[HN Gopher] Windows 2000 Server named peak Microsoft
___________________________________________________________________
Windows 2000 Server named peak Microsoft
Author : rntn
Score : 78 points
Date : 2025-04-11 13:16 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theregister.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theregister.com)
| PaulHoule wrote:
| You can't say WDDM wasn't a step forward... Being able to crash
| your video drivers and reboot them without crashing and rebooting
| your whole machines made Windows a lot more stable.
| bgirard wrote:
| Peak doesn't mean that it's a monotonic decline without any
| steps forward.
| markus_zhang wrote:
| TBF XP and 7 are both decent. Everything went down after those,
| including the Ads, the update, etc.
|
| I didn't upgrade to 10 until I purchased a used Dell laptop
| (which includes 10 prof) a few years ago, and I never used 11 and
| hopefully never needs to use it.
| Clubber wrote:
| I believe XP was when Windows Activation started, so that's a
| pretty big negative for me. Other than that, XP, 7 and 10 were
| pretty good, although 10 introduced advertisements if I'm not
| mistaken.
| milesvp wrote:
| XP also inexplicably required at least twice the ram as 2000.
| when XP came out that was a significant cost, and I
| personally was able to salvage many laptops at the time by
| downgrading them from XP. Eventually XP became the default
| for me because ram got a lot cheaper and the service packs
| and driver support made it more viable.
|
| But then, tangentially, I started using ubuntu at work, in a
| sort of misguided belief it would make me a better sysadmin,
| and it was only a matter of time before I couldn't stand
| windows at home as well.
|
| I thought win7 was pretty solid, though I didn't upgrade
| until well after win8 was shipping. But lucky for me, proton
| finally got really good, and that allowed me to basically
| skip win10+. Now it's only for the rare tool that I even boot
| into my windows partitions anymore. When I do, being
| bombarded by random attention grabbers is completely jarring
| and I want flee as fast as I can.
| SirMaster wrote:
| If you think 11 is bad, I bet 12 will be even worse. When 10 is
| unsupported and 12 is out, you will probably be reaching for 11
| by then...
| markus_zhang wrote:
| I'm already moving into Linux for one of my laptops. If the
| drivers and desktop experiences are good enough (or bad
| enough in Windows) I might move 100% to Linux in a few years.
| SirMaster wrote:
| Fair enough! I am probably just projecting my own probable
| fate haha.
| specproc wrote:
| I made the jump a few years ago and the experience has been
| largely great. Lots of learning, which has been half the
| fun, and no goddamn ads in my start menu.
|
| Totally usable as a daily driver, provided you don't need
| Windows only software. The year of linux on the desktop was
| probably about 2020.
| wing-_-nuts wrote:
| Steam's proton has made gaming on linux _astoundingly_
| good. The only thing that still needs improvement is mod
| support, as mod managers, game downgraders, bin patchers,
| some more involved mods involve little utilities written
| for windows that are not easily runnable on linux.
|
| It is slowly improving though. The steam deck has moved
| things forward in leaps and bounds.
| SirMaster wrote:
| It seems like basically all the games I play aren't
| supported on this unfortunately and it feels like they
| never will be.
| DrillShopper wrote:
| Even then, a VM can get you really far.
|
| If you need direct hardware access (like for gaming) then
| you can run a passthrough VM. You can do that even on a
| single video card system.
| Teever wrote:
| > You can do that even on a single video card system.
|
| Like with consumer video cards? Tell me more.
| cosmic_cheese wrote:
| I love 2000 and XP but 7 has a special spot for me because it's
| a "modern" Windows (supporting proper alpha blending in its
| theme drawing and such) without the various problems that 8 and
| newer bring. I have an old laptop with it installed and booting
| it up is honestly refreshing. Its visual style is a little
| dated feeling but not that much.
| vintagedave wrote:
| I like it for the same reasons. I just wish it supported high
| DPI. It, and Snow Leopard to Mountain Lion era OSX, at high
| res would be peak desktop usability.
| kevinpacheco wrote:
| If you intend to stick with Windows for the long haul, you will
| have to upgrade eventually. I hung on to 7 for a while, but
| several apps stopped getting updates: iTunes, the Spotify
| desktop client, Google Chrome, and even Firefox dropped
| support. I was using iTunes to download podcasts, which after a
| while became impossible with some feeds because I would get an
| SSL error each time on that old version. For 10, the ESU period
| ends one year after 10/14/25 for consumers and three years for
| organizations. It's possible that apps will continue to receive
| updates during that time.
| markus_zhang wrote:
| Thanks, yeah, I figured. Maybe I can move to Linux in 5
| years. I'm already using Linux for my dev laptop.
| Melatonic wrote:
| Windows 10 LTSC IOT has all the bloat and spyware stripped out
| and will get security updates for years. It's super lean.
|
| Will third party apps keep installing updates ? Hard to say.
| The adobe suite already refuses to install the latest version
| on any LTSC (for no reason other than they don't want to
| support it - it works great) so who knows.
|
| Suspect my next OS will be Windows 12 LTSC if I can hold out
| long enough - every other Windows version alway seems to be
| experimental crap going all the way back to ME (millennium
| edition)
| jiggawatts wrote:
| I tell customers that they should use LTSC for things like
| virtual desktops. You need stability, such as it not randomly
| deciding to install a 4 GB game like Minecraft for every user
| as a "critical update".
|
| Microsoft joined a meeting and told the customer that they
| don't agree with my recommendations because they want to make
| sure all users get the "latest experiences".
|
| There's your problem right there: pushing your own KPIs
| instead of what's best for the customers.
| Alupis wrote:
| Come try out Fedora, or whatever flavor of Linux you want.
|
| It's surprisingly fantastic for almost all modern computing
| tasks. Yes, it's true, some software won't work, such as Adobe
| Photoshop, but most people aren't using software like that
| anyway. For gaming, I'd say we're close to 99% of games
| supporting Linux out of the box on Steam. The few left that
| still don't choose not to via kernel-level anti-cheat or
| forgetting to toggle a checkbox for Linux support
| (EasyAntiCheat and friends).
|
| The point is, it "Just Works" for darn near everything these
| days and is a very pleasant experience. Try it out!
| supportengineer wrote:
| The best Linux I have ever seen is Linux Mint. I tried it out
| because I needed to do something with firewire, but all of
| the other Linux kernels had dropped firewire, and it was the
| only one left that still supported it. I found it to be
| intuitive and friendly and everything just worked.
| 2809 wrote:
| 2K 100% was the best Windows. The NT benefits with none of the XP
| downsides.
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| I preferred XP/2003 in classic UI mode. Lots of little
| improvements.
|
| If you could get winterm on it and recent Firefox it'd be quite
| usable. Perhaps ReactOS one day.
| gjvc wrote:
| and 64-bit (x86_64 not IA64), which no version Windows 2000
| was AFAIK
|
| Windows 7 with classic UI is probably the most-recent decent
| version.
| antod wrote:
| yeah while 2K was their best ever single breakthrough
| improvement, it was a v1 and XP/2003 in classic mode was a
| more refined 2K eg more drivers and better plug and play,
| more graphics compatibility. And 2003 Active Directory had a
| number of quality of life improvements.
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| NT3.5 was perhaps the most stable version I ever used. NT4
| brought the new UI, making NT5 aka 2k not the first version
| of the 95+ UI.
| wing-_-nuts wrote:
| Hard agree. The windows 2000 UI was peak UX and each step since
| has been a downgrade, (with a possible exception of windows 7)
| ThrowawayB7 wrote:
| Windows Server 2003 was the best Windows by far. All of the
| good parts of NT/2000 with any parts of XP available when you
| needed them.
| amlib wrote:
| Except that AFAIK 2003 kernel was different enough that a few
| apps and specially games refused to run, properly or at all,
| compared to XP.
| icedchai wrote:
| I agree here. I ran server 2003 on my early 2000's desktop
| for a while.
| jimt1234 wrote:
| Agree. My company ran a bunch of web servers on Windows 2K and
| Apache web server, because management was afraid of Linux
| (general FUD and Microsoft's lawsuit threats) and the
| engineering staff was afraid of Microsoft's IIS web server
| (security dumpster fire at the time). It was actually a pretty
| good system, super easy to maintain.
| yelling_cat wrote:
| Definitely. If 2K supported ClearType I would have stuck with
| it on my personal machines for another half a decade.
| tomwheeler wrote:
| Perfectly stated. It was more stable and had better UX than
| NT4, but didn't have all the unwanted anti-features that came
| in later versions of Windows. It was the last version of
| Windows that didn't get in my way.
| debian3 wrote:
| I don't know why they always alternate a good with a bad release.
| Technically Windows 12 should be good.
| dlachausse wrote:
| People always say that, but it's not really been completely
| true.
|
| < 3.1 Bad
|
| 3.1 Good
|
| 3.11 WfW Good
|
| NT 3.5 Okay
|
| 95 Good
|
| NT 4.0 Good
|
| 98 Good
|
| Me Bad
|
| 2000 Good
|
| XP Good
|
| Vista Bad
|
| 7 Good
|
| 8 Bad
|
| 8.1 Okay
|
| 10 Good
|
| 11 Bad
|
| There just really isn't a pattern to it.
| NikkiA wrote:
| The only 'bad' thing about Vista was it's change (and thus
| deprecation of many drivers) of driver model. Once tweaked
| and with good native drivers it was the first good 64bit
| windows - far more reliable than XP64. At least until 7 came
| out.
| acheron wrote:
| Windows 3.0 was good. 3.1 was a minor improvement.
| karmakaze wrote:
| NT 3.51 Best
|
| These are also mixing two separate streams: Win3.x/9x/ME and
| NT+
| tonyedgecombe wrote:
| >95 Good
|
| That's arguable, I thought it was poor at the time.
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| Windows users have low expectations. I still have PTSD from
| all the problems 9x caused me.
| dlachausse wrote:
| On well supported hardware 95 was a major upgrade. The
| Start menu, long file names, preemptive multitasking, plug
| and play hardware, and Direct X gaming support. In many
| ways it even surpassed MacOS at the time.
| hyperman1 wrote:
| When Win10 started, it was clearly Bad. No good reason for
| updates, invasive privacy-breaking telemetry, updates at
| random moments of the day, and everything was a little
| different but nothing was better. People flat out refused to
| upgrade when it was given for free. Microsoft had to force it
| trough windows update, and did multiple rounds of breaking
| software people explicitly installed to block the upgrade.
|
| When did it become good? WSL and DirectX 12 were real
| changes, but all in all, my impression is that the user has
| been frog boiled over the years, with 2K,XP and 7 becoming
| distant memories.
| supportengineer wrote:
| I remember that too. Microsoft was more aggressive and
| hostile towards the user than ever before.
| nobleach wrote:
| XP was the last that I really REALLY used. I've had Windows 7
| (on my work machine that I didn't use) and I have a Windows
| 10 machine that I boot from time to time when I want to mess
| with recording gear. But I kinda fell into "they're all bad,
| I was just used to them".
|
| I'll give my prime example. I used to know Device
| Manager/Control Panel SO well. I could just get things done.
| Now I have to hunt around forever to do any sort of hardware
| related task. In their attempt to make it "so easy, even your
| grandma could use it" they've alienated power users. My
| grandma still has to call me to help her attach a printer...
| but now I have to say, "I dunno... let me watch a YouTube
| video and pray that it matches the sub-version that you're
| using".
| NikkiA wrote:
| Win 11 and Vista have been unfairly maligned, with some minor
| tweaks (and start11) both are solid performant windows
| releases.
| znpy wrote:
| Windows Vista was essentially unusable on release unless you
| had very high-end hardware.
|
| A couple of weeks after release the first step after getting
| a new computer was changed from "downloading firefox" to
| "downgrade to windows xp". Unironically, many people did
| that.
| NikkiA wrote:
| And that unusuability was mostly due to the driver model
| change, once native Vista drivers appeared it performed
| better than XP/XP64 unless you were running old video
| hardware that couldn't handle aero - in which case you were
| still better off running Vista with the classic UI,
| although that did entail forgoing the Luna styling.
| dlachausse wrote:
| Windows 11 is the only version of Windows I've used where the
| taskbar routinely crashes on login and refuses to load.
| mystified5016 wrote:
| I think the vista hate is well earned. Remember when
| Microsoft had to trick users into trying it by calling it
| 'Mojave' instead?
| olyjohn wrote:
| Also the unending and relentless UAC prompts.
| tomwheeler wrote:
| It felt like malicious compliance. Oh, you want security?
| OK, here you go, hope you choke on it.
| bigstrat2003 wrote:
| Vista was indeed fine. I used it for many years and had nary
| a problem with it. The problem with 11 isn't the core
| (everyone seems to agree that is fine), it's that Microsoft
| insists on putting ads and other user-hostile BS in.
| Modified3019 wrote:
| I basically skipped windows XP entirely, only seeing it on
| other people's computers.
|
| I staying on a thinkpad R31 with win2k until I got a R61
| (4gb ram) with vista on it several months after vista's
| release. At that point it seemed like driver and other
| early teething had been worked out, so my experience was
| pretty positive.
|
| When I eventually moved to win7 I didn't notice any real
| difference.
| ruined wrote:
| they should've just skipped 11 like they skipped 9
| omoikane wrote:
| The story I heard[1] was that Microsoft skipped 9 because
| people used to check for "Windows 9" prefix string to
| identify 95 and 98:
| if(version.StartsWith("Windows 9")) { /* 95 and 98 */
| } else {
|
| [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/2hwlrk/comme
| nt/...
| SirMaster wrote:
| It feels like Windows 12 will be riddled with AI stuff nobody
| wants and ads, and forced to be online and connected to
| Microsoft in some way.
| gigel82 wrote:
| Nostalgically, yes, Windows 2000 was amazing. At the time of
| launch, on period hardware, it was the fastest and most
| lightweight OS released by Microsoft. And looking back, I always
| appreciate that I can look in Task Manager and immediately
| recognize all of the processes by name.
|
| Windows 7 (except for the last few updates that introduced
| telemetry and ads) comes in as a close second. But everything
| after is just bloated crapware.
| dlachausse wrote:
| The only bad things I remember about Windows 2000 are that some
| software written for Windows 3.x and 9x had compatibility
| issues and it took an eternity to boot up. It was go take a
| coffee break as soon as you turn your computer on for the day
| bad.
| sjsdaiuasgdia wrote:
| IIRC, Win2K would wait for most / all service startups to
| complete before showing the login prompt. XP and later would
| allow login to occur while many services were still starting
| up.
|
| It's a tradeoff. A Win2K system was pretty responsive when
| you log in after a reboot/startup, but you've got to wait for
| that experience. In the days of spinning disks and single
| core CPUs, you had to fight those still-starting services for
| resources, making the first several minutes of XP usage
| painful.
| olyjohn wrote:
| Win2k also had the smoothest mouse movements that I had
| ever seen. If you had a PS/2 Mouse, you could turn up the
| sample rate up to the max. Dragging windows looked
| incredible. Even my Mac to this day with a fancy brand new
| 4k display can't match it. My mouse still looks blurry as
| it moves across the screen.
| keyringlight wrote:
| I remember using the BootVis tool (IIRC was an early part
| of what would be the performance toolkit) to profile the
| startup process, and then you could it to optimize the
| location of data loaded from HDDs to reduce the seeking
| required. Also back when PATA was still in use depending on
| your motherboard I seem to remember making sure windows
| wouldn't try to autodetect link speed on unused attachments
| as that could take ages trying to find something that
| wasn't there.
| antod wrote:
| I used the NT 5 betas for a while, and loved alerts not
| stealing focus. But that came back in the released W2K, and I
| remember being slightly annoyed by it.
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| It was anything but lightweight on a Pentium 90 or Pro, or
| whatever was common at the time. Really needed to upgrade to
| 16MB of RAM (lol) which was expensive at the time. Why only
| business and not normal folks used it.
| tonyedgecombe wrote:
| I don't know whether Windows is for corporate desktops,
| enterprise servers, PC manufacturers, Azure, home users or
| advertisers. It certainly doesn't feel like it is the right
| product for me anymore.
| DeathArrow wrote:
| I think I am not the only one who memorized this: _FCKGW-
| RHQQ2-YXRKT-8TG6W-2B7Q8_
| SirFatty wrote:
| Raises hand: I always remembered the first series of numbers as
| f*ck GW (as in Bush).
| Lammy wrote:
| I always heard it as FuCK GateWay (the PC maker)
| dehrmann wrote:
| It's a shame ReactOS never got mature enough to be a serious
| competitor. If it had modern app and hidpi support but was suck
| in a 2000-era UI and didn't have feature bloat, it could be a
| great daily driver.
| snvzz wrote:
| ReactOS is not dead though. They just made a release.
|
| And it has the 2000-era UI and the modern app support.
|
| It's just dragging on other things, such as SMP and 64bit. But
| development focus seems to actually be focused on precisely
| these two.
| wolpoli wrote:
| In the 90s, Windows was simple enough that I was able to read
| tech articles and understand a lot of what is going on inside, up
| to the point of Windows 2000, and to a certain extend, Windows
| XP. That completely changed with Vista/7 where I can no longer
| recognize the name of many processes that are running or
| understand what actions/situations make my computer lag.
|
| Nowasdays, even through I don't worry anymore as Windows 11 is
| happy as long as you give it a quadcore cpu, ram, and an SSD,
| sometimes I still wonder why it writes 40GB to the SSD everyday.
| DeathArrow wrote:
| There are software and scripts to decrapify Windows 11. After
| uninstalling and stopping everything that's not needed and making
| start menu and the bar behave like in Windows 7, it's quite
| decent.
|
| This adds maybe 20 more minutes to install time but it's worth.
| bigstrat2003 wrote:
| I don't think anyone doubts that you can do this. It's more
| that I refuse to pay for an OS which needs to be de-crapped in
| the first place. If Microsoft can't make something which
| prioritizes my needs above their corporate metrics, then they
| don't get my money.
| Melatonic wrote:
| LTSC is likely what you want then (needs to be purchased
| through a VAR but it's not hard to find a smaller one that
| will sell single copies)
| abhiyerra wrote:
| My company has access to these licenses to resell through
| our distributor Pax8. Contact me (profile) if interested.
| psyclobe wrote:
| Unfortunately all that crap eventually comes back. Microsoft
| likes to reset settings... I'm pretty sure I must've spent the
| majority of my youth setting the same explorer settings over
| and over and over again ... And it never ends with any custom
| setup you do; given enough time it reverts.
| sitzkrieg wrote:
| the point of an OS is to be out of the way, w2k was both the best
| and last windows to do so
| keyringlight wrote:
| The way I see it (and similarly with browsers now) is that the
| OS is a venue providing a stage for others to perform on, they
| provide the facilities so every act doesn't need to build their
| own venue. Most of the time people don't visit/use a venue for
| the sake of it.
| jmclnx wrote:
| I only used Windows at work and I was very happy with NT, when XP
| came out I was able to go to Linux (RHEL) for my workstation at
| work.
|
| I never had Windows 2000, but lots of people said it worked great
| compared to the other Windows systems.
|
| But really for me, the best M/S setup was DOS with Desqview.
| hcarvalhoalves wrote:
| The fact Windows 2000 was peak Microsoft and OS X 10.5 was peak
| Apple is proof that the golden age of software is way behind us,
| unfortunately.
| TMWNN wrote:
| I thought 10.6 Snow Leopard is peak OS X?
| WillAdams wrote:
| 10.6.8
|
| Still kicking myself for not getting an Axiotron Modbook
| running Snow Leopard.
| justin66 wrote:
| It's the Register and therefore too worthless to get worked up
| about, but their naming a _server_ version of Windows as peak
| anything is an indication that they probably just polled a few
| drunks at a bar.
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| Are we just doing OSes or are we doing the entire conglomerate?
|
| #1 Windows 7
|
| #2 DOS 5.0
|
| #3 Office 2003
|
| #4 Windows 95
|
| Honorable mentions: IntelliMouse Optical and XBOX (2001)
| yankcrime wrote:
| A modern reimagining of Windows 2000's UI - professional, simple,
| uncluttered, focused, no cheapening of the whole experience with
| adverts in a thinly-veiled attempt to funnel you into Bing - with
| modern underpinnings and features such as WSL2 would have me
| running back towards Microsoft with open arms and cheque book in
| hand.
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| Not an obligation, but ReactOS exists and needs help:
|
| https://reactos.org/donate/
|
| Surprisingly close. I recently tried its package manager and
| installed a recent Python! So better than the original XP-era
| Windows in some respects.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| There are Linux distros that meet your description (no need for
| WSL2 either!). I am guessing you're not running towards them
| with open arms and cheque book in hand ... or maybe you already
| ran to Linux and are just nostalgic about going back to
| Microsoft ... ?
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| If MS stripped *ALL* ads and bloatware (telemetry for calc??) out
| of Win 11 and restored the traditional UI of start menu +
| desktop, it would be fairly good overall. Certainly within their
| top 5. They really are close to peak yet again _but_ cannot
| realize they are striving to make it worse.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| [delayed]
| jmward01 wrote:
| I'm just surprised that it feels like very little deep innovation
| in the OS world has happened since windows 2k. 3.11 brought
| networking in. 95 brought true multitasking to the masses and 2k
| brought multi-processing/multi-user (yes, NT3.1 had it, but 2k is
| where most normal users jumped in). And, yes, I know these things
| existed in other OSes out there but I think of these as the mass
| market kick offs for them. In general I just don't see anything
| but evolutionary improvements (and back-sliding) in the OS world
| beyond this time. I had really hoped that true cloud OSes would
| have become the norm by now (I really want my whole house
| connected as a seamless collection of stuff) or other major
| advances like killing filesystems (I think of these as backdoor
| undocumented APIs). Have we really figured out what an OS is
| supposed to be or are we just stuck in a rut?
|
| [edit] 3.1 should have been windows for worgkroups 3.11
| jmward01 wrote:
| Looks like there is some negative feelings towards this
| comment. So if we aren't in a rut, what are the big
| revolutionary OS advancements that have happened since this
| time?
| Lammy wrote:
| This is a forum populated almost entirely by people whose
| day-to-day existence depends upon building the new stuff that
| sucks :) (mine too!)
| codr7 wrote:
| Definitely stuck. We found a pretty strong optimum that no one
| has been willing to venture outside, strong enough to keep
| selling and that seems to be all that matters these days.
| turtlebits wrote:
| This brings back a lot of nostalgia and I wholeheartedly agree.
| Back then I ran Windows 2000 server beta 2 on a dual proc system
| with P2-300s. It was rock solid.
| zamadatix wrote:
| For folks that pick Windows 2000 Server, why not Server 2003? Is
| it just because by then NT had XP out as the "Windows for Home
| Users" and people didn't use Server 2003 as much or were there
| changes about it folks hated for some reason? To me it always
| seemed to bring so many more features/capabilities without
| trashing the classic UI.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| Remember that it also introduced Active Directory. I helped
| build out a global enterprise network that was consistent and
| supported the same way, with like a quarter million users and
| tbh, it pretty much worked flawlessly.
|
| Of course that innocence was lost with Welchia and other
| issues, but Windows 2000 made the year 1999 feel like ancient
| history in 2001.
| Animats wrote:
| Agreed. Windows Server 2000 through Windows 7 were peak Microsoft
| operating system.
|
| By Windows 2000 Server, they finally had the architecture right,
| and had flushed out most of the 16 bit legacy.
|
| The big win with Windows 7 was that they finally figured out how
| to make it stop crashing. There were two big fixes. First, the
| Static Driver Verifier. This verified that kernel drivers
| couldn't crash the rest of the kernel. First large scale
| application of proof of correctness technology. Drivers could
| still fail, but not overwrite other parts of the kernel. This put
| a huge dent into driver-induced crashes.
|
| Second was a dump classifier. Early machine learning. When the
| system crashed, a dump was sent to Microsoft. The classifier
| tried to bring similar dumps together, so one developer got a big
| collection of similar crashes. When you have hundreds of dumps of
| the same bug, locating the bug gets much easier.
|
| Between both of those, the Blue Screen of Death mostly
| disappeared.
| ryao wrote:
| Drivers can crash the rest of the kernel in Windows 7. People
| playing games during the Windows 7 days should remember plenty
| of blue screens citing either graphics drivers (mainly for
| ATI/AMD graphics) or their kernel anticheat software. Second, a
| "proof of correctness" has never been made for any kernel. Even
| the seL4 guys do not call their proof a proof of correctness.
| supportengineer wrote:
| Windows 7 was my all-time favorite. I remember you could not use
| it straight out of the box, there was a whole bunch of UI tweaks
| that I would make right away. After that, it was perfect.
| ryao wrote:
| Microsoft never should have dropped Xenix to invent its own OS.
| andromaton wrote:
| [delayed]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-04-11 23:01 UTC)