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 565707
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Partition lock-down
by Laurence on Wed 26th Jun 2013 20:06 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Partition lock-down"
Member since:

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:

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

RE[5]: Partition lock-down
by Laurence on Thu 27th Jun 2013 08:22 in reply to "RE[4]: Partition lock-down"
Laurence Member since:

I like the words "stable" and "bloat" handed around that mean absolutely nothing.

Which is why I gave context and comparisons rather than simply applying vague adjectives. And I know full well that you're now just deliberately "cherry-picking" words in an attempt to destroy the validity of my claims (ie death by a thousand papercuts). Can't we have a mature discussion for once?

Lots of people at the time said Windows 98 SE was stable and lean.

You complained about none descriptive terms that don't mean anything then go one to claim "lot's of people" which is a worthless statement. Who's "people"? How many are "lot's"? If you're going to complain about "stable" and "bloat" then you can at least follow your own criticisms. ;)

Anyway, I agree that Win98SE was more stable than 98 (first edition). But it certainly wasn't stable by today's standards. Windows 2000 is.

And I disagree about the lean comment as well. The 98 series integrated web crap into the desktop shell - badly. Granted a lot of that stuff was still present in Win2000, but it was refined quite a bit by then. Though the main reason it didn't feel as intrusive in 2000 might be down to hardware advances - ie faster CPUs etc == more resources to hope with Active Desktop etc. However I do accept your point that the bloat/lean argument isn't precise nor constructive. So I'll happily withdraw that argument ;)

9x series wasn't as bad as you make out.

If you'd ever owned non-IBM PCs for comparison, you wouldn't be making that comment. The 9x series was slow, buggy, and the mismatch of having DOS and Windows applications was just ugly. Switching their desktop line to NT was the best decision Microsoft have ever made in regards to Windows.

Yeah Windows 2000 was more stable, but almost nothing worked with it.

I used Windows 2000 since only a few months after launch and I really can't think of any compatibility problems. If there were any, it would have been pretty inconsequential as Win2000 was my primary desktop and I never felt the need to boot into my 98SE dual boot (in fact I wiped that disk a few months later to mess about with Linux).

While I'm sure others might have had some issues (to be fair, any new release of Windows does bring new issues), stating "nothing worked" is massively overstated. "most had no issues" would be more accurate.

You talk about gaming, most games didn't work

Windows 2000 was my primary gaming machine. My only gaming machine in fact (excluding the Dreamcast - but that came later). I never had a game that wouldn't in Win2k (bar one Genesis emulator IIRC. But that was quickly fixed). I've genuinely had more problems gaming with DOS drivers in Windows 95 than I've had with Windows 2000.

Are you sure you've even used Windows 2000 and not just reciting some of the conservative press releases from Microsoft at the time of 2k's launch? MS were tentative about the application support of Win2k as it was such a departure they didn't want developers and users to assume everything was going to work out of the box. I remember scratching my head at that time because of having so few issues - I was wondering why Microsoft were being so paranoid (maybe they were trying to justify Windows Me sales?)

but don't talk about it like it was some magical OS.

I'm not talking about it like it's magical. I simply said it was my favourite release of Windows and gave reasons why; and because you bloody asked me to cite reasons too. So cut the sensationalist crap.

Edited 2013-06-27 08:40 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: Partition lock-down
by Kochise on Thu 27th Jun 2013 13:23 in reply to "RE[4]: Partition lock-down"
Kochise Member since:

but almost nothing worked with it. You talk about gaming, most games didn't work ...

I like the way you always request for proofs but you only provides bold claims. "Nothing worked with" ? If for you "everything" is "games" then yes, hardly any DirectX game worked well on Windows 2000 since it was on another code base than 9x, and for the better may I say.

Just a hint, but you probably don't figured it out already, but very often Windows 2000 is tailored with the "Pro" suffix that gives a clue about its targeted audience, which, as you may also figured it out already, is for professional, not gamers that ridiculously tweaks their setup to gain few FPS.

Pro means stability, and just like XP matured at SP3, Windows 2000 matured at SP4. And if you just need an OS that makes it without fanciness, Windows 2000 is the most stable and "superb" OS out there. And its Microsoft who made it happen.

Its Win32 API is rock robust and stable, programs coded 15 years ago for Windows 2000 (SP4) still runs flawlessly on Windows 7. How many Linux distro can claim such a long API life and stability ? Windows 2000 Pro SP4 serves me for almost all the prupose I'd needs, even as an advanced user.

Sure IE7 isn't supported, only IE6, but who use IE anymore ? Install Opera or Firefox and you get a decent browser. DirectX ? Hardly over DirectX 8 since video card vendors don't support Windows 2000 anymore, but still provides legacy support. So if you have an old box somewhere, Windows 2000 would be the best match to revive it.

And Windows 2000 Pro offers you enough tweaking possibilities and administration privileges for you to fine tune security and accesses. So claiming its an old fag of an OS it just stupid. Like this topic claims, users are seeking for the OS that serve the purpose, and Windows 2000 Pro (SP4) still just do it in a marvelous manner.

Do you really need a 40 GB bloated Windows 7 installation to open Firefox or LibreOffice ? Play games ? Who need play games when a game console would do it far better without the hassle of bloating even more you hard drive, etc. And Mame or ePSX just runs flawlessly on Windows 2000 Pro (SP4) so this is absolutely not an issue.

I do use Windows 2000 Pro (SP4, please not how many times I insist on using the latest SP for Windows 2000, Pro, because you are obviously living in an alternate reality where Microsoft stopped at Me) for cross dev purposes where the GNU tool chain is just delighted with Windows 2000 Pro (SP4) and don't need a Cray computer.

If you pleasure if to waste your time upgrading and maintening your setup to keep it up to date, for the sake of it, then follow the Fedora way and experience the "Beta" or "Alpha" syndrome. Windows 2000 Pro (SP4), being now "unsupported" provides on the other hand a huge feedback, is well understood, stable by default (yeah) but who cares ?

I need to upgrade the ARM tool chain, not the underlying OS, if I need to correct code generation. I need to update the browser if I want better HTML5 support, not the underlying OS. Etc. But I hope you get the point.

You can spit your hate all you want on Microsoft, Windows 2000, Pro (SP4) but the pragmatic conclusion is that I had the less issues with this OS, even though XP would have benefited from Windows 2000 (well, NT5 code base) it was more unstable and more crash prone in its early days (prior to SP2 then SP3). But, may I admit it without pain, Microsoft made a tremendous just at providing a consistent user and coder experience.

Then they destroyed everything with Vista, but it was the right path toward 7. I still don't get the clue for 8, but well, I'm an old fag, I need the job done, not playing with an overly animated colorful UI.

So, please, Lucas, consider installing a Windows 2000 Pro (SP4) machine once in a while, and discover a 1 GB install partition, 50 MB memory usage at boot, flawless working. Multicore support but no hyperthreading (XP SP3 had it) but well, not bad of an OS, I assure you. Sometimes I see many Linux distro running at closing their gap to what Windows 2000 Pro (SP4) reached.

Even as a pure desktop experience, Windows 2000 Pro (SP4, almost forgot to note it for you to imprint it in your brain, otherwise you'll talk about 9x again) is a breeze. And for gaming several later games supported it once they had OpenGL and DirectX 7 support. So your references are really that outdated. Please update your brain some days.


Reply Parent Score: 2