251–260 of 373 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
was the Windows 7 nearly 8 era. Was running 2012R2 on the server, there were copies available online of the evaluation edition if you submitted your details, but they wouldn't join a KMS server unless you manually intervened to change the “edition” from evaluation - Joining the domain didnt fix it. 2014-2018 for that directx + download anecdote
I mean, 2014 was 10 years ago and 2012 just EoL'd. I agree that era wasn't as easy. But Windows 10 (other than Home) in its maturity, is and has been pretty rock solid, imo. Windows Server is a different topic entirely.
Has there been significant progress in this area in a decade? last time I installed a windows (11 pro) it was significantly worse than Ubuntu. Both in downloading it and installing it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 95/98/ME/2000 because they largely looked similar. That was a feature, for me it was 95, 98, NT4, Windows 2000 then it all started falling apart and Linux and MacOSX because the more attractive alternatives. For those who don't remember, we used to call the Windows XP UI the "Fisher Price" UI. It was the first dumbed down Windows UI. I'd agree, the nostalgia for Windows XP is misplaced, when the version before that…
XP wasn't really dumbed down, just more colorful. You could turn off the colorful theming if you wanted to. Meanwhile, Windows 2000 predates consumer Wifi, so there's no UI in the operating system for connecting to networks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
XP was likely the first memorable intro to windows for many developers in the home context. It was designed to be appealing to look at and a fresh coat of paint. By comparison, you’d be hard pressed to find a non-enthusiast who really remembers the differences between 95/98/ME/2000 because they largely looked similar. Unlike 2000, it was also aimed at home use. The prior home use system was ME which was also not very…
That's true, windows ME was as terrible as Windows 2000 was great. The story goes that they wanted to launch with Windows 2000 Home just like they did with XP, but ran into some issues and decided at the last minute to ship a pimped up version of Windows 98. That was absolutely terrible.
That's more or less false. Releasing 2000 for home usage was planned, but it was realized early on that there's not enough time for that. It's not possible to develop on a short notice, ME contained some notable improvements (mostly ports from 2000).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like the personal issues Linux fanboys have with Microsoft, Apple and Google? Threads are written not spoken, if you don't want to read them press PgDn.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Microsoft actually makes the version of Windows that people want, but it’s called LTSC and they really don’t want you to have it. Of the devices that still run Windows in our home, all but one of them run some version of LTSC. > No bloat, no ads, no forced updates, virtually nothing installed by default, and minimal telemetry. No Store, no Cortana, no Edge. What's not to like? ;)
Why run Windows at that point? I'm a hybrid person. I run Linux for my work and dev OS and Windows for gaming and day to day shenanigans. If you're just going to strip Windows down to this weird broken minimal thing tho why not just use Linux full time and get a PS5/Xbox for the AAA games you can't run under Linux. I dont really get the point of the effort people go through trying to make Microsoft products something…
I use several specialized film restoration applications which are developed for Windows exclusively.
Nothing comparable exists in the F/OSS world and I'm not prepared to trade work output quality for ideological purity.
I don't understand why people like XP so much. Windows 2000 was the ultimate OS: lean, fast, focused, and absolutely zero crapware installed. No stupid internet accounts needed to run your local OS and it did what it was supposed to do.
But yes, windows 2000 professional was the best windows ever.
> There is no Cortana, no AI Co-Pilot, or an extreme amount of unwanted, pre-installed software. Ok XP came with tons of crap and bloatware from most manufacturers of the time, let's not rewrite history here! Of course, you could just do a fresh install or actually delete the programs you didn't want, looking at you Edge....
I don't know, this feels like the worst parts of Windows XP (Fisher Price UI), with an annoying setup workflow, and a Microsoft account tie in... not exactly what I'd like to have today
I'll take the consistency of a "Fisher Price UI" over the absolute current horror any day.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "all the advantages listed about Windows XP are also present in Linux" You mean, are present in Linux TODAY . Installing Linux 22-years ago, when XP shipped, was hugely painful and only the most technical would attempt it. Windows XP marked the begin of an era when corporations replaced analog processes with digital. It sounds so foreign now, but in the late 90s - it was still common for corporations to send printe…
> Installing Linux 22-years ago, when XP shipped, was hugely painful and only the most technical would attempt it. That’s still the case with Linux now. I did two recent Linux installs (different distros) and it’s still a nightmare of finding drivers, scripts, etc. to get everything setup. On one of my devices it still doesn’t recognise all the USB ports attached to the motherboard (but does recognise some), I just g…
Notable exception for those assholes at nVidia.
Can’t say the same for windows, i still have to download printer/scanner drivers like it’s 2005.