Comment by blarghyblarg
3 years ago
no, no, and no. Lets see if we can petition Microsoft to add them, and then we'll see if Win2000 still runs decently fast on a P4 with 4gb of ram.
My guess is: yes, it will.
Somehow, in the past 15 years, "progress" seems to include "software keeps getting noticeably worse, but anyone pointing this out has to be shot down because progress."
There's been a problem of lateral rather than forward progress in nearly all industries since the early 2000s. Lateral progress being a different way to do the same exact thing (a doorknob versus a lever latch for example), and forward progress being a new way to do a similar thing but in a much more efficient and modular way.
It's been bothering me for some time ever since I noticed it with the advent of IoT "smart" devices that have the same features as traditional appliances for twice the cost and technical debt. My washing machine still washes clothes and turns itself off, but now I need to set the wash type using my phone because lateral progress dictates a physical interface on the device itself is obsolete.
Ah, there's another question, I'm running 32GB of RAM currently on this machine and 64GB at home. How well does Windows 2000 support >4GB RAM or SMP? Does it come with a good hypervisor? I do like running a lot of VMs in Hyper-V as well.
Sure sounds like there's a ton of gaps in things I really want out of my operating system on Windows 2000...
Sure does.
Does the switch to 64 bit slow things down enough to explain what happened between Windows 2000 and XP?
Does the operating system have to support virtual machines? Seems easy enough to install vmware then run operating systems inside it for most use cases.
I mean, you can keep 'what if'ing me here, but, is it really worth having all the features that you, clearly as a power user or professional, use installed on every computer everywhere? No. No it really doesn't. It's bloat.
> Seems easy enough to install vmware then run operating systems inside it for most use cases.
That's a way different experience than running Hyper-V.
> is it really worth having all the features that you, clearly as a power user or professional, use installed on every computer everywhere? No. No it really doesn't. It's bloat.
I also didn't realize that managing WiFi networks or using display scaling are things only power users and professionals would want on their machines. I guess supporting Bluetooth natively in the OS and a modern sound stack is just bloat for most people.
I think you're right in general but I'll note that Windows 2000 does support PAE (very limited >4GB support on 32-bit) and SMP.
so, I can't reply to your latest message because it's too far down but...
Let me just hop on my wifi and browse the web. Lets do it on a computer from 1999. 2000. 2001. 2002. 2003. 2004. 2005. 2006. 2007. 2008... etc, etc.
Why is it that every couple years from 2012 onwards, doing the same thing keeps taking longer, even with new hardware, without the same revolutions in quality and experience that came with that new software previously?
... you completely missed the relevant part with the "1999" part. The relevant part is the "2012" part. Things used to get better, do more, and faster. The last 15 years, the "do more" part has been less and less useful, and the "faster" part has turned into "slower" in a number of ways. Software engineers are relying on an increase in hardware performance to pick up their slack, and that line is running out quickly, and there will be many years ahead where we're cleaning up over a decade of laziness.
1 reply →
Your 1999 computer supports WPA-2 out of the box? TLS 1.3?
> doing the same thing keeps taking longer
But I'm not doing the same things anymore. I'm doing a lot more. Things that aren't supported in that 1999 OS at all.