Post Awl3SV6MHXzbcK9KBE by JSkier@social.linux.pizza
(DIR) More posts by JSkier@social.linux.pizza
(DIR) Post #AwjJjvfRyPj5spyZH6 by m0xEE@nosh0b10.m0xee.net
2025-08-01T15:27:24Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@JSkier@social.linux.pizza @evgandr@mas.to @rl_dane@polymaths.socialAckshually XP was a horrible system — Windows 2000 with a blue taskbar and insane defaults like UP'n'P enabled by default for all network interfaces, it had a glaring remote execution vulnerability everyone new about since the day it was released. Then came Sasser worm — and let me remind you, those were the days people weren't updating software because your average Internet connection was slow and limited. On a big enough network it was a nightmare!Of course at some point it all got fixed, but by that time the system already started showing its age — most Linux distros came with lots of useful software included, even Mac OS X had ssh, VNC and web server out of the box, in Windows you had to install third-party software to get even the most basic things — IIRC you couldn't even mount ISO images with base installation.Then the 4 gigabyte RAM limit — purely a Microsoft thing, but thanks to this a lot of people still think that 32-bit OS can't utilise more RAM. 32-bit Mac OS X had no such problem — each individual process still couldn't address all the installed RAM, but you could have up to 64 gigabytes in Mac Pro with no issues. Of course there was an x64 Professional Edition of Windows or something like that, but it had its own share of incompatibilities and I'm not even sure the end user could legally obtain it.So no, XP was always a pretty damn terrible system — people just somehow got used to it. Maybe because Vista was even worse 😅
(DIR) Post #Awl3SV6MHXzbcK9KBE by JSkier@social.linux.pizza
2025-08-01T20:17:03Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@m0xEE @evgandr @rl_dane Hindsight adds a lot for sure. A lot of security issues then, but it was a different time. I remember running packet captures on corporate and academic networks and just being awed by what I saw. Back then you didn't have many sites using TLS on the web; so much network traffic was just plaintext. Part a lack of computational power, part a lack of concern by the average computing consumer (using PGP for e-mail messaging back then was rare among us geeks, despite how accessible it was, lol still is I suppose). I jumped on the 64-bit XP OEM release back then, and it was a headache for what could run on it. It was clearly an afterthought for MS to do that with XP. Some 64-bit open-source projects could be compiled or had binaries to run, so I had a good albeit bumpy 2 year go with it. I still have the CD-ROM at home 😄I flipped to more than half the time in Linux in the early 2000s, after tinkering with it since 1996. If you wanted to play around with network services, yes, it blows Windows out of the water there, and I also prefer text configs over IIS and registry modifications 🙂When 64-bit became more mainstream, even Linux was slow to move except for the kernel (that was quick!). I've been with #ArchLinux since it came out, and I remember discussing on the forums and helping get more 64-bit applications going. Not that many years ago from today they have completely deprecated 32-bit, it's a side project. Oh man, have the times changed (and that's a good thing).XP was really a good UI, in my opinion though. The Control Panel was easy to pick up, and NT core was impressive back then. I also liked Windows 2000 over 98/ME for that NT reason. Way less telemetry, search just worked (Windows 10 and 11 are a mess on that still), and the UI stayed out of your way compared to Vista and beyond. That said, I spend most of my time in Linux these days for work, gaming, publishing, etc. It's the operating system that has best suited me for the past couple of decades.