windows2 Posted September 30, 2020 Share Posted September 30, 2020 (edited) What do you rate for Windows 2000 in 2021 and what are the things to fix in this system ? Edited December 15, 2021 by windows2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burd Posted September 30, 2020 Share Posted September 30, 2020 4/10 , too outdated its broken beyond repair almost Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
windows2 Posted September 30, 2020 Author Share Posted September 30, 2020 What are the problems exactly. Because by using the extended kernel, the programs are mostly compatible with Win2K Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burd Posted September 30, 2020 Share Posted September 30, 2020 37 minutes ago, windows2 said: What are the problems exactly. Because by using the extended kernel, the programs are mostly compatible with Win2K lack of security , lack of dlls and functions , basically one would need Vista SP2 as a bare minimum for todays real standards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
win32 Posted September 30, 2020 Share Posted September 30, 2020 Well, Windows 2000 is probably the only OS with updated browsers that doesn't swap when browsing on 512 MB of RAM. Even modern light Linux distros and a standard XP/2003 (not sure about a heavily nLited one) can't manage that. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
windows2 Posted September 30, 2020 Author Share Posted September 30, 2020 28 minutes ago, burd said: lack of security , lack of dlls and functions , basically one would need Vista SP2 as a bare minimum for todays real standards this is your opinion . But according to my continuous experience on Windows 2000. However unoffical update. Windows 2000 has almost nothing missing in dlls and is able to run programs we work with every day. Watch this video . What I think is missing in Windows 2000 today is UMDF 1.0 and a modern anti-virus. As for Windows Vista, it is no less dangerous than Windows 2000 in terms of protection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burd Posted September 30, 2020 Share Posted September 30, 2020 (edited) 5 minutes ago, windows2 said: As for Windows Vista, it is no less dangerous than Windows 2000 in terms of protection. It gets monthly updates from Server 2008 , Windows 2000's last update was in 2010 and even with kernelEx its not much , not sure how its the same according to you in terms of protection , not to forget lack of newer directx aswell Edited September 30, 2020 by burd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
windows2 Posted September 30, 2020 Author Share Posted September 30, 2020 32 minutes ago, win32 said: Well, Windows 2000 is probably the only OS with updated browsers that doesn't swap when browsing on 512 MB of RAM. Even modern light Linux distros and a standard XP/2003 (not sure about a heavily nLited one) can't manage that. Yes, this is true, but some things must be added. Like umdf 1.0 and wireless network assistant included in XP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
windows2 Posted September 30, 2020 Author Share Posted September 30, 2020 8 minutes ago, burd said: It gets monthly updates from Server 2008 , Windows 2000's last update was in 2010 and even with kernelEx its not much , not sure how its the same according to you in terms of protection I mean, Windows Vista is no longer specifically supported by Microsoft. Even if it still gets monthly updates from Server 2008. This is not enough for complete protection Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burd Posted September 30, 2020 Share Posted September 30, 2020 1 minute ago, windows2 said: I mean, Windows Vista is no longer specifically supported by Microsoft. Even if it still gets monthly updates from Server 2008. This is not enough for complete protection But better than W2K , last patch 10 years back , even Vista users are finding it hard to keep up to date with everything dropping support , their former glory days will never return sadly , i dont mean disrespect to w2k but its just overly outdated imo just like XP and support for w7 dropping will only make it harder for all of us in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
windows2 Posted September 30, 2020 Author Share Posted September 30, 2020 9 minutes ago, burd said: But better than W2K , last patch 10 years back , even Vista users are finding it hard to keep up to date with everything dropping support , their former glory days will never return sadly , i dont mean disrespect to w2k but its just overly outdated imo just like XP and support for w7 dropping will only make it harder for all of us in the future. Unfortunately, this is true. I wished Microsoft would continue to support these systems, because there are many people who cannot leave it. There are systems like win2k and xp source codes available on the net. If it is adopted by a company or group of developers and continues to develop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
windows2 Posted September 30, 2020 Author Share Posted September 30, 2020 @Ximonite How do you rate Windows 2000 in 2020, and what should be modified or added? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ojt_1998 Posted September 30, 2020 Share Posted September 30, 2020 Windows 2000 is pretty useable to me. It can be hit and miss running modern software but no more than XP and sometimes even vista. BWC’s extended kernel brings you more or less to XP/Vista level and maybe even 7 a little. The things currently lacking are Anti-Virus after Avast dropped updates for versions that run and I’ve not had much look for versions 10 and up. Spotify runs sort of but the newer kernels make it a little unhappy. Roytams browsers run well. Office 2007 works no issue but later versions don’t work I think due to 2000 not having the activation services built into the system. Overall I choose to use 2000 over anything newer where possible. It’s stable, fast and does anything pretty much modern os’s do. I have a Virtualbox VM for running Windows on a mac when I don’t want to boot into bootcamp and have multiple laptops that run it nice and happy - Dell D630, Clevo W76(I think) etc. I started using 2000 as it was the closest visual representation of 98SE/ME that could run modern apps and work with newer hardware. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
windows2 Posted September 30, 2020 Author Share Posted September 30, 2020 16 minutes ago, ojt_1998 said: Windows 2000 is pretty useable to me. It can be hit and miss running modern software but no more than XP and sometimes even vista. BWC’s extended kernel brings you more or less to XP/Vista level and maybe even 7 a little. The things currently lacking are Anti-Virus after Avast dropped updates for versions that run and I’ve not had much look for versions 10 and up. Spotify runs sort of but the newer kernels make it a little unhappy. Roytams browsers run well. Office 2007 works no issue but later versions don’t work I think due to 2000 not having the activation services built into the system. Overall I choose to use 2000 over anything newer where possible. It’s stable, fast and does anything pretty much modern os’s do. I have a Virtualbox VM for running Windows on a mac when I don’t want to boot into bootcamp and have multiple laptops that run it nice and happy - Dell D630, Clevo W76(I think) etc. I started using 2000 as it was the closest visual representation of 98SE/ME that could run modern apps and work with newer hardware. Yes, it is a great system, but it lacks some modifications to be more compatible and to run the new antivirus, the source code for Windows 2000 already exists. But efforts must be redoubled to develop it in order for Windows 2000 to remain for the coming years. It is the only classic system that resembles Win98 / ME in interface and can work today Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
win32 Posted September 30, 2020 Share Posted September 30, 2020 28 minutes ago, windows2 said: the source code for Windows 2000 already exists Yes, the leaked 2000 SP1 source code. But it wouldn't be a great idea to mess around with it and only about 15% of the entire source code leaked. But someone made a functioning open source kernel32.dll. There are more details about it in his PE Tool thread: Ximonite is basing his win2k stuff around WB's files, so maybe he could take this further. But it does depend on his skillset, which is unknown to me. I don't really know C++, just enough assembly to aggressively patch stuff, which doesn't need source code of course. And then one could advance to creating FOSS versions of other win2k components like ntdll, user32, the HALs, etc. And then go even further by adding desktop composition support, newer DirectX support (or resort to WineD3D or DXVK) etc. These could also be compiled for x64, and we could build a WOW64 framework to go along with that. Maybe embrace .wim-based installs too. Though it will take a very long time for one guy to rebuild the whole OS. There were a solid thousand (probably more) working on Windows 2000 which took over 3 years to make, with 1 billion USD in development costs. To make reasonable progress in reasonable time, this would have to become a dayjob, but how would we able to cover the costs of daily expenses and testing hardware? I wish I were 8-way SMP-capable. One CPU would work on extending Vista, one works on Windows 2000, another one on Server 2003, NT4, Windows 7, one actively learns C (moving on to other things once I'm done of course), one learns C++ (same as before), while the last one does the normal daily tasks expected of a person. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now