Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: Windows 2000 on Docker

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 196 posts

Re: Show HN: Windows 2000 on Docker

#121

Post by johnebgd »

cesarb wrote: post #77
laumars wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. People often forget that early releases of XP was basically just a re-skinned 2000 but with a few tweaks for games and fonts. The problem was those skins ended up doubling the memory and CPU requirements. In fact XP was a pretty bloated OS on hardware from 2002. It wasn’t until much later into the life of XP when hardware caught up and newer service packs added enough to the OS to really differentiate it fro…

People also often forget that Windows XP was the first Windows to have WGA, which was fairly controversial. Windows 2000 was the last Windows version you could truly own, instead of having to beg Microsoft for permission every time you reinstalled or replaced hardware.

Windows XP volume licensing still gave customers full ownership without online activation.

I remember a friend used magic jelly bean to pull keys off every pc he came across to stockpile new volume keys he could use after the initial key that went public got banned for windows updates.

Re: Show HN: Windows 2000 on Docker

#122

Post by arpa »

NexRebular wrote: post #112
arpa wrote: post #52

cool! I've never considered running qemu in a container. This project is a matroska on actual windows systems, as docker runs/used to run in VM (has WSL changed that?). So VM->Docker->VM. You could probably also run windows-something that supports Docker and run the same image. Oh this gives me baaaaad ideas. Thank you, OP

illumos has had qemu inside a container (or zone) since I believe 2011 when Joyent ported KVM to SmartOS. Nice to see docker catching up already...

Did you mean linux? because docker is just an interface foe cgroups, namespaces and chroot.

Re: Show HN: Windows 2000 on Docker

#123

Post by chronogram »

rbanffy wrote: post #119
chronogram wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have yet to run into this problem, do you have any examples? I don’t have any exotic hardware outside of the ThinkPad X220 dock which nowadays only works with Linux.

Thinkpads are a good bet for Linux compatibility because they are very popular with Red Hat and Ubuntu kernel developers. They’ll do whatever it takes to make Linux run well on their machines.

In a sense yes, but like my current Latitude 7xxx and those original Thinkpad Xxx it’s just paying for a premium product and getting premium hardware and premium chips inside so I get hardware that staffs a development team that makes good drivers and that has manufacturers that staffs a development team good enough to put it on fwupd.

Re: Show HN: Windows 2000 on Docker

#124

Post by cagataygurturk »

hn_throwaway_69 wrote: post #7

This brings back great memories. Windows 2000 sparked my interest in computing. I was in elementary school and was obsessed with the 'Log on to' dropdown box on Windows login screens, and how you could use the same credentials on any PC. Somehow I managed to salvage an old computer and source myself a copy of the ISO and managed to setup an ADDS domain controller and join my mother's laptop to the domain. I went and…

I am happy to hear that I was not the only nerd interested in enterprise software during middle school years. You know, while my friends were waiting the latest games, I would wait for the next Service Pack of Windows 2000. Constant exploration of AD, firewalls, networking, purely for curiosity and fun.

Now those friends ask me how to get an IT job by the way :)

Re: Show HN: Windows 2000 on Docker

#125

Post by IshKebab »

throwawayay02 wrote: post #96
pengaru wrote: post #40

Is booting windows in a vm something noteworthy in 2021?

I was searching for your question. I agree I don't know why this is in the first page... Maybe some people [1] are right when they say most of HN's audience is interested in business and technology, but not technical themselves. [1] http://n-gate.com/

I think people don't realise that Docker isn't really doing anything here.

Re: Show HN: Windows 2000 on Docker

#126

Post by IshKebab »

jagger27 wrote: post #37
NabiDev wrote: post #30

But, Why?

I like to boot up old operating systems for UI design inspiration. Software really felt different back then. This sort of “pointless” project saves me a lot of hassle!

Is it that hard to do directly using QEMU? https://wiki.qemu.org/Windows2000

Re: Show HN: Windows 2000 on Docker

#127

Post by NexRebular »

arpa wrote: post #122
NexRebular wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

illumos has had qemu inside a container (or zone) since I believe 2011 when Joyent ported KVM to SmartOS. Nice to see docker catching up already...

Did you mean linux? because docker is just an interface foe cgroups, namespaces and chroot.

the docker system including all the bells and whistles. But indeed I could've just said linux is playing catch-up in this area too...

Re: Show HN: Windows 2000 on Docker

#128

Post by PeterisP »

speedgoose wrote: post #68
iforgotpassword wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google looks at your user agent and doesn't redirect to https if it's an old browser.

Isn't this a security vulnerability?

Perhaps, but all the vulnerability is in using IE5; there's nothing the site can do to make an IE5-compatible connection secure.

Re: Show HN: Windows 2000 on Docker

#129

Post by nayuki »

A year or so before Windows XP brought the NT kernel to home users, I chose to switch from Windows Me to 2000 to reap the benefits in computer stability. I was using a business operating system before it was cool.

Re: Show HN: Windows 2000 on Docker

#130

Post by arendtio »

chrisseaton wrote: post #95
arendtio wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a joke to say that it is not a real OS. But if you want to argue: You could say that a 'real OS' must be 'mostly POSIX-compliant' [1]. That way most other OS (Linux, MacOS, iOS) but not Windows would be included in your definition of a 'real OS' ;-) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POSIX#Mostly_POSIX-compliant

I wouldn’t get why POSIX is the only way to design an OS.

It is not.

But that way you could pretend to have an objective definition of the term 'real OS' and exclude Windows while including most other major OS.

Post reply on HN