You talk about gaming, most games didn't work ... not the fault of the OS, but don't talk about it like it was some magical OS.

Reply Parent Score: 2