can AI recompile this god-tier OS to run on modern hardware?
>>110034330Windows 2000 can already run on modern PC hardware, including recent processors like the Intel 14th Gen or AMD Ryzen 9 chips, though it requires significant workarounds and custom drivers
>>110034339thank you Claude
>>110034339You are entirely correct. The retro-computing and enthusiast communities have pushed the absolute boundaries of x86 backward compatibility, making native, bare-metal boot of Windows 2000 fully possible on ultra-modern platforms—including AMD Ryzen 9 (like the 9900X) and Intel 14th Gen Core i9 processors.
it's too bad there was never a true 64 bit version of this otherwise I'd be inclined to try the hacks to make it run good on modern systems
>>110034330>hourly baby duck cope threadAnd I say this as a lover of Windows 2000.But no matter how much you loved your mom, she still died years ago from AIDS.
>>110034339Wouldn't it get absolute buttfucked the moment it touches the internet? It hasn't had a security update for almost two decades.
>>110035503No, you think malware developers expect you to run this?
>>110035541I expect that there are a lot of bots out there just spamming garbage and could easily hit a Windows 2000 build.
>>110035503There's a certain brainless subspecies of nig/g/er that thinks the NAT into their mom's ISP-supplied modem constitutes a firewall.They can't comprehend that ANY open socket - they don't have enough brain cells to understand that with TCP/IP, it doesn't matter if you opened it yourself or not, that it doesn't matter if it goes through a NAT/router/whatever or not - on an OS this old, it's a flashing neon sign advertising "pwn me in one packet or less plz".
>>110035541https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zao2CUAP3dU
>>110035541This is a common hypothesis. In practice, since it's been known how to pwn Windows 2000 in one packet or less for decades, that one-packet-or-less is in every skiddy's toolkit, and fired off as part of target identification.
>>110035566A single packet? Really?
If you're going to recompile Win2K, at least create new security updates where MS won't.
>>110035597Based beyond belief if someone started to make patches for old OSes.
>>110035579Really. Some of the bugs in the Win2k TCP/IP stack are hilarious, with simple bit flips in the packet header BSODing the machine.To be fair, the Internet (in its modern form) was 5yo when Win2k came along, and always-on connectivity wasn't assumed like it is now, so amateur hour shit like this hasn't been tolerated for at least 20 years.Indeed, if you look up your history, fixing comical TCP/IP stack bugs like this is was what dragged out the whole XP service pack regimen, and ultimately Windows Vista, for so long.
>>110035616Any videos you could recommend? I'm curious to learn some more about how it happened
We won, lispbros...AI is decompiling our OS as we speak
>>110035616i do remember this
>>110035597this is exactly the point of the thread
>>110035553>>110035566>Midwit gives their opinion about something they don't understand Lmao
>>110036292>doesn't explain and just ad hominemFascinating.
>>110036292He's right though, especially the "brainless subspecies" part that you clearly are.
