NT 5.x was peak Windows

>What are your thoughts
Idk, I wasn't alive.

>>109377647
>b-but I wasn't even born at the time!!111!
Faggot, that means nothing. I wasn't alive when ur mom was born either, doesn't mean I didn't know how to smash her holes.

File: 1689348997_225316-windows(...).jpg (145 KB, 1190x671)

145 KB JPG

>>109377573
Windows Server 2003 was peak aesthetic

File: 710+uIzApuL._AC_UF1000,10(...).jpg (498 KB, 1950x1226)

498 KB JPG

>>109377573
>install Visual C++ 6.0
>install Adobe Acrobat 5.0
>open those two picrel kinos side by side
Oh yeah baby. Better than having sex.

>>109377573
Windows 2000 Pro was my first OS on my own computer, held onto it until 2006. Other than playing certain PC games circa 97-02ish I don't see much utility tho

>>109377573
I dunno. XP is probably the best of both worlds. Slap the classic theme on it (and find a start menu replacer, because like you can see on >>109377671 it's a fucking eye sore).

>>109377573
goated startup sound

>>109377573
Debian Stable does this calm detox thing for me
Definitely not the stupidest idea
But what are you going to do in it other than stare at the wallpaper and start menu

>>109377573
>>109377573
>can run virtualized
DOS also can
86box just stupid way to do it

>>109378133
>DOS also can
It's not virtualization, it's emulation, literally same as 86box BUT since DOS requires so little power you don't even realize it.

>>109378170
DOS can be used inside normal VM, same like windows2000

DOS can be used inside normal VM with full speed, same like windows2000
it not an emulation

Can't these operating systems be made to be compatible with modern hardware?

>>109378381
install freebsd and virtual machine

windows 2000 is nice but windows xp boots so much faster inside vm.

>>109377573
Windows 2000 is aesthetic but XP doesn't destroy your computer for simply connecting to the Internet. Especially since classic theme exists.

>>109377705
What other golden books do you suggest, anone?

>>109378381
Yea
They call it new versions.

w2k was good.
I used it up until 2007.

File: get stared at.jpg (23 KB, 350x337)

23 KB JPG

When will the fucking retards on this board finally understand that not every fucking PC needs to be connected to the internet to function "normally"?
It is 100% okay to run whatever old fucking windows you have on a standalone box. You don't even need to install any anti virus or firewall.
I don't get the complete obsession people nowadays seem to have that literally every fucking computer they have MUST be connected to the internet as if their life depends on it. It makes no sense especially if you intend to just have a virtual machine or actual old machine to play some old games and such.

>>109377705
Based.

>>109379723
it's mostly zoomers, alphas and younger millenials who saw retro slop videos on youtube and want on the bandwagon. they can't remember a life without internet so they feel compelled to have it on every device.

>>109377573
>of course it won't connect to the internet
I don't see why it couldn't when 98 does and 2000 is running off the same foundation as 11.

>>109377573
Was encarta ever any good? I remember using it in computer class in middle school but that’s about it I neve touched it in my private time

>>109377573
Install a minimal linux distro the only reason to bother with this is if you have the old hardware. You'd still need to pass through a GPU to do anything with it anyway.

>>109377573
best OS ever, yes I'm serious, peak and revolutionary in many ways

File: 1781461124646452.png (1.51 MB, 1150x1151)

1.51 MB PNG

>>109379723
>When will the fucking retards on this board finally understand that not every fucking PC needs to be connected to the internet to function "normally"?
>It is 100% okay to run whatever old fucking windows you have on a standalone box. You don't even need to install any anti virus or firewall.
THIS

File: e5f.png (576 KB, 510x478)

576 KB PNG

if you can't manage to "disable all notifications" on your smartphone, why do you think you are able to handle legacy OS with no modern drivers?

I recommend having a network going to the VM. I love moving files over HTTP. QEMU with kvm is super cozy, you can basically turn it into a shell script that launches the VM.
If you're lazy, just use virtualbox, Windows 2000 is NT based so it should run well enough.

>>109380063
right? i spent half my childhood entirely offline, no internet connection, then most of the '00s on dial up, and for obvious reasons that was not something you left connected when you weren't using it. going on the internet back then was something you put aside time for, even made plans for. seriously, if you have limited monthly hours and limited times where nobody is likely to want to use the phone, you made sure you made the most of it.
i would have downloads i planned to do ahead of time, i would load webpages one after another without reading them just so i could later read them with my browser set to offline mode, reading them from the browsers' cache because reading a website while connected was a waste of precious connection time.

now perhaps you were instead someone who had cable or dsl back then, so that wasn't your experience, but for me the 90's and most of the '00s computing was mostly offline

>>109379908
I had Encarta 98 as a kid. It felt wonderful.
Doubt it was actually THAT good, though. Gotta try it again sometime.

>>109377573
>retreat to
It sounds nice, and there was nothing wrong with 2000, but what do you plan to *do* in it?

>>109381623
play and old game for 10 minutes and then take screenshots to share for internet points

File: 1778795963000687.png (75 KB, 256x256)

75 KB PNG

>>109377573
Still disappointed Supermium abandonned Win2k support

>>109381635
2k was actually a pretty poor choice for games. like sure plenty will run on it, but games back when 2k came out often explicitly rejected windows nt, which 2k reports itself as, since nt before 2k was /really/ unsuitable for games, and 2k didn't get a consumer edition (codename neptune was the proposed consumer edition of 2k). it wasn't until xp that consumers got an nt edition, so many games prior to xp may complain that you're using nt, and many games after may complain you aren't using xp

i would hope op isn't intending this for games, since virtualised 2k with no hardware 3d is one of the worst combinations to use for that

>>109381656
Funny enough, XP had 3d acceleration in major virtual machines, but it has been gutted somewhat recently for literally no reason.
By that I mean without a passthrough GPU. It'd still accelerate graphics, with a small performance loss.
Not sure about 2k, but the driver model is kinda the same, so should have been same behavior.

>>109377573
I still maintain a few windows 2000 servers running production systems, it fucking sucks and anyone saying it was somehow better than modern windows is a retard.

File: windows.png (1.36 MB, 1024x768)

1.36 MB PNG

>>109377573
>So yeah, what do you think about Windows 2000?
I have never met anyone who daily drove Win2K. All the computers I encountered around the time that Win2K was out were running Windows 98 and were upgraded to Windows XP later, so I'm convinced that anyone who says they daily drove it back in the day are larping. From what I've read on this board over the years, it sounds like most people that allegedly daily drove Win2K back then got the OS through their work, and if you weren't lucky enough for your work to be throwing away Windows 2000 discs that you got a hold of then this OS just didn't happen for you and you went straight from 98 to XP like how people went straight from 7 to 10 later on.

>So I want to set up a virtual machine I can retreat to whenever I feel overwhelmed.
I did this since most of the stuff I use when programming for fun came out during the XP era, can confirm that it's a very comfy way of doing things. What sucks is that all the virtualization programs I can think of like VMWare and Virtualbox got their 3D acceleration gimped, so if you want to play vidya inside your fake retro computer you'll need to run an older version of VMWare such as version 17. Picrelated, is my desktop.

>I don't have the money to waste on it
Right now is an awful time to be buying *any* computer. I have a Windows XP compatible PC that I built several years ago for around $400 using some Chinese motherboard I found that has modern stuff on it but somehow supports old Intel processors. It's basically impossible now to build something for that much, which is why the Gabecube is so overpriced. At this point €$100 for a retro PC doesn't sound so bad when you consider that that's basically $50 in pre-covid dollars.

>>109381647
You can just make your own Supermium for whatever specific operating system you want, all it is is stock Chromium with fixes applied to it to get it to work on older operating systems.

>>109382208
>You can just make your own Supermium for whatever specific operating system you want, all it is is stock Chromium with fixes applied to it to get it to work on older operating systems.
Anon, if it was easy enough for some random vir/g/in to do it, they would have done it
Supermium can't even run on RTM XP, it needs at least SP1

>>109382267
>if it was easy enough for some random vir/g/in to do it, they would have done it
Most random vir/g/ins don't even code but just shitpost about computers on here all day. You're in for a shock once you find out just how few people on this board have ever compiled anything from source.

>>109377573
Windows 2000 Professional service pack 3 was best OS to play in golden era of games (1997-2009)

>>109382208
Thanks anon, well said!
Just curious:
>most of the stuff I use when programming for fun came out during the XP era, can confirm that it's a very comfy way of doing things
What do you do for fun?

>>109377573
win2k was my first windows and I liked it because half-life, counter-strike 1.5 worked great
RASH B
CYKA BLYAD
and I think it was the last good windows.

>>109382208
>I have never met anyone who daily drove Win2K
our family pc was on win2k and we daily drove it, what the fuck are you talking about that people are larping

>>109384569
>1.5
>playing with russians
LARPing or zigger
Sad

>>109384585
i don't know why I should larp on this shit website and with win2k, see >>109384583

>>109383341
>SP3
Why so specific? Why not the latest (SP6)?

>>109384569
https://youtu.be/VqB1uoDTdKM

>>109382208
XP was a bloated piece of shit. I ran windows 2000 from 2004 to 2012, and then transitioned to XP/2k3 which took a while and was painful. Then I ran XP/2k3 until 2020. Then my old computer was destroyed, and the new one had to use windows 7. And at that point my life basically ended. The last 6 years have been a fever dream where I have not been living, just existing.

I miss W2K like you wouldn't believe. Used it through Steam support end day. Moved to XP until Steam was dropped.. Moved to W7 until Steam was dropped...
Just gonna quit compys soon

>>109384718
>The last 6 years have been a fever dream where I have not been living, just existing.
You and me both, anon.
They say Allah's chosen will get 72 virgins in Heaven.
I will trade 60 of them for a computer and populated internet that's perpetually stuck in the year 2004.

>>109384718
should have discovered linux earlier

File: 1507148719417.jpg (52 KB, 297x228)

52 KB JPG

>>109380063
>>109381566
>>109379723
The thing that always makes me laugh is when I see all those idiots dig out old machines (maybe even paid big $$$ to scalpers on Ebay for them) only to them put some super gimped Linux version on them so it can be "safe" to connect to the internet. Then they PROUDLY show how they can play Tetris on a Pentium 4 with 512MB RAM.
They don't realize (or forgot?) what we were able to pull off back in the early 00s with 512MB ram and 1GHz single cores. And now they're proud of running 2010s smartphone java games on those machines as if it's rocket science simply because running those Linux distros enables them to have those old machines connected to the net without instantly importing at least one Indian through the network card.

>>109386061
it makes me rage.
when I see a soi on youtube put some linux shit on a high end machine from 2002 and then does the soi face when it boots into an awkward ui at 1024x768 on his wide screen monitor taking 30 seconds to load a Paint clone.
nig we had fucking 3D MADNESS happening back then. complex fucking 3D games everywhere. with 512MB or even 1 whole GB you were the fucking king of the pc master race at lan parties.
seeing those machines degraded to pocket calculator tasks while getting mouth gaped at is disgusting.

>>109384964
>linux
What is that?

>>109386061
>>109386120
I smell bullshit. So much bullshit.
Old tech was ROUGH. Took one to two minutes to fucking BOOT. Plus one more minute for the operating system to stop loading shit and become usable.
Opening Start took one/two seconds for it to load. Launching a program from there was a fucking mouse maze, if you hovered outside of the tiny menu while looking at Program subfolders the whole thing would collapse and you had to start over.
Those """3D MADNESS"""? It was barely PS2-tier when Windows XP was current, and PS1/N64 tier when 98 was.
All you were playing in LAN was Warcraft, Starcraft, COD. Nothing else. The trifecta, ad nauseam.
Look, I'm all for retro shit, but at some point you have to accept you're just writing fanfiction of your childhood days.

>>109377573
Just download and try it on a vm.
Contrary to marketing of windows exe backward compatibility, you will have to search for old version for most of the software you want.

>Pentium II laptop in a garage sale today, fucker wanted 100 eurobucks for it
Unless he cleaned it, replaced resistors, bios battery and other damaged parts... It's simply greedy bastard.

>>109384964
Linux is a complete disaster. I want an OS whose UI is a first class citizen, not some Frankenstein mess afterthought grafted onto an obsolete mainframe OS. Also, Linux has been ruined and is even worse now. First we had the great fracturing with Gnome3, then Wayland came and fucked up everything, now the kernel is in the process of being corroded. Linux is over.

>>109379723
>When will the fucking retards on this board finally understand that not every fucking PC needs to be connected to the internet to function "normally"?
Tell that to the win10/win11 cultists. The pajeets can't comprehend an offline machine.

I'd rather use XP.

>>109386434
>Took one to two minutes to fucking BOOT.
HDD below 3000rpm? Poor.
>All you were playing in LAN was Warcraft, Starcraft, COD.
Where's quake, where's unreal tournament, where's little fighter 2?
>you hovered outside of the tiny menu while looking at Program subfolders the whole thing would collapse and you had to start over.
>hands too shaky to control the mouse
Weak and pathetic.

>>109386434
I had an 800Mhz Athlon with 320MB of ram running windows 2000. The thing was incredibly responsive. Basic applications opened instantly. The UI was far more responsive than modern computers, thanks to classic windows front buffer hardware accelerated rendering. I was using that machine in 2009 on a 100mb/s symmetrical connection and it was able to saturate the link, I remember downloading from mega upload at over 6 MB/s, and torrents were crazy, popular torrents with hundreds of seeders were able to download at MB/s speeds, and a few times I singlehandedly turned entire swarms into seeders. I was using opera at the time, and could open 100 tabs at once without the machine grinding to a halt.

Also, to explain the 100mb/s thing. I was in university student accommodation. And whoever setup the buildings switch gear messed up. You had to use a user name and password to enable your connection, which was 512kb/s free, or 2mb/s if you paid extra. But if you clicked forgot password, it allowed you 24 hours of access, but no restrictions were applied since you had not logged in.

File: 1781189515216203.gif (3.85 MB, 498x471)

3.85 MB GIF

>>109386434
>It was barely PS2-tier when Windows XP was current
Yes, and? There are incredible games from that era that are still visually impressive in 2026.
The point is that machines of that era were and still are capable but people gimp them to shit with modern Linux distros only so they can test if Youtube runs on it (it won't), run some gay 2D open source gaymen and then completely forget about their rEtRo experience the very next day after.
The point is that you get way more out of your old PC if you simply run the OS it was made for and simply do not fucking connect it to the net since there's absolutely no point in doing that anyway. XP and earlier security issues do not matter if you do not let it go online and your machine can perform as it should.

>>109386537
Not all of the cultists are brown. Some pass for white.

>>109386858
Okay, so it's time for a modern round of panda burning incense virus to make them scatter.

>>109377660
cringe

File: 1772351610376864.png (169 KB, 769x533)

169 KB PNG

>>109384687
>SP6
Not him, but W2k has four service packs

>>109387960
Fug, got mixed up with NT 4.0. Been dabbling on that kino recently.
So yeah, question still stands, any reason to go with SP3 rather than SP4?

File: battlefield-1942-screensh(...).jpg (121 KB, 1020x765)

121 KB JPG

>>109386434
lol
lmao
you had a shit pc

lol cod, who the fuck played cod on pc

>>109388918
maybe as you mixed it up with nt4, he mixed it up with xp (which has 3 service packs)

>>109377573
We used this OS on the ships (USN). I personally love it. If I wasn't mainly a Linux user at home I would run either this or windows XP.

>>109384687
>>109387960
>>109388918
There were initial issues with SP4 and SP3 worked perfectly fine at that point in time.

>>109382208
we thirdies install 2000 off a cd from a piracy store.

>>109384927
I rather be stuck with using old technology rather than fucking over 72 goats

File: bf1942 menu background.webm (1.42 MB, 720x480)

1.42 MB WEBM

>>109390594
take me the FUCK back
https://youtu.be/Tb8PQXPOkCc
https://youtu.be/T0acN2v6aIc
https://youtu.be/dsf6sjkTA0o

>>109392732
i had 512M of ram when BF2 was current, it would take quite literally 10 minutes before it would stop stuttering during a match, but it was worth it. i got new hardware in 2006, but had to cheap out in a couple areas due to limited money
https://youtu.be/KDRRxRm6BmI

>>109392473
>he wouldn't fuck the goats
You've never seen a goat and it shows.

>>109392732
>AAAAH NIGGERMAN TAKE ME BAAAACK!!11!
>tfw it's the mildest shit from year of our lord 1950+52
What did he mean by this?

>turn on old pc
>dust off grandpa's C book
>fuck network
>start programming

>>109378838
>doesn't destroy your computer for simply connecting to the Internet
Nor does 2000.

t. someone who uses old 98/2000/NT4/95 machines connected to LAN on the regular. They're old enough that no woke ass nu-haxxor tries to target them, because most of these babbie hackers were born when XP was halfway thru maturing.

>but muh firewall
Simple, don't be enough of a retard to disable it. Any clip you probably saw of 2k/XP being killed by simply connecting were deliberately rigged by disabling firewall beforehand.

>tfw I can still connect to my IRC server with w2k
>tfw I can still manage my bots with w2k
feels good man

>>109382208
I daily drove Windows 2000 because it was the "professional" NT code base and not the gussied up MS-DOS GUI 3.1/95/98/ME were. Also I had a 2CPU system so you had to use 2000. It worked great for the stuff I mostly used but a lot of stuff simply wouldn't run properly. I had such a negative experience with ME and I thought XP was just more of that especially because the GUI was so Fisher Price. When I switched to XP after a few years I realized I should have used XP from the beginning. Prior to that I used 98lite lol.

>>109394657
>They're old enough that no woke ass nu-haxxor tries to target them
Completely false. Fake and gay, also retarded. Expose a Windows XP or 2000 machine without firewall to open internet.

>>109394794
>without firewall
Any OS without a firewall will be targeted. It's just that XP is the cutoff. Someone tried WannaCry on 2000 for example - it failed miserably.

>>109394794
And as said, be enough of a retard to disable firewall and that's on you deliberately rigging your system to be targeted. Any clip you saw of those being "targeted" as soon as connecting to internet were rigged by having their firewall deliberately disabled, which makes the videos fake, gay and trans.

>>109395075
Earlier you said, 'They're old enough that no woke ass nu-haxxor tries to target them.' But now you're saying, 'you are retard if you disable firewall.' If nobody is targeting them, why would disabling the firewall matter?

Clearly people are targeting these operating systems. You are contradicting with yourself and your words prove my point.

>>109395176
>Clearly people are targeting these operating systems.
Who? 99% of the current hackers AS WELL as 99% of the use cases of old systems no longer even include 2000 and lower, especially as none of the recent viruses EVEN SUPPORT lower than XP - the 2k kernel is missing a lot of the calls used by XP viruses.
>But now you're saying, 'you are retard if you disable firewall.' If nobody is targeting them, why would disabling the firewall matter?
I said it the first time if you didn't read it.

>>109394657
>Simple, don't be enough of a retard to disable it. Any clip you probably saw of 2k/XP being killed by simply connecting were deliberately rigged by disabling firewall beforehand.


You're deluding yourself if you believe the viruses are any closer to the old Sasser/Conficker ages anymore.

And 3rd, name a good reason WHY would you deliberately disable firewall? Excluding the rare viruses that even do it (because there's very few that do and let alone work on XP.) which are NOT "airborne" either.

>>109395339
>I said it the first time if you didn't read it.
Still contradicts. You literally said "nothing is targeted if you protect it".

Just go to youtube and search for "connecting XP computer to internet".

>>109395363
I know the video and IT IS RIGGED.

>disabling firewall deliberately
You're on your own for doing that, as I've always said.

Furthermore, you're also delusional if you think newer versions are less vulnerable after disabling firewall. The same vulnerability exists as far as 11 and will cause the same havoc. Saying "oh noes don't connect older windows to internet because you'll infect yourselves and others" is stupid.

TL;DR - self-sabotaging to "prove a point" is not a way to prove you're right. It's a way to prove you're wrong AND dumb on top of that.

>>109395427
>TL;DR - self-sabotaging to "prove a point" is not a way to prove you're right. It's a way to prove you're wrong AND dumb on top of that.
You said those systems aren't targeted.
When you disable firewall, they are clearly targeted.
What are you still trying to argue about? Just take the L, tell that firewalls render these targetings useless. You are making extremely vague claims and bitching about it when a flaw is found.

>>109395444
All the videos he has done are fake. All involve self-sabotaging which no end user will be likely to do.

And again, none under XP are targeted so you're trying too hard. Show me a case where any older Windows than XP has been targeted within last 2 years. As said, all viruses now rely on kernel routines that no OS under XP has.

You're the one who should take the L.

>>109395462
>All the videos he has done are fake.
>As said, all viruses now rely on kernel routines that no OS under XP has.
>You're the one who should take the L.
>also still talking about "self-sabotaging".

What did you take to achieve this level of retardation and ego inflation.? I'm genuinely impressed.

XP but with less bloat

Some oldfags say 2k is more solid than XP but there are now XP machines that have been running 20+ year old installs without issues
There's also plenty of XP-compatible motherboards with solid state capacitors or hacked drivers to run on more modern hardware

>>109395462
>no end user will be likely to do
IMO, end users going out of their way to install old Windows and NT versions are probably going to tinker with old Windows once or twice and reek havoc. I wouldn't be surprised if they disabled the firewall - which can only do so much by the way. The only real users who really run these systems have specific purposes like old software or actually know what they are doing. They usually run these in isolated VLANs or airgapped to my knowledge and are properly managed. Saying this, connecting these machines to the internet just carries unneeded risks, yeah most routers have decent/okish firewalls but also again to my knowledge these old Windows 100% use outdated protocols and are so vulnerable its just not a good idea. Again, just my view.

>>109378019
>and find a start menu replacer
You know you can just switch the XP start menu to the 95/98/2000 mode with few clicks? You don't need any external start menu replacer. I miss when you could just customize Windows without any hassle.

>>109379723
How exactly is my Windows 2000 system behind a carrier NAT and 7 proxies gonna suddenly absorb 295982828473828 virii from the Internet? This is technically-ignorant fearmongering. Without an open port to the world, the threat can only come from inside the house, and if that happens then 1. I was already fucked 2. oh no they're gonna ransomware my P3 with Diablo 1 on it, it's the end of the world

>>109395729
> outdated protocols
Name one

Name one which doesn't mean that you're using software so old that you can't actually connect to modern services and therefore would be unable to even download a virus

Passwordless SMB1? Like you can enable in Win11?

Absolute nonsense FUD meme bullshit

>>109395529
>there are now XP machines that have been running 20+ year old installs without issues
I have a 2003 Compaq Armada M3 running to this day but XP's main problem was how it bloated up over time and such an old installation is barely usable - slow as fucking molasses. They only fixed that in 7

>>109396201
I probably phrased it wrong sorry, but I guess old TLS to be fully functional sure some stuff works but its still kind of an issue even for software that just works better on respected operating systems. Sorry if I'm wrong.

Yeah shouldn't have said that I am wrong

>>109396177
anything can be hacked its about minimising as much risk as possible its and extreme take but why would you risk it lol

>>109397025
reading my answer back and yours it applies but extremely low so ignore it

>>109377573
my favorite version. everything after it was bloat.

File: windows7.png (917 KB, 1024x768)

917 KB PNG

>>109397216
i would easily add windows 7 imo

>>109395462
>>109395475
both of you miss the fact that 1) although old machines are targeted, they are by botnets who don't care who you are and 2) although that video isn't 'fake, gay, and trans', it specifically shows a scenario that you have to go out of your way to set up (e.g. assigning the VM/machine a raw public IPv4 address on an open WAN with no router NAT and explicitly turning off the firewall on an unpatched build)

>>109394794
>>109395176
>>109395363
>>109395444
>>109395475
>"you probably won't be robbed when you go outside"
>well what if I stand naked holding a sack of cash in the middle of the road
You're a tranny arguing over semantics and you know it. His point was that no one's going to be deploying attacks designed to break Windows XP's security defenses on the internet and if you don't deliberately go out of your way to make yourself a target you'll be fine, but yes, if you do remove all security measures going well beyond what even the most retarded faggot could accidentally achieve, then the exact same attacks being used on every Windows version will by chance be used on your machine

>>109394657
>Nor does 2000.
My father had to reinstall my computer on monthly basis because some nigger kept getting remote access to my computer to fuck up random files. It only stopped when he switched to XP SP2.