• AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    5 months ago

    I greatly preferred XP to 2000. 2000 still needed a ton of configuration, and device specific drivers that were difficult to find. XP simplified a lot of that with their PNP support, but they still had robust configuration options for power users.

    • lightnegative@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      Me too. 2000 seemed… Slow compared to XP on the same hardware, but to be fair the hardware I had was cobbled together from parts that my father’s employer was going to throw out

      • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        It looked a lot sleeker too. I had my UI heavily customized, including the boot and login screens, and it made me feel like such a hacker. 2000 made me feel like I was working at an office.

      • toddestan@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        Microsoft put a lot of work into speeding up the boot times with XP. Windows 2000 booted glacially slow by comparison. Though I’d say once booted, 2000 was a bit leaner and quicker.