Club Sportif Sfaxien 1912

In order to enable AMD graphic card , you must deactivate the intel HD graphics 3000 according to my experience

Yes, Windows 2000 is the best classic system and really needs this support

Why 2000 and not XP, I use both, as an old hardware vendor I own many of my machines and have a dedicated lab for them and can run all operating systems. And 2000 goes back to the past with its classic graphics with the ability to run modern software and hardware.

Windows 2000 did not receive updates like XP because Windows XP is a Windows 2000 with more functions, so Microsoft had to allocate a big budget for development the both or XP alone, so the choice fell on XP because it was more decorative and people loved it, despite that in the first ten years there was no significant difference between XP and 2000, the difference started to appear when programs and modern machines appeared from 2010 to present, and with the efforts of blackwingcat it was able to add the missing functions in cores of Windows 2000 at compatibility of software and hardware so Windows 2000 restored its compliance with programs, most programs that run on XP can be run on 2000 with experience, even at the hardware level with the blackwingcat Extended core Windows 2000 can work on modern devices, unlike 98. Microsoft has made many updates for Windows XP, but most of them are security updates, and blackwingcat made some of them work with Windows 2000.

Install the extended core version V14b of blackwingcat Windows2000-KB979683-v14b-x86-ENU http://blog.livedoor.jp/blackwingcat/archives/1299806.html But the Extended kernel also must be from blackwingcat

Is this comparison really correct? How does Windows XP and 2000 compare to 10 and vista ! Windows 2000 is (5.0), XP (5.1) and Vista (6.0) and 10 (10.0). The affinity between 2000 and XP is much greater than that of Vista with 10. If the difference is too big, previously Microsoft had to release XP version 6.0 . What I also know is that Windows 5.x is similar in the way programs run with the dll request, and from Windows Vista to the latest Windows the load method is different with 5.x , I saw this in one of the articles of blackwingcat. So you mean the difference between 2000 and XP is in Syscalls , so maybe this is a reason, but is this a big problem with the work of ntoskrnl extendeder for Windows 2000 ?

Yes, I have been using the blackwingcat kernel since 2011. I also see this project as well, but I have been away from this forum for a very long time.

Is this project based on XP/2003 Ntoskrnl extender ? If yes, that would be great ! I'm really looking forward to trying this on Windows 2000

Why was Windows 2000 not included in the update ? As far as I know, there is not much difference with XP

Is this project alive?