• rah
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    8 months ago

    objectively good Microsoft OS

    ROFL

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      Okay, let me rephrase: to the extent that any Microsoft OS could be described as “objectively good,” Windows 2000 was the last one of them.

      • rah
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        21
        ·
        8 months ago

        Okay, let me rephrase for you: in choosing which of Microsoft’s stinking piles of shit was the least stinky, some people chose Windows 2000. However, most people just left the stinky area and didn’t look back.

        • grue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          You do realize I was conceding your point, right? You don’t have to be a jerk about it.

    • Joker@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Windows 2000 was a good operating system by any measure. It was rock solid, capable, well-supported, could scale from desktop to large enterprise deployments and everything in between, reasonably secure compared to their previous operating systems, etc. I never did like Microsoft operating systems, but Windows 2000 was actually good. It was a breath of fresh air at the time. We had NT 4, which was stable and reliable, but was limited by a lack of DirectX and became cumbersome in large deployments. Then we had Windows 95/98/ME, which was the garbage that crashed all the time.

      • rah
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        8 months ago

        Windows 2000 was a good operating system by any measure

        ROFL