Jump to content
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. ×

Any Regular NT4 or W2K Users Here, Still?


Recommended Posts

  • 2 weeks later...

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

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

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. 

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

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. 

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.

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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
Link to post
Share on other sites

If I think about all of the software that I use, and ponder how old of a Windows version I could go back to using (now that I'm accustomed to x64 builds, I would NEVER go back to x86 environments) ... well let's take a look:

  • I browse with Pale Moon 26 x64 so I could go back to Vista.  There is no longer any x64 Gecko compatible solution for Windows XP x64 Edition.  I could use Pale Moon Atom Edition I suppose.
  • I use Softmaker Office 2010, which is compatible with 2007+ documents and even has a PDF writer.  I can go back to XP with this one.
  • I use Windows Mail as a client, but I could always use emClient v5 instead for my calendar/mail needs if I wanted to go back to XP.  I really liked Outlook 2003, but I'd fear using it now that support has passed.  But then again, so has XP's ...lol
  • Sumatra PDF is a great Adobe Reader substitute.  I haven't used Adobe Reader in some years now.  It works with XP x64 Edition.
  • Media Player Classic x64 can be used all the way back to XP.  Adobe Audition can too.

I really miss Windows XP x64 Edition.  It was the perfect OS on my HP xw8200 workstation.  Vista was good on it too, but Windows 8 is a tad faster.  I guess if I could sacrifice 64-buit browsing, I could go back to XP.

Edited by JodyT
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, JodyT said:

I really miss Windows XP x64 Edition.  It was the perfect OS on my HP xw8200 workstation.  Vista was good on it too, but Windows 8 is a tad faster.  I guess if I could sacrifice 64-buit browsing, I could go back to XP.

I use the XP/Atom edition of Pale Moon on XP Pro x64, and so far it's worked out just fine. Usually I have around 10 tabs open, and around 40 at the very most. It has been quick and stable for me, even though I visit websites that are loaded with Flash and JavaScript.

What is the advantage to having a 64-bit browser? I used to use the Binary Outcast 64-bit build of Pale Moon for XP, but I understand that it has been deprecated for a while now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the thread was about people still using NT4 and 2K, and not about people still using or wishing to use  XP, or Vista or any other system but NT4 or 2K nor about how much more convenient is 64-bit browsing is over 32-bit browsing :w00t:.

jaclaz
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jaclaz said:

I thought the thread was about people still using NT4 and 2K, and not about people still using or wishing to use  XP, or Vista or any other system but NT4 or 2K nor about how much more convenient is 64-bit browsing is over 32-bit browsing :w00t:.

jaclaz
 

Going off topic is just human nature.  I started a thread to track installation of Windows 2012 updates on Windows 8, and it has been derailed something awful.  But that's OK ...lol.  This thread just got me to thinking how far back I could go if I wanted to, that's all.

People should just skip thread they don't want to read ...lol

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, JodyT said:

Going off topic is just human nature.

Sure :) , just like nit-picking is (at least to some humans). :P

jaclaz
 

  • Upvote 1
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.

×
×
  • Create New...