Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, register and become a site sponsor/subscriber and ads will be disabled automatically. 


nostaglic98

Any Regular NT4 or W2K Users Here, Still?

Recommended Posts

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. 

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

  • Upvote 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.

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 :)

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.

  • Upvote 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.

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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 66.

Edited by Dibya

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.

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.

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)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...