Yeah. Great timing for this HN submission, as I've just been doing a fair bit of nostalgia reading on the Windows 2000 UI. Apparently, some nice folks have extended the Win2k kernel to make it usable in 2024 (as I understand, this should run XP era apps and also maintained community forks of Firefox/Chrome): https://w2k.phreaknet.org/
Obviously, this is "fringe" stuff from many angles. But, after 15 years of hand-tailoring that perfect Linux desktop, I've found myself seriously trying out open source DOS systems as robust, "distraction free" environments for doing basic things. The Win2k UI creates similar itches. It was a damn good, really solid UI with very good defaults and just about the right amount of configurability; ditto for classic style XP with some tweaks.
A good quote from that linked Win2k site, explaining the "whys":
"These individuals have nothing against progress, but they do against progress for progress’ sake. /.../
Planned obsolescene is a big deal today — and so is the backlash against it. Products and software are no longer made to last. They're designed to be disposable, meant to be replaced or upgraded within a few years. Today, sustainability is more important than ever and newer versions of Windows are simply not sustainable anymore with their numerous useless flashy features and high system requirements. In addition, modern versions of Windows are hyper-dependent upon and expect an Internet connection. Everything from activation to updates is designed with that in mind.
So, where do older operating systems like Windows XP and Windows 2000 come in? Simple. They have everything we really need and expect from a computer today — and nothing we don't."
Obviously, I did research on getting that XP-era compatible Win2k kernel running on our new-ish Thinkpad, too. Most of my crucial apps would be there: stuff I've done audio montages and audio editing with professionally, IrfranView (no contender for this one on Linux!), MuPDF, a terminal, apparently also busybox-w32, Notepad, etc. But... younger generation needs Windows 10 for gaming, so I might be too tired to fiddle with alternatives.
Echoing something I remember from an old HN thread also: despite being pretty much just another Geeky End-User, I, too, would gladly pay a decent price for a maintained, official Windows version without telemetry and with the Classic UI and just a handful of the most essential system applications. A blazing fast Classic Windows -- pretty sure this would make me truly loyal to Microsoft forever, despite 15-or-so years of daily Linux usage. (EDIT: So, yeah... this would be more or less that same maintained version of Win2k, with wireless and contemporary drivers.)
I feel silly asking this on HN, but as a dilettante, I can: why hasn't Microsoft actually implemented anything like this for us casual users? Desperate projects like that Win2k kernel modification or ReactOS sure must be fun to follow, but I suppose much more than a handful of people would be interested in this kind of official alternative.
Comments
Yeah. Great timing for this HN submission, as I've just been doing a fair bit of nostalgia reading on the Windows 2000 UI. Apparently, some nice folks have extended the Win2k kernel to make it usable in 2024 (as I understand, this should run XP era apps and also maintained community forks of Firefox/Chrome): https://w2k.phreaknet.org/
Obviously, this is "fringe" stuff from many angles. But, after 15 years of hand-tailoring that perfect Linux desktop, I've found myself seriously trying out open source DOS systems as robust, "distraction free" environments for doing basic things. The Win2k UI creates similar itches. It was a damn good, really solid UI with very good defaults and just about the right amount of configurability; ditto for classic style XP with some tweaks.
A good quote from that linked Win2k site, explaining the "whys":
"These individuals have nothing against progress, but they do against progress for progress’ sake. /.../
Planned obsolescene is a big deal today — and so is the backlash against it. Products and software are no longer made to last. They're designed to be disposable, meant to be replaced or upgraded within a few years. Today, sustainability is more important than ever and newer versions of Windows are simply not sustainable anymore with their numerous useless flashy features and high system requirements. In addition, modern versions of Windows are hyper-dependent upon and expect an Internet connection. Everything from activation to updates is designed with that in mind.
So, where do older operating systems like Windows XP and Windows 2000 come in? Simple. They have everything we really need and expect from a computer today — and nothing we don't."
Obviously, I did research on getting that XP-era compatible Win2k kernel running on our new-ish Thinkpad, too. Most of my crucial apps would be there: stuff I've done audio montages and audio editing with professionally, IrfranView (no contender for this one on Linux!), MuPDF, a terminal, apparently also busybox-w32, Notepad, etc. But... younger generation needs Windows 10 for gaming, so I might be too tired to fiddle with alternatives.
Echoing something I remember from an old HN thread also: despite being pretty much just another Geeky End-User, I, too, would gladly pay a decent price for a maintained, official Windows version without telemetry and with the Classic UI and just a handful of the most essential system applications. A blazing fast Classic Windows -- pretty sure this would make me truly loyal to Microsoft forever, despite 15-or-so years of daily Linux usage. (EDIT: So, yeah... this would be more or less that same maintained version of Win2k, with wireless and contemporary drivers.)
I feel silly asking this on HN, but as a dilettante, I can: why hasn't Microsoft actually implemented anything like this for us casual users? Desperate projects like that Win2k kernel modification or ReactOS sure must be fun to follow, but I suppose much more than a handful of people would be interested in this kind of official alternative.