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

Run Windows 2000 on a DEC Alpha with a new es40 fork

raymii.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 84 posts

Re: Run Windows 2000 on a DEC Alpha with a new es40 fork

#21

Post by hadlock »

bartvk wrote: post #13

Somehow, Windows 2000 does not look dated to me. It looks functional and usable, and maybe even somewhat fresh. I never actually used it long-term (during college, started using Linux), so it can't be nostalgic. Anyone else feel the same?

I ran W2K through most of high school and until like 2009 when Valve finally dropped support for it. It was a great OS fast, rarely crashed, most games would actually run on it. Valve dropping W2K support meant TF2 no longer ran without jumping through a bunch of hoops

Re: Run Windows 2000 on a DEC Alpha with a new es40 fork

#24

Post by roadbuster »

spyrja wrote: post #19
bartvk wrote: post #13

Somehow, Windows 2000 does not look dated to me. It looks functional and usable, and maybe even somewhat fresh. I never actually used it long-term (during college, started using Linux), so it can't be nostalgic. Anyone else feel the same?

It really wasn't a bad operating system. In fact it kind of blew its (lame) Win9X predecessors out of the water! I ran on Win2000 for years before finally switching to Linux. Of course Microsoft ended up going a different course with its newer "offerings" and I have nothing but pity for those who still have to use their products on a day-to-day basis.

> It really wasn't a bad operating system

It was a wonderful operating system. It provided consumer desktop essentials (Plug & Play, DirectX 7, ACPI power management, Windows Driver Model (WDM), and support for consumer I/O interfaces like USB and Firewire) alongside a modernized UI, all running atop the NT kernel. I was extremely lucky to receive a free copy of Windows 2000 Pro as a student, because I rode that horse for years.

Then Microsoft added a green start button and dark blue backgrounds and packaged Win2k for home users as Windows XP.

Re: Run Windows 2000 on a DEC Alpha with a new es40 fork

#25

Post by gosub100 »

roadbuster wrote: post #24
spyrja wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It really wasn't a bad operating system. In fact it kind of blew its (lame) Win9X predecessors out of the water! I ran on Win2000 for years before finally switching to Linux. Of course Microsoft ended up going a different course with its newer "offerings" and I have nothing but pity for those who still have to use their products on a day-to-day basis.

> It really wasn't a bad operating system It was a wonderful operating system. It provided consumer desktop essentials (Plug & Play, DirectX 7, ACPI power management, Windows Driver Model (WDM), and support for consumer I/O interfaces like USB and Firewire) alongside a modernized UI, all running atop the NT kernel. I was extremely lucky to receive a free copy of Windows 2000 Pro as a student, because I rode that hors…

the drawback for me was the startup time. it really seemed to hang out on the splash screen for quite a while (just as NT4 did, and ofc they were from the same core)

Re: Run Windows 2000 on a DEC Alpha with a new es40 fork

#26

Post by Borg3 »

gosub100 wrote: post #25
roadbuster wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It really wasn't a bad operating system It was a wonderful operating system. It provided consumer desktop essentials (Plug & Play, DirectX 7, ACPI power management, Windows Driver Model (WDM), and support for consumer I/O interfaces like USB and Firewire) alongside a modernized UI, all running atop the NT kernel. I was extremely lucky to receive a free copy of Windows 2000 Pro as a student, because I rode that hors…

the drawback for me was the startup time. it really seemed to hang out on the splash screen for quite a while (just as NT4 did, and ofc they were from the same core)

[dead]

Re: Run Windows 2000 on a DEC Alpha with a new es40 fork

#27

Post by GeekyBear »

hsbauauvhabzb wrote: post #15
bartvk wrote: post #13

Somehow, Windows 2000 does not look dated to me. It looks functional and usable, and maybe even somewhat fresh. I never actually used it long-term (during college, started using Linux), so it can't be nostalgic. Anyone else feel the same?

The only thing better is server 2003.

Dave Cutler created and ran the Windows NT product line through Windows 2000.

Other people ran Windows XP, but Cutler was still in charge of Server 2003 before moving on to special projects like creating 64 bit Windows and Microsoft Azure.

His attitude towards the eradication of known bugs really led to Windows feeling rock solid, with the exception of driver bugs (being the leading cause of blue screens).

Re: Run Windows 2000 on a DEC Alpha with a new es40 fork

#28

Post by doublerabbit »

gosub100 wrote: post #25
roadbuster wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It really wasn't a bad operating system It was a wonderful operating system. It provided consumer desktop essentials (Plug & Play, DirectX 7, ACPI power management, Windows Driver Model (WDM), and support for consumer I/O interfaces like USB and Firewire) alongside a modernized UI, all running atop the NT kernel. I was extremely lucky to receive a free copy of Windows 2000 Pro as a student, because I rode that hors…

the drawback for me was the startup time. it really seemed to hang out on the splash screen for quite a while (just as NT4 did, and ofc they were from the same core)

Windows 2000 was the first release of NT5. That's what made it 2000.

Windows ME on the other hand...

Re: Run Windows 2000 on a DEC Alpha with a new es40 fork

#29

Post by bobmcnamara »

bartvk wrote: post #13

Somehow, Windows 2000 does not look dated to me. It looks functional and usable, and maybe even somewhat fresh. I never actually used it long-term (during college, started using Linux), so it can't be nostalgic. Anyone else feel the same?

You can fix Windows7/8/10/11 with Retrobar

Re: Run Windows 2000 on a DEC Alpha with a new es40 fork

#30

Post by bobmcnamara »

hsbauauvhabzb wrote: post #15
bartvk wrote: post #13

Somehow, Windows 2000 does not look dated to me. It looks functional and usable, and maybe even somewhat fresh. I never actually used it long-term (during college, started using Linux), so it can't be nostalgic. Anyone else feel the same?

The only thing better is server 2003.

I ran 2003 on my laptop for ages. Only tricky part was installing the audio stack.
Post reply on HN