- Mac OS 9 (which was about as reliable as Windows 98)
- OSX wasn’t yet released. But when it did, it wasn’t particularly great for existing Mac users. It took a few years for OSX to really gain momentum.
- Linux (who’s desktop support was still immature)
- BeOS 5 (which was bloody awesome, but also very niche)
- Windows Me (easily the worst desktop OS Microsoft have ever produced. Say what you will about Vista, but its flaws were a combination of its ambition and Microsoft “certifying” it for hardware that wasn’t powerful enough. Whereas Me just sucked in every conceivable and irredeemable way).
Windows 2000 was the first time Microsoft but focus on the little details. For example Notepad was finally given hot keys like ctrl+s to save. In fact I’d argue it was the last time Microsoft put refinement above new features too.
It was the first time we saw a workstation OS suitable for home use (aside perhaps BeOS but much as I love BeOS, NT was a more sophisticated engineering feat).
Windows 2000 was the first time a windows release didn’t double the system requirements. A trend that then continued again right up until around 7/8.
Windows 2000 was rock solid. I only managed to crash it twice and one of those times was because I was playing around with an undocumented Windows API — so that really was my own fault.
Windows 2000 was the last time was unified UI across all of the OS management tools. Except for the font management which was still a 16-bit app. Microsoft have only gotten worse at this since too. It was also the prettiest too (but that’s entirely subjective).
Windows 2000 was the OS that shipped the most sane defaults. Though there was still some WTF moments like the terminal port being open. Since then though, I’m constantly fighting with Windows trying to dumb everything down.
Windows 2000 is what proved to the world that Microsoft could release a half decent OS that supports SMP and doesn’t require a DOS bootloader. It was a real game changer of an OS and released at the time when everything else on the market was garage too. Which just goes to demonstrate just how much of a game changer it was.
It was, in my opinion, not only the first Microsoft OS that didn’t completely suck in every conceivable way. But arguably the only good OS they’ve ever released because everything since has been fraught with compromises. Including 7.
XP pre-SP2 was basically an uglier 2000 with twice the CPU and memory footprint. After SP2 XP grew into its own entirely. But by that point desktop Linux was good enough to run as my primary OS.
Edit: the opinions here are both my own, and my professional experience managing desktop and server IT infrastructures for small businesses at that time. And at that time, Windows 2000 changed everything. If 7 hadn’t been released then Microsoft could have kept supporting XP and most people would have been perfectly happy. But if 2000 wasn’t released then Microsoft would have been in the same deep shit that Apple were with their repeated failed attempts at creating a successor to Mac OS prior to re-hiring Steve Jobs.
I think a lot of these reasons are explicitly subjective preferences without even making an attempt to list objective criteria.
Windows 2000 was indeed much better than XP and I ran it myself, but it was designed to be a replacement for NT and not geared towards consumers. Win7 was the culmination and peak of what MS started with XP - moving consumers to a stable NT based OS.
W7 was also rock solid, didn't double the system requirements from Vista, and I would also argue had a 99% practically unified UI experience with Aero Glass. The defaults were mostly fine, not worse than W2000 IMO, as a bunch of services still had to be disabled, but it was nothing like what you have to do to restrict W10.
What arguments could you make, attempting to use objective criteria and technical merit only (i.e. excluding being first at something and just considering how well something worked) that 2000 was better than W7, when AFAIK W7 was a better culmination of Microsoft's goals with a better user experience, and much longer longevity. W7 had a longer lifetime than XP, and XP and 7 both had far longer lifetimes than 2000.
I said OSes can be objectively measured, when you were pointing out that much of the measurement is subjective. I pointed out that is largely irrelevant, since all that matters is they can be measured objectively, even if it's a discussion on how best to do that. You begrudgingly agreed.
I simply stated W7 was the best without defining criteria, but did say I believe it would hold up against whatever objective criteria are established, and that there is already objective evidence in support of that point.
Here, you've listed unambiguously subjective preferences and opinions, with not even a slight attempt to define objective criteria to support your point.
For what it's worth, if you search 'best version of windows', pretty much every singles article ranking them is giving Windows 7 first. At the very least, it seems to be the majority opinion.
I think the text from the Digital Trends article giving it first place is fair:
"There’s an argument to be made that Windows 7 is a just a refined version of Windows Vista, released at a time when people actually had the kind of hardware that could run it properly. But this king of Windows releases did so much more than that. It was fast and responsive, with many important visual upgrades over previous versions of Windows. It had excellent compatibility, working with older hardware and software alike, and introduced important features which are still Windows mainstays today. It added pinning applications to the taskbar, introduced stacking Windows for better organization, let you preview windows with taskbar thumbnails, and it made it possible to snap Windows to different portions of the screen.
Windows 7 is important for what it didn’t have, too. It feels like the last Windows operating system that was fast and modern, but hadn’t yet started chasing features designed for other platforms, like touch-targeted UI elements, or smart assistant integration. It didn’t have the Microsoft Store or overblown data collection, and there was no attempt to force you to use an online account to login.
It was a clean, responsive operating system that many would likely continue to use today if it was still supported by Microsoft and modern hardware alike."
> Here, you've listed unambiguously subjective preferences and opinions, with not even a slight attempt to define objective criteria to support your point.
Now you’re just being obtuse. Most of my comments were on a par with your own comments. In fact some of the comments you’ve just shared are literally just repackaging similar remarks I made about 2000!
I’m honestly surprised you can’t see the irony in your comments. You’re literally applying a double standard where its “objective” it’s your judgement but anyone else’s judgement that disagrees with your own is subjective.
I’ve got a fair amount more I’d love to discuss, but it’s probably better we just agree to disagree.
> Now you’re just being obtuse. Most of my comments were on a par with your own comments.
I strongly disagree.
> In fact some of the comments you’ve just shared are literally just repackaging similar remarks I made about 2000!
Except, the context matters, because 7 was a continue refinement of those things whereas things took a downturn other than that, meaing 7 was the peak, which is what is part of the justfiication.
> I’m honestly surprised you can’t see the irony in your comments.
Because I think it only exists in your perception.
> You’re literally applying a double standard where its “objective” it’s your judgement but anyone else’s judgement that disagrees with your own is subjective.
Not at all, I have repeatedly stressed that objective criteria should be fined and used.
> ’ve got a fair amount more I’d love to discuss, but it’s probably better we just agree to disagree.
I’ve got a fair amount more I’d love to discuss, but it’s probably better we just agree to disagree.
Entirely up to you. I'll probably keep replying every time I see a reply. If you think we can have productive discussion, then I hope you would continue, if you think we are seeing things too differently and the discussion will devolve and not be productive, then I would hope you don't.
I will note that in a recent, separate discussion you resorted to insults and vulgarity. If you think the same would occur in this discussion with me, knowing we disagree, then I would definitely ask that we just leave it here - but again, I will continue to reply to any messages received that I feel are misrepresenting anything or need what I consider correction.
> I will note that in a recent, separate discussion you resorted to insults and vulgarity.
Hard disagree.
I hadn’t clocked that you were the same person who was lecturing other people about the politics in their country while living in a different country. I remember from that conversation that you considered your own opinion irrefutable regardless of any evidence presented so it’s no surprise to learn here that you also consider your opinion to be objective and infallible.
If I’d clicked you were the same person I wouldnt have bothered replying and just downvoted you like others had.
> > I will note that in a recent, separate discussion you resorted to insults and vulgarity.
> Hard disagree.
It's not a matter of opinion. You literally resorted to insults and vulgarity. Do I need quote your words back to you?
> who was lecturing other people about the politics in their country while living in a different country. I
No, I was someone pointing our your arguments were bad. Out of the two of us, I'm the only one who has lived in both countries, and my arguments were not fallacious.
> I remember from that conversation that you considered your own opinion irrefutable regardless of any evidence presented
This is certainly ironic given you engaged in whataboutism and your evidence was shown to be flawed for the points you were trying to make.
> so it’s no surprise to learn here that you also consider your opinion to be objective and infallible.
I think you are bad at reasoning your points and you ignore objective evidence. My opinion isn't infallible, but the reasoning and evidence to support it is better than what you are relying on to support yours.
> If I’d clicked you were the same person I wouldnt have bothered replying and just downvoted you like others had.
Funny, I suspected you only started the discussion you did because you had recognized I was the same person.
But, whatever - let's just not engage with each other anymore? I'm here for productive discussion, if we are clashing to a point that isn't possible I would rather us just both avoid each other.
I find it absolutely astounding you deny you engaged in vulgarity and insults, for the same reason I find MAGA folk astounding when they deny reality. Unless for some reason you don't consider saying 'Bullshit'[1] vulgarity - I assume that would be your defense, and indeed I would perceive that to be disingenuous since it clearly is, in the sense it lowers the quality of and taints an otherwise civil conversation.
I'd be more curious to hear why you don't think calling my comment idiotic[1] is resorting to insults - that seems harder to deny, so I wonder what creative justification you might come up with?
> So let's just not engage with each other anymore?
100%. If you want to reply just to note you in fact do not consider saying 'Bullshit' vulgarity' or defend how calling a comment idiotic is not resorting to insults, I'll understand and might respond to that. If we are not discussing operating systems or problems with countries, I consider that a win since that thread would run its course very shortly, then we could be done with each other. Of course if you don't want to reply at all I'll consider that an even bigger win.
So now you're admitting you insulted me after previously denying that you had?
I never called you an idiot, I stuck to facts and explained why I thought you were wrong.
> Anyway, I thought you wanted us to part ways?
If you read above, I said that if you must reply to this final thread that at least it will be over quickly, and that I will continue to reply to messages as I get notified of them if I feel I need to defend against misinformation (such as you denying you resorted to insults).
If you want our interacting to cease sooner, simply resist your urge to reply.
Of course you do, thankfully I trust most readers to look at the evidence and see that without any doubt, you resorted to an insult and vulgarity when I did not, and then denied doing so.
I have no issues with my behavior or anything I've said, as I didn't resort to insults and then deny doing so. Additionally, the evidence is overwhelmingly on my side (yes yes, "you disagree", I know).
> I also don't think even you believe the stuff you're posting
Instead of choosing not to reply, you chose to continue the discussion instead of being done with me as you said you preferred, just to make a bad faith accusation.
>Instead of choosing not to reply, you chose to continue the discussion instead of being done with me as you said you preferred, just to make a bad faith accusation.
You do understand that you're also engaging with me, right?
And that every comment you've made for the last hour has been directed at me as a person?
>You do understand that you're also engaging with me, right?
The difference is I said upfront that I would continue to reply to messages as I see them, as where you just said you wanted to be done yet keep making the effort to engage - even if it's just to make a bad faith accusation.
Edit: And interestingly as your below comment shows, you are manually refreshing to monitor replies which is an extra level of dedication.
> And that every comment you've made for the last hour has been directed at me as a person?
So? I keep getting notifications that you've replied, and I am not engaging in any other discussions so far.
For me it would be Windows 2000.
When it was released its competition was
- Mac OS 9 (which was about as reliable as Windows 98)
- OSX wasn’t yet released. But when it did, it wasn’t particularly great for existing Mac users. It took a few years for OSX to really gain momentum.
- Linux (who’s desktop support was still immature)
- BeOS 5 (which was bloody awesome, but also very niche)
- Windows Me (easily the worst desktop OS Microsoft have ever produced. Say what you will about Vista, but its flaws were a combination of its ambition and Microsoft “certifying” it for hardware that wasn’t powerful enough. Whereas Me just sucked in every conceivable and irredeemable way).
Windows 2000 was the first time Microsoft but focus on the little details. For example Notepad was finally given hot keys like ctrl+s to save. In fact I’d argue it was the last time Microsoft put refinement above new features too.
It was the first time we saw a workstation OS suitable for home use (aside perhaps BeOS but much as I love BeOS, NT was a more sophisticated engineering feat).
Windows 2000 was the first time a windows release didn’t double the system requirements. A trend that then continued again right up until around 7/8.
Windows 2000 was rock solid. I only managed to crash it twice and one of those times was because I was playing around with an undocumented Windows API — so that really was my own fault.
Windows 2000 was the last time was unified UI across all of the OS management tools. Except for the font management which was still a 16-bit app. Microsoft have only gotten worse at this since too. It was also the prettiest too (but that’s entirely subjective).
Windows 2000 was the OS that shipped the most sane defaults. Though there was still some WTF moments like the terminal port being open. Since then though, I’m constantly fighting with Windows trying to dumb everything down.
Windows 2000 is what proved to the world that Microsoft could release a half decent OS that supports SMP and doesn’t require a DOS bootloader. It was a real game changer of an OS and released at the time when everything else on the market was garage too. Which just goes to demonstrate just how much of a game changer it was.
It was, in my opinion, not only the first Microsoft OS that didn’t completely suck in every conceivable way. But arguably the only good OS they’ve ever released because everything since has been fraught with compromises. Including 7.
XP pre-SP2 was basically an uglier 2000 with twice the CPU and memory footprint. After SP2 XP grew into its own entirely. But by that point desktop Linux was good enough to run as my primary OS.
Edit: the opinions here are both my own, and my professional experience managing desktop and server IT infrastructures for small businesses at that time. And at that time, Windows 2000 changed everything. If 7 hadn’t been released then Microsoft could have kept supporting XP and most people would have been perfectly happy. But if 2000 wasn’t released then Microsoft would have been in the same deep shit that Apple were with their repeated failed attempts at creating a successor to Mac OS prior to re-hiring Steve Jobs.