What is so bad about Window 2000?

Hello,

I used to use Window 2000 when I had no knowledge about computers. But I hear a lot of people saying that window 2000 was a diaster. What was so bad about window 2000? If you can help me out, it'll be great.

Thank you

 

Nothing is wrong with W2K. It's a great OS. The W2K Server edition is still, AFAIK, the most popular Windows server OS. I use both W2K and Server 2K and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

It is not a great gaming OS, but it was never designed to be one. The market for W2K was never the "average Joe Computeruser", it was marketed towards businesses as a stable replacement for NT.

 

Indeed, W2k is pretty great OS. Some features of W2k are put in XP.

JC

 

I agree, I once had a desktop I ran Win 2K on and I recall not rebooting it for several weeks at a time. It was very stable in my usage.

 

Win 2k is a good OS. Win Me however was a sucky one. the reason is because XP was released just a few months after so people see no reason to run win2k and go straight to XP instead.

 

2K was great, I was using it without any problems at my workplace until one day PCAnywhere screwed up and hijacked half of my I/O drivers, forcing me to upgrade to XP to try and solve the problem. Well it turns out all I had to do was reinstall PCAnywhere without using the batch script I was running to do so unattended...long story short, I upgraded to XP and feel like I lost a good OS.

 

Win 2K is one of the nicest OS MS ever released. No hanky panky. It even ran on Pentium 1 with 32mb ram

 

NT4 is a disaster - win2k NT5 is most def not a disaster - Great memory mangement, very little RAM necessary to run, fairly secure (with updates of course)

 

I think quite a few people get W2K and ME confused, which probably accounts for "a lot of people saying that window 2000 was a diaster." Originally ME was supposed to be based on the NT kernel, but MS decided to go with the DOS kernel, so it ended up based on Win 98's MD-DOS kernel. It was a huge piece of crap, so bad that PC World declared Windows ME as the fourth "Worst Tech Product of All Time", beaten only by AOL, RealPlayer, and Syncronys SoftRAM.

 

Don't get me wrong, ME was pretty crappy, but if you treat your OS well it will do the same back. I've built/administered so many machines over the past decade I can't even count 'em all, but I know from personal experience, if you don't fill them with crap and treat them like such they're run fine without a reformat/install for years!

 

Many people consider Win2k the best Windows released to date. The only problem with it now is I believe it is no longer supported, meaning no new patches. So, if you still have Win2k machines that is something to remember.

 

The last release of AutoPatcher 2000 was January 2007, so I guess it's still supported.

 

Extended support for W2K has been extended through 2010. This is mainly because W2K is the most widely used desktop client in corporate environments. Monthly security updates are available via Windows Update, and security hotfixes can be pushed in a network environment to the client machines.

 

really? the company a friend of mine works at just upgraded their entire network because they were told win2k was only supported for 5 years, and that was up. they replaced all the desktops with ones running XP.

XP takes lots of reconfiguring to be as friendly as 2K was.

 

W2K games just fine. I game with it exclusively. Benchmarks and performance are exactly like XP.

The only problem I have is nowadays the Battlefield expansion packs, which EA only releases via their downloader, need XP to download and install. No BF expansion packs for me.