@shuro@teft this was last version that not broke interface consistency.
And not’ it was not stable. It was buggy like any OS at this time. But at least they found how consistent desktop interface should look.
I like how internet explorer 5-6 seamlessly turns to explorer windows and back. How everything looks good using system theme
Or menus and system dialogs, easily extendable by custom modules, registered in registry. Or like internet explorer, using gdi is drawing very fast when launched with RDP. And all of this runs good on 32mb ram.
Even now both windows and linux modern desktops are long far way from this.
Windows 2000 was the last good windows version.
@teft No, not really. It was stable but lacked versatility. It was nice for business but gave some headaches at home.
Also some people went even further and run Server 2000 on home computers :)
@shuro @teft this was last version that not broke interface consistency.
And not’ it was not stable. It was buggy like any OS at this time. But at least they found how consistent desktop interface should look.
I like how internet explorer 5-6 seamlessly turns to explorer windows and back. How everything looks good using system theme
Or menus and system dialogs, easily extendable by custom modules, registered in registry. Or like internet explorer, using gdi is drawing very fast when launched with RDP. And all of this runs good on 32mb ram.
Even now both windows and linux modern desktops are long far way from this.
@mittorn I don’t care much about interface consistency when I can’t run software which worked on '98 :)
Also that consistent interface lacked features. A lot.
But it did crash far less than 95/98/Me family and still was less rigid and soulless compared to NT.
Still I welcomed XP with open arms.
I used to say that, but XP and 7 with proper 64 bit support would like a word.
I just shut down a win7 box a couple months ago. Ran continuously for 10+ years.