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 565797
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Partition lock-down
by Kochise on Thu 27th Jun 2013 13:23 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Partition lock-down"
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

RE[6]: Partition lock-down
by Laurence on Thu 27th Jun 2013 14:20 in reply to "RE[5]: Partition lock-down"
Laurence Member since:

Windows 2000 games worked pretty much from the from what I recall. I was playing Half Life, Quake III, Unreal and UT on Win2000 quite early on in the OS's life (though I seem to recall UT was a little more fussy as it lacked a lot of the performance that it should have had).

OpenGL worked really well on Win2000. As for DirectX, well back then I used to write software using DirectDraw and all of my development was done in Windows 2000. That wasn't even using the latest version of DirectX either (IIRC I was targeting Dx7).

Back then I was running a dual-processor motherboard (Abit BP6 - awesome board!) and this was long before dualcore CPUs were out. Games ran awesomely in Win2000; even without them being specifically coded for dual processors - though some did have run time flags to enable SMP (Quake III -and all the games built off it's engine- did).

So I don't really get where all this talk of Windows 2000 not being suitable for gaming comes from. Maybe I've just been lucky. But as bother a gamer and a DirectX developer on that OS, I genuinely didn't have any problems at all.

As for Lucas' Microsoft hate, he's a Windows fanboy that just hates Windows 2000 (go figure)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Partition lock-down
by Kochise on Thu 27th Jun 2013 14:45 in reply to "RE[6]: Partition lock-down"
Kochise Member since:

Being a fanboy is not a problem, provided you have solid clues to back your claims. While XP was pretty good, thus had a service life time of more than 10 years (!) its roots are in Windows 2000. In fact, just remove XP's theming, select Windows classic theme and Bing! you get Windows 2000. Everything works alike, settings, accessories, almost everything.

Played Unreal, Battlezone, Black and White and some other games on Windows 2000 without a problem either. And again, the responsiveness and the lightness of the system miss me, since I devoted my Windows 2000 Pro (SP4) license for my dual core Atom 330 dev board.

Otherwise Windows XP Pro SP4 and Windows 7 Pro 64 bits SP1. And I'm not a Microsoft fanboy, but it works quite well out of the box without having to waste time tweaking the system to have something usable after two or three days of hacking.

What baffles me with disbelief is that there is still no platform independent XML like config file that would reconfigure your settings system wide. Just like bookmarks that can be imported from one browser to another, it would be really cool to be able to import an OS settings into another, thus gaining a known configuration up and running in no time.

Perhaps I'm asking to much more and that would remains sci-fi for quite some centuries. It doesn't work even across Linux distributions, so asking to do it from/to between Windows and Linux, I must be ill spirited to dare making such a request.


Reply Parent Score: 2