Why did millennials like this OS so much and why do zoomers like it’s aesthetic?I get if you’re in your late 20’s to mid 30’s it’s probably nostalgic, but XP was arguably dogshit. >Ugly aesthetic>Terribly unstable >No security whatsoever Vista/7 was arguably the best version of Windows ever. Aero is still peak Microshill design and the jump in stability and security vs the lost in speed was needed
>>110016820It's pixel art
very large demographic of people who used XP during developmental times in their livesshrimple as that
also nobody gave a single iota of a fuck about 'security" until windows 10 came around and microsoft convinced an entire generation of retards that russian/chinese hackers would remotely detonate their dog via soon to be EOL windows 7 if they didnt upgrade, in order to get them to upgrade to an OS that was easier to harvest their data on
first thing i did when i finally moved to xp was disable luna.also xp had probably the widest range of unofficial themes available for it compared to any other version of windows.
>>110016820what were you suppose to use between 2002l1 and 2007 you spastic? Milennium with that subhuman gray theme?
>>110016820>xp>terribly unstablelarper
>>110016849>No security whatsoever compared to 98se it had;- filesystem permissions (could no longer delete system32 without question)- limited accounts (which to be fair nobody used because uac wasn't a thing yet to make it easier to use, yes as annoying as uac is it made not having to run everything as admin much easier)- a firewall (at least in sp2)unstable my ass. i don't recall any difference between xp and 2000 as far as stability goes, but even that doesn't really count since nobody used 2000 on home computers, everyone came from 98SE/Me, and xp was way, way more stable than those
>>110017265well limited accounts were fine if it wasn't your computer, like for kids and the like. annoying to use as an owner.
>>110016820Millennial here, I liked 7 more.
>>110017288i'd already started to move completely to linux by then
>>110017265actually instead of limited accounts i should have just put "accounts". 9x didn't have user accounts at all, it was a single-user os.like you could password on it, kinda, but it was still just one desktop, one my documents, etc. the desktop was literally at C:\Windows\Desktop
I heard during the early XP days before 2006 with Firefox you could get pop ups of gay porn and shock media. Pretty cool. today viruses are nothing but keyloggers and data miners not pranks.beaver.on.nimp.org has more info on this topic
>>110017312pop-ups and pop-unders were the go-to for invasive advertising for a long time. then browsers started to block them, once basically all browsers blocked them by default it killed off the trend.you wouldn't believe the lack of security IE had, websites could not only create new IE windows, but they could even do things like resize them, too, so you could make annoying shits like have a popup which /moves out of the way/ when you try to close them. security was not much of a thought back then since there wasn't many troublemakers yet
>>110017333Yeah I Know about pop up placement and active X shenanigans from back then. Though that was before my time really. I read about it. Contributing factors of the trend dying was by Firefox blocking pop ups and Google adsense ect al figuring out new polite ways for advertisers to place adsThe one thing I miss is auto audio play. Where the website just randomly plays audio. I think that existed up until 2017-2018. Outside of a handful of white listed websites (big news, meta) you can't send auto audio playing websites to others anymore.
>>110017312'member .hta's? those were fun.kinda like electron, if you throw away any semblance of security. it's basically an html file except when run as an .hta IE treats it as a trusted local application... with full filesystem access. many people were tricked into running them.in fact an .hta was involved in the lead up to 4chan getting a captcha for the first time, i was there for it. you could make 4chan posts from an .hta, automatically
>>110016820It was Windows before UAC, webshit and jeets.
>>110016849>until windows 10dumb zoomer
>open my computer, double click C drive (using windows explorer aka explorer.exe)>type in google.com in the windows explorer address bar for shits and giggles>mfw from C: you actually go to google.com was wild
>>110017399yeah, because IE was so intertwined with the Windows UI back then, stuff like that was possibleMade a lot of people (*cough*Nathan Lineback*cough*) seethe, piss, and shit because it made Windows too "webby" and bloated
>>110016820I'll come out and say it: XP was ugly as shit. It always looked like a toy and all the visual are so maximalist just to showcase that it can render them. Same for Vista really, but they refined them on 7.XP was so ugly that they had a silver and green theme to make it look a bit more professional.
>>110017399it was pretty cool thoughkde back then could do the same thing, their konqueror program was also a combined filemanager and web browser (fun fact: it used their own khtml engine, which was forked into webkit, which was forked into blink, the engine chrome uses)>>110017423http://toastytech.com/evil/
>>110016820It was 2000 for the general public. With tech improving 1024x768 becoming the standard; we were not "forced" to pixel art, which brought us the skeuomorphic design. Most people didn't mind blue (which was indeed kinda baby in retrospect) and those who did could just switch it to Silver or switch back to classic theme. Again everything was new, soul and cool. You literally just saw Bliss and thought: soul.
>>110017448http://toastytech.com/about/perfect.html>I don't give a flying crap about toy "smart" phones. Get a real computer. One with a proper square screen (4:3 forever!), not a silly short screen.He was based back then and he's still based today.
You wouldn't get it.
>>110017470people made tools to strip ie out of 98, replacing explorer with the win95 (pre-desktop update) explorer
>>110016820Vista/7 was a mangled mess. Catastrophic amounts of damage had been done to the code base. Multiple subsystems have been destroyed. Massive amounts of damage was done to the shell. Various functionality was completely destroyed.I am using windows 7 right now, and its jank as hell compared to NT5x. One of the worst things they did in vista was remove all hardware acceleration from the UI for a transparent window gimmick. NT5 had a zero latency UI, that was totally destroyed in Vista.
>>110017524i'm surprised people spend more effort trying to keep using 7 over xp 64, that was the latest and greatest of the nt5 line (64bit and rebased on the 2003 nt5.2 code, not xp32's 5.1 code, that's the one vista was rebased on after the reset)
As a zoomer who first used XP I prefer 95's UI because it's utilitarian and not an ugly Fisher Price blue. With certain themes XP is alright but 95 is consistent and flat besides buttons.
You could enable classic shell in XP with one button. Heck you could do it in Windows 7 as well.Then they took it from you.
>>110016820I never really "liked" XP even back then. Even 2000's UI was comfier than the fisherpricemaxxing going w/XPAnd yes, aero is peak to this day. Hence why W7 remains my daily driver foreverially (and it's comfy)
i used the classic theme on windows xp, i didn't like the fisher price 'luna' look. however, what made windows xp amazing was its incredible screen redraw capability when you moved a window.up until XP, when you dragged a window, it would lag so bad, it was a joke. they even had a setting to just draw an empty rectangle when you moved the window to prevent this unsightly lag.however, with xp, when you moved the window it was like how it looks today, everything moved in real time. that alone was mind blowing at the time.there were some problems up until sp3 which seemed to fix things for the most part.
>>110017572I still prefer 95 because the icons match the shell
>>110017542> rebased on the 2003 nt5.2 codeYour understanding of what XP x64 is is fundamentally flawed. There was no rebaseing. XP x64 is literally just windows 2003 professional. Its the exact same thing as how windows 2000 had professional and server, how NT4 had workstation and server.What you need to understand is that windows XP as released in 2001 is really just a beta version of windows 2003 which they prematurely rushed to release. This is why XP was such a mess when it came out, it was not done yet. Later when they release windows 2003 proper, they never released the non-server editions because XP already had a release. But the code for windows 2003 could absolutely have built non-server versions since its literally just an option on the ISO build scripts. home/professional/server all build from the exact same code base. When it came time to release windows XP x64 they finally released a non-server version of windows 2003. But they could have done this at any time.
>>110016820I preferred Mac OS X.
>>110017604yea i realised i misspoke after saying that. and yes i have played with ntswitch before, too (lets you change windows between server and workstation editions). iirc if you use it on xp (32bit) it reports itself as something like ".net server 2002", an earlier name for 2003
>>110017633oh and if you run it on 2003 it just shows up as xp (though obviously not the same xp since it's still the updated 5.2.3xxx build). i used 2003 as my home os for a while
>>110017579>fisherpricemaxxingyou are a mirror. you exist only to mirror other people. Yes! : ) YOu Are a Mirror!. you people ! mirrors! "fisher price" I see this everywhere. You all can't fucking stop saying that. Are you real to begin with? Thousands of replies saying "fisher price". What else do you have to say about XP?
