this post was submitted on 30 May 2024
298 points (99.0% liked)

retrocomputing

4130 readers
19 users here now

Discussions on vintage and retrocomputing

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
SDF@lemmy.sdf.org
cognitivegears@lemmy.sdf.org
Penkster@lemmy.sdf.org
298
Windows 2000 professional (lemmy.world)
submitted 5 months ago by toni_bmw@lemmy.world to c/retrocomputing@lemmy.sdf.org
18 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I greatly preferred XP to 2000. 2000 still needed a ton of configuration, and device specific drivers that were difficult to find. XP simplified a lot of that with their PNP support, but they still had robust configuration options for power users.

[–] lightnegative@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Me too. 2000 seemed.... Slow compared to XP on the same hardware, but to be fair the hardware I had was cobbled together from parts that my father's employer was going to throw out

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

It looked a lot sleeker too. I had my UI heavily customized, including the boot and login screens, and it made me feel like such a hacker. 2000 made me feel like I was working at an office.

[–] toddestan@lemm.ee 2 points 5 months ago

Microsoft put a lot of work into speeding up the boot times with XP. Windows 2000 booted glacially slow by comparison. Though I'd say once booted, 2000 was a bit leaner and quicker.