nostaglic98

Any Regular NT4 or W2K Users Here, Still?

30 posts in this topic

Following the thread I read over in the XP Forums here on MSFN, I wanted to pose this question over here:

Do we still have any members regularly posting who use (or know of) systems that run either NT4 or 2000?

I still use Windows 2000 regularly on at least one of my machines - mostly for document creation, internet browsing and using a simple WYSIWYG editor for my Website. It serves this purpose very nicely. 

As for NT4, I've played around with it in VM's...

However, thanks to Netcraft (and third-parties who reported on their April 2014 Webserver Report), it would seem a number of Web-Servers running NT4 and IIS4 happen to exist, as well.

Who these sites are shall remain undisclosed - simply because you can find this information yourself with a search on any major search engine. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 22/11/2015 at 8:29 PM, nostaglic98 said:

Following the thread I read over in the XP Forums here on MSFN, I wanted to pose this question over here:

Do we still have any members regularly posting who use (or know of) systems that run either NT4 or 2000?

Yes :yes:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jonathan.deboynepollard/FGA/questions-with-yes-or-no-answers.html

More seriously, yes, there are quite a few members running daily NT 4.00 or 2K (besides the ones that spend a lot of time into making unofficial updates/fixes and what not supporting those OS's :thumbup ) .

jaclaz

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I use NT 4.0 and 2000 regularly on two separate laptops. However, XP is my day-to-day operating system.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 22/11/2015 at 8:52 PM, jaclaz said:
On 22/11/2015 at 8:29 PM, nostaglic98 said:

Following the thread I read over in the XP Forums here on MSFN, I wanted to pose this question over here:

Do we still have any members regularly posting who use (or know of) systems that run either NT4 or 2000?

Yes :yes:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jonathan.deboynepollard/FGA/questions-with-yes-or-no-answers.html

More seriously, yes, there are quite a few members running daily NT 4.00 or 2K (besides the ones that spend a lot of time into making unofficial updates/fixes and what not supporting those OS's :thumbup ) .

jaclaz

I am surprised by the "logical yes answer presented" as it seems this is one of the quieter sections of this part of MSFN :)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Run 2K almost daily in a VM, main machine dual boots 2K and a version of the Penguin. 

I would say this section is quieter for a couple of reasons. 1.) 2K was and still is a good OS.  2.) The good folks at MS didn't pitch this OS to the masses. If they had, XP probably would of been a flop. :-)  But, then again, the timing of the release of 2K there were some hardware issues that could have backlashed on them with the masses.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use w2k & XP guest VMs under my Linux host OS. They're loaded permanently for running windows apps. Search is broken in XP, w2k more reliable, especially networking.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 23/11/2015 at 5:59 AM, bpalone said:

Run 2K almost daily in a VM, main machine dual boots 2K and a version of the Penguin. 

I would say this section is quieter for a couple of reasons. 1.) 2K was and still is a good OS.  2.) The good folks at MS didn't pitch this OS to the masses. If they had, XP probably would of been a flop. :-)  But, then again, the timing of the release of 2K there were some hardware issues that could have backlashed on them with the masses.

As I have stated in other places, Windows 2000 was never really given a fair shake, in my opinion.

First, there was only about a year between the release of Windows 2000 and XP. No real opportunity for Windows 2000 to gain adoption.

Then, the dot-com bubble burst and 9/11 followed shortly after. I think these events suppressed demand, and many companies stayed on NT 4.0 Workstation far longer than they may have (NT 4.0 was supported from 1996 to 2004). By the time they were ready to upgrade, they went straight from NT to XP. According to a 2004 article, IDC estimated 17% of servers were still running NT 4.0. (http://www.informationweek.com/its-the-end-of-the-road-for-windows-nt/d/d-id/1029231?)

Finally, Microsoft withheld many improvements from 2000 that became available for XP- it never got a tabbed version of Internet Explorer, for example. Windows 2000 received the fewest versions of IE than any other OS in its history. IE 5.x and 6.x, that was it. For companies that standardized only on IE, this hastened the migration to XP. And, for the most part hardware and software companies specifically designed their consumer products around XP, not 2000. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Windows 2000 is my day-to-day operating system and Windows 98SE is my secondary which hasn't gotten much use lately, but those are my OSes of choice and will be for a very long time to come. If NT4 wasn't as limiting as it is, I would probably use it too.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Until the summer rebuild of the computer last month, the system routinely booted Windows 2000.  God I miss it.  Currently it's on Vista 6.1 (aka 7).

Gave XP the miss.  One laptop has windows xp and 7 on it, but 7 has not been fixed for the GWX virus yet.  The main boxes have GWX antivirus protection running on it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apart from my main rig that runs Windows 10, i have been setting up a second Win2k box with some older hardware. It's a core 2 duo e7500 with a gig of RAM and a 500gig HDD. Runs Win2k SP4 + USP5.1 + BWC's EXTKernel/Core.

Runs quite great due to 2000's lightweight nature.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My Grandma still run Win NT 4.0 with sp6 in her p3 laptop. Her age is now 86.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here still has a NT4 server serving files :)

9FR8JKg.png

eJrmHou.png

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My best/favorite machine is running W2K. It is hardware capable to run XP, Vista, W7, 8 or 10 but I like W2K. Yes there are other newer machines in the house running XP or W7 but they are not as good. It has been down twice for power supply issues, once for HDD failure, and a few shorter outages for power failures, but otherwise has been running W2K continuously since its initial build in 2007.

I have a couple others that also run W2K although they are older and do not see daily use any more.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have an older PC that runs Windows 2000 without a hitch:

AMD Athlon XP 1900 processor

768 MB RAM

Soundblaster AWE32 soundcard

NVidia 4200 128 MB Video Card.

40GB IDE HDD

Plays DVD Movies with no stutter, with VLC, amazing!

Soyo Mobo built about 2002

Been doing so since 2009.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I run Win2k on my desktop(s) but not my laptop. The last laptop I had with 2K was a Dell Latitude L400 which crapped out unfortunately.

Just got Heroes of Might and Magic 5 from GOG.com, which works in Win2k. (HOMM3, Mount&Blade, and Ys 6 are some other good ones)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I still use Windows 2000 sometimes.

Sometimes I VM NT 4.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just sometimes. My daily OS is Windows XP Professional for "relax" and Windows 7 Enterprise for work-related stuff, while my favourite server OS is Windows Server 2008 r2 'cause it's a way easier to set up a failover clustering solution than with the 2003 edition.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Currently I run NT4 in VMs. I sometimes use Windows 2000, including on real hardware, but Windows 7 is my main operating system.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm curious about whether you run an older OS more because 

a) you're familiar with it and it's all you need, or
b) you hate the new stuff for a particular reason, or
c) it's just fun to tinker with old tech.

-Noel

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NoelC,

Short answer, A and B.

In my opinion, and it is just that, my opinion, XP was a step down and everything newer than that is somewhat worthless, with the newest stuff being pure garbage.  Now, I came into the GUI world kicking and screaming, so I may be just a tiny bit Jaded. My argument back then, was that we finally have enough horse power to do some real computing, but NO we are supposed to put this slug onto our hardware and continue to SLOW.  I equated it to going out and buying the Triple Crown winner and taking him home and hooking him up to a plow.

Now, that could be some of the reason I have gotten on so well with the Penguin.  You can do as little or as much as you want from the command line.  But, the bottom line is this: Whatever you use for an OS, that is all it is, an OS.  And, if it works for you and you like it, then by all means use it.   With Micro$oft's latest, I can't imagine anyone accepting their taking of your personal information and DATA, but then I guess if all you use a computer for is to read your email and surf the Web, then you might figure it doesn't matter.  But, anyone that generates any data at all, could not sleep at night knowing that you no longer have control over that data. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your candid thoughts.  I really respect your decision.

On the B comment I'm of a like mind...  They're not getting MY data!  However, it should be noted that it's still possible - granted, with the application of some geek chops - to have a completely private system even with the most recent releases - but it's clear that's not what Microsoft wants!  Paddling upstream gets to be so tiring...

What's ironic is that, as a computer user, while I've personally found it advantageous to move up through the systems, I choose NOT to make Win 10 the system I depend on to run my computing platform.  It's not better.  That's the same thing as saying it's worse - and it is.  So, even though I'm not on one of the much older systems being discussed in this thread, I am now another who's fallen by the wayside.

Maybe it's inevitable that each of us will drop off the Microsoft bandwagon at some point.  Beyond running the Windows I'm most used to for the long term, I sense that Linux may be in my future.

Even Emperor Palpatine has been overheard saying...

APath2.jpg

Substitute the number of your choice for 10.  It's the same thing, and it's a decision to be respected.

-Noel

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 24/03/2016 at 7:25 AM, NoelC said:

I'm curious about whether you run an older OS more because 

a) you're familiar with it and it's all you need, or
b) you hate the new stuff for a particular reason, or
c) it's just fun to tinker with old tech.

-Noel

For me, I might consider it a mixture of all of the above.

Growing up Windows 98 was still king. Loved using that OS on hardware of the time. My first computer was something like an AMD K6 on a tiny HD with a pathetic amount of memory. Actually ended up with a system like this in 2007 for a short while. Interesting to tinker with :D

This was followed by an AcerPower Pizza-Box style machine with a P2. Big leap forward, and eventually went on to run Windows ME, 2000 and finally XP on it (<- this was back when XP Gold/SP1 was king and XP worked great on P2 systems).

During the 2004/2005 period, I was excited to see XP finding its way onto more and more machines. Eventually, it was so ubiquitous having on older OS or computer became a necessity, a dream I've realised since 2010 in varying means.

These days, Windows 2000 is where its at a lot of the time for me (Same with OS X Snow Leopard on my late-2011 MBP 13"). I'm familiar with it, its reasonably fast and its solid as a rock. Can't get much better than that, in all honesty.

Vista and 7 I can and (in the latter case) certainly do work well with, but again, too ubiquitous in the business world nowadays.

Windows 8 and 10? These are completely and utterly unmitigated disasters from Microsoft. This is what happens when Windows is made "free," when Microsoft tries dumbing down their OS to iOS levels of stupidity and functionality, when Microsoft ignores the requests of Power-Users for a lightweight, adept OS that doesn't pack in stupid amounts of unnecessary bloat.

When the day finally comes that I can no longer use Windows 2000/7 or Snow Leopard, then I am abandoning what is fast becoming "The Wreck of 'Ol 97" and headed over to the *nix pastures. Despite all its shortcomings, there is at least a flavour for every taste-bud and none of the troubles that plague Windoze these days. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, NoelC said:

Thanks for your candid thoughts.  I really respect your decision.

On the B comment I'm of a like mind...  They're not getting MY data!  However, it should be noted that it's still possible - granted, with the application of some geek chops - to have a completely private system even with the most recent releases - but it's clear that's not what Microsoft wants!  Paddling upstream gets to be so tiring...

What's ironic is that, as a computer user, while I've personally found it advantageous to move up through the systems, I choose NOT to make Win 10 the system I depend on to run my computing platform.  It's not better.  That's the same thing as saying it's worse - and it is.  So, even though I'm not on one of the much older systems being discussed in this thread, I am now another who's fallen by the wayside.

Maybe it's inevitable that each of us will drop off the Microsoft bandwagon at some point.  Beyond running the Windows I'm most used to for the long term, I sense that Linux may be in my future.

-Noel

As far keeping system semi-private, that's why I'm stopping at Windows 8 original/classic.  It supports everything I need, I can still source security updates for it (at least I hope I can until January 2023) and there's no telemetry/GWX crap to deal with.  Even if I get a newer workstation that's NX compatible, I won't bother moving to Windows 8.1.

I use Puppy Linux on my old Centrino M notebook as a lightweight Internet terminal (I have Seamonkey on it).  I've tried some other Linux builds, but I think that since the X Windowing system consists of a client/server component that work interactively, I find windows tend to draw or process in a way that seems less responsive.  At least that seems to be the reason for the dodgy performance.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was using Server 2003 as a main OS up until some months ago, where I decided to remove it and stick to 2008 (original, not R2). The last OSes I'd use are 7/2008 R2, as they don't have those awful flat looks 8 and above have, they are still well-behaved with mods, unlike the newer versions, and they don't want to spy on my system that much as 10 does  (well, say that as if I'm not getting any updates after March 2015 and Windows Update disabled). I have Vista running on both of my computers, and it still runs like the wind, as it won't get affected by the spyware updates 7 and 8.1 get right now, and its performance is better on my laptop than 7's. I'll install 7 on another partition and work around the issues it gets, though.

It's true that XP and above have included more bloatware, though some of their features are actually very useful, and the way some newer OSes like Vista handle the computer is pretty good too. 

Windows 2000 is still a great OS, and it felt a lot more stable than 9x back in the day, it didn't suffer from those lots of crashes 9x had. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On 3/24/2016 at 1:25 AM, NoelC said:

I'm curious about whether you run an older OS more because 

a) you're familiar with it and it's all you need, or
b) you hate the new stuff for a particular reason, or
c) it's just fun to tinker with old tech.

-Noel

For me, I take into consideration whether I can continue to work effectively with the existing software in my possession. If the answer is yes, I have no incentive to upgrade. Adobe Reader 3.0-6.0 can open PDFs just as well as version 11. Office 2000, Office XP and Office 2003 with the file compatibility pack can open and edit the newest 2016 files, even though they are all over a decade old. There is simply no catalyst for me to upgrade. I also desire backward compatibility.

I don't upgrade just for the sake of change.

Edited by sdfox7
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.