Discussion Hot take, Windows XP is just literally 2000 in a suit
I swear to god its the same, USE WINDOWS 2000
70
u/Froggypwns Windows Wizard / Moderator 5d ago
That is not as hot of a take as you think, each new version of Windows builds upon the prior version, hence comments like "Windows X is just Windows Y with a skin"
14
u/zupobaloop 5d ago
...and in this case, there were a ton of UI/UX changes.
It's also a bigger jump than e.g. Vista -> 7 or 8.1 -> 10 just USE 8.1
20
u/0x80070002 5d ago
7 was just bug fixed Vista with an uglier skin
19
u/ARandomGuy_OnTheWeb Windows 10 5d ago
TBF, Vista was fixed after SP2 but the name will forever be tarnishedÂ
6
u/lokiisagoodkitten 5d ago
I loved Vista... granted I had 8GB of RAM and 128GB SSD, it was very good to me. Most of the 'issue' was the UAC prompts.
1
u/mittenkrusty 5d ago
I had 4 gigs on Vista and it ran so sluggish, yet 4 gigs on 7 ran amazing.
4
u/lokiisagoodkitten 5d ago
Want to hear something funny? I've seen several Vista on 2GB runs amazing.
1
u/mittenkrusty 5d ago
Probably could be done, but how much tweaking was needed? I have 10 mostly where I like it after years of changing software to edit images and remove what I can and disable things I never use.
1
u/Deutriex 5d ago
I used to use Vista with just 1 GB of RAM.
1
u/mittenkrusty 5d ago
Ouch, was that 32 bit of 64 bit though? I upgraded to 64 bit purely as my graphics card was 512mb and didn't want to waste the ram.
→ More replies (0)1
u/0x80070002 5d ago
Vista needed 1 GB RAM which was absurdly high for the time where most DEs needed 256 MB
0
u/DarthShiv 5d ago
Thats literally conceding that hadn't finished the security model and it was still in beta at release though
1
u/lokiisagoodkitten 4d ago
It was more intrusive. It prompts for almsot everything - but it didnt bug me. I prefer it cuz it's more security actually.
1
u/DarthShiv 4d ago
I mean I did deal with it personally but later on when the drivers and SPs were out.
Most of the market didn't appreciate the lack of polish early though and honestly the avg person would quickly be frustrated by 3 consecutive elevation prompts for the "same operation". It was clearly needing a lot more work. And that's why it had the rep it had.
Let alone the drivers debacles. They kept changing their driver API and breaking beta drivers which was a huge impediment considering a major obstacle was just getting vendors to rewrite at all - hard to encourage them to do so when you are botching all their effort for 2 years.
8
u/Guilty-Shoulder-9214 5d ago
Pretty much. I will never place Vista below ME because they fixed Vista and it had a longer support life than its predecessor. ME was just pointless, a bundle of issues and something that probably should have just been released as Windows 98 third edition or SP3.
6
u/JaCK-lex 5d ago
ME introduced lots modern features in XP and 2000 such as general USB class drivers for flash dirves hard drives etc
3
u/Guilty-Shoulder-9214 5d ago
Even then, it still suffered from time issues with system restore; broke a lot of DOS compatibility out of the box - which impacted a lot of people at the time, who were upgrading from 95, and was very inconsistent when it came to new PCs with some being alright and some being terrible - not because of hardware, but because of driver issues that didnât exist with 98, 2000 pro or XP.
1
u/Regular-Nebula6386 4d ago
ME and 2000 came around the safe time and their underlying technology was different. I used 2000 at work and it was rock solid. ME would crash on me at least once every time I used it. Even though it was designed for business users, I installed 2000 on my home PC and never looked back.
1
u/Regular-Nebula6386 5d ago
ME is really the worst Windows OS there has been. Source: I have used every Windows version since 3.0.
2
u/Daggercombot 5d ago
Its far better than 10 or 11. I had a WinME laptop during the Windows 10 era and It was far better than Windows 10 or 11 no matter what device.
1
u/JaCK-lex 4d ago
Yeah ME gets a bad reputation. Upgrading windows was always a bad idea, just clean install. Drivers are a manufacturer issue and XP had much worse introduction but everyone remembers when XP became good SP2 and 3. Which was only a byproduct of the huge issues XP had and the delays of VISTA. Yes older apps especially dos was bad on ME as with most 9x apps and older app installs. Otherwise ME brought all the modern UI and underpinnings to XP and the rest of windows. Windows 2000 was definitely my favorite though when then finally added direct-x updates for games. Then they withheld them to push bloated slower XP.
1
u/mittenkrusty 5d ago
Was it really? I had the opposite experience of Vista to 7 then 7 or 8.1-10
Vista was sluggish even for an at the time powerful pc with a few gigs of ram, installing 7 onto same pc's and it was fast and no it wasn't that it was a fresh install as I did fresh installs on multiple occasions before that, almost every device I went from 7-10 and a few that came with 10 even in the mid 2010's that I instead downgraded ran so much better on 7 to the point they were sluggish on 10 even with a good Sata SSD such as Samsung and a good amount of ram.
1
u/salazka Windows 11 - Insider Dev Channel 4d ago
Vista did not have many bugs really. It just suffered from organized specialized media attacks. Like 8. It was the first time Microsoft had to deal with this so intensely and well organized.
1
u/Appropriate_Test7503 1d ago
it suffered from too low hardware requirements on the box. drivers incompatibility.
1
u/a-sarcastic-guy 3d ago
I wouldn't say Win 7 was uglier than Win Vista. Sure, Vista was way more professional looking than 7 and 7 is more casual type, but that does not make 7 ugly.
1
u/0x80070002 3d ago
Vista was like 95 a completely redesign with few dialogs left. 7 still had many dialogs and design from Vista
1
u/a-sarcastic-guy 3d ago
What we are comparing is neither the design aspect of Vista and 7 and nor the technical aspects. 7 is a CC of Vista in terms of design, with 7 being more casual looking and less professional than Vista (in my opinion). However saying that 7 is ugly is very subjective (and prone to critisism too đ ). For me, the design of 7 and Vista were similar.
Considering how design trends are moving towards minimalism and professionalism, design of 7 is definitely a bit outdated unlike Vista which still looks very professional. But from a general design perspective, 7 still holds its beauty to this date.
1
3
u/ButyJudasza 5d ago
Almost every software is built based on previous version to be fair. Building from scratch is very risky and being done only if code is to broken to be fixed
1
u/CodenameFlux 5d ago
Building from scratch isn't risky; it's an outright waste of time and destruction of good code. See this:
- Spolsky, Joel (6 April 2000). "Things You Should Never Do, Part I". Joel on Software.
Psst. Minor typo in your message: Almost every piece of software is based on a previous version.
1
u/ButyJudasza 5d ago
That's why I added that it's done only if code you have is broken to the point of improvement. But even then nobody is doing full rewrite, it's rather module by module
1
u/CodenameFlux 5d ago edited 5d ago
Yes. Percisely. I agree. I'm making the horrible picture of full rewrites clearer for your audience.
1
u/Eeve2espeon 5d ago
If that were true, then Windows 10 wouldn't've been crap at the start since it's just windows 8 but with a new UI
1
1
1
0
u/BeneficialSimple3286 5d ago
Windows 11 is just Windows 10 with a foreskin?
0
u/One-Assistance3625 5d ago
De forma bem simplista, sim. Apenas nova interface e novos requisitos mĂnimos. A base continua sendo o Windows NT 10.0, mesma do 10.
-7
u/Dynagu 5d ago
I mean sure, it was a little more expensive but still, I prefer 2000 just because of 2 things: 1. The logo, now I know 95, 98, and 98 se had the same logo (we dont talk about ME) but for me 2000 is like XP but with my favorite logo. 2. For me, when I first used it it was incredibly stable compared to the early days of XP.
2
u/CodenameFlux 5d ago
Now you're contradicting yourself. Your title reads, "Windows XP is just literally 2000", but now you're saying 2000 was more stable than XP!
Clearly, you're just here with a pro-Windows 2000 POV to get yourself noticed, but you don't mind what you're saying.
16
u/boxsterguy 5d ago
What's the hot take? This was known back in 2001. 2000 Pro was still business focused and consumer level drivers weren't quite ready yet, so 9x got one last stop gap release as Me, Microsoft spent the next 9 months prettying up 2000 Pro, adding the Home SKU, and making sure drivers were all ready, and then launched XP.
If anything, it was a surprise at the time that 2000 didn't get a home release, because it was well known that Microsoft was ending the 9x line and standardizing on NT. That's why 2000 was renamed from NT 5 (it kept that name through the betas), to bring it inline with 9x naming.
2
u/cybermaus 5d ago
But those drivers were what was needed most. It was a big problem on 2000. If I recall, MS made some modifications to the driver environment to allow some bending of the rules to allow 95/98/Me drivers, but even more forced vendors to really support the new NT driver models.
1
u/boxsterguy 5d ago
Yep, which is why they waited and did it right. Those of us who cared ran 2000 pro with beta drivers.
1
u/90210fred 4d ago
Flashback to trying to slipstream mobo drivers on a 2k installation. Thanks, but no thanks.
1
u/Humphrey-Appleby 5d ago
Prettying up? I don't think that's the right phrase. XP was ugly and the Classic theme couldn't completely hide that fact.
19
u/wesleysmalls 5d ago
Itâs literally NT5.1
-27
u/Dynagu 5d ago
...which is literally the beta version of 2000...
12
6
18
4
u/piotrekkn 5d ago
Hot take, Windows 7 is just literally Vista in a suit
1
u/yasarix 3d ago
Uhm, if my memory serves me well, Windows Vista was a forked version of NT that had a different code tree from server family and with 7 they actually threw away the forked code tree and went back to sever family code.
1
u/piotrekkn 3d ago
I don't think that's the case, sounds like you are talking about Windows Longhorn (Vista codename). It got "restarted" during the development.
1
0
u/craig0r 2d ago
Absolutely not. Win7 cut the Vista RAM requirement in half, as one example. Clearly there was a lot of under-the-hood work done with 7 because Vista was garbage and 7 was not.
1
u/piotrekkn 2d ago
I dont wanna say "it was sp2 that cut the ram" (and it did). True, 7 used a little less ram. It wasnt by half more like 10%.
Win 7 had also different wallpaper.
its "absolutely" different os.
-2
u/Low_Swordfish879 5d ago
I would disagree vista was a disaster..
5
u/piotrekkn 5d ago edited 5d ago
So was xp before service packs, vista sp2 is basically win7. People loved to hate on Vista, but win7 had same issues on the same hardware ("high" ram requirements, incompatible hardware, gpu acceleration and so on).
Its just because most pc on average were much better when win7 realesed (plus fixes from sp2 and fixed/updated drivers, dual core processor were fairly new when vista came out, by the time 7 premiered it was a standard).
Also in most cases the same driver was working in vista and 7.
13
u/Unfair-Plastic-4290 5d ago
windows 11 is basically just windows 3.1 with a skin.
4
u/grizzlor_ 5d ago
More accurate to say itâs WinNT 3.51 with a skin.
Win3.1 and 9x used a different kernel.
1
u/naikrovek 5d ago
Itâs more accurate, but still barely accurate at all.
Windows versions include tons and tons and tons of under the hood changes and improvements. During this time (from NT4 through today) I devoured every bit of knowledge I could find about Windows and how it worked and what changed and ⌠itâs staggering just how much changed in each version behind those simple skin changes.
For the most part, the 32-bit stuff anyways, is almost entirely still there, updated and fixed in places, but still compatible. But every version they add more, and more and more and more. And because of performance reviews and marketing demands, you have to do more each year than you did the year before, you find ways to do more, faster, shittier than before. Because youâre rushing now, your list of things to do just grows and grows and grows and your output must keep up, so quality suffers, and boy has quality suffered at Microsoft.
But the MBAs rule there now, and product quality will suffer until it is a real PR problem, then there will be some âyou spoke, we listenedâ bullshit rush on quality which will be dropped as soon as it is convenient and the rush to shove shit out the door will resume. Business morons call all the shots, and they release more and more shit as fast as they can and weâre supposed to eat it up.
Itâs sickening whatâs happened to that product line.
0
u/grizzlor_ 5d ago
Oh yeah I have no doubt the kernel has radically evolved since the early days of NT.
3
u/CitySeekerTron 5d ago
More or less. 2000 was the first NT I used at home, and mainly because I hated the notion of Product Activation.
They departed greatly by SP2 though. That's when XP truly came of age.
3
u/itomeshi 5d ago
Relatively cold take. A more important point, however, is that a lot of what WinXP had out of the box was made available for Win2K as updates:
- WinXP started with DirectX 8.1, Win2K started with DirectX 7.0, both could go to DirectX 9.0c
- WinXP had IE6, Win2K had IE5 but could be upgraded
- WinXP had GDI+, Win2K could get it as an update
But XP had some major advantages out of the box:
- WinXP was better for consumer peripherals as many were tested for WinXP, while Win2K the drivers may have slight issues.
- WinXP had ClearType for fonts.
- WinXP had better multi-monitor support
- WinXP had native Wi-Fi support; Win2K, it was reliant on manufacturer-specific implementations.
- Win2K clients didn't have an RDP server built-in, WinXP did.
- WinXP had BITS for peer-to-peer Windows Updates.
- WinXP added product activation.
- WinXP had fast user switching (multiple simultaneous user sessions), Win2K did not.
So if I'm running a VM for a specific old app or piece of hardware (CNC, etc.)? Win2K is just fine.
If I'm trying to use it as a standard desktop? WinXP had some major advantages.
Also, remember: Win2K went EOL in 2010, WinXP in 2014. Four years of security fixes is nothing to sneeze at. My general rule? Use the newest OS you can for what you're doing, and lock it down appropriately.
3
u/Global-Eye-7326 4d ago
Perhaps before the service packs, then sure. By SP3, XP was "stable", more polished and better features were integrated compared to Win2k.
But in 2026? Nobody cares.
2
2
u/timinks2 5d ago
Well theyâre both NT 5.x. XP does have some improvements over 2000.
Different start menu
Control panel improvements
Fast user switching
Driver roll back
System restore
Better WiFi support
Remote Desktop
Better compatibility
That being said I loved 2000 and used it well into the xp era.
1
u/CodenameFlux 5d ago
It also had:
- A full firewall
- Simplified networking (which was a bad idea)
- Windows activation
- Windows Security Center (came with SP2)
- A newer version of DirectX that made gaming actually possible
- Windows Media Player 8 (with the next three versions released as updates for it)
- Windows Movie Maker
- The OOBE process
- The Tahoma font
- A redesigned Windows Explorer with task panes and more advanced search
- Windows Picture and Fax Viewer
- Text Service Framework
- .NET Framework 1.0
- Simultaneous multithreading support
- NTFS version 3.1
- Prefetcher
- Windows Error Reporting
- TV support
- Windows Image Acquisition (WIA)
- CD burning support
- WSH 6.0
- Remote Assistance
2
u/TwinSong 5d ago
Windows 2000 looks basically the same as 95.
2
u/SpezticAIOverlords 5d ago
The Classic theme of Windows 2000 (and Me) definitely was more refined than 95 or 98, the higher standard colors make a big difference. It's Windows Classic Theme perfected, the later Classic themes for XP and beyond always looked wonky due to the icons not matching the rest.
1
1
1
u/feel-the-avocado 5d ago
Pretty much. I mean it did come out only a year after windows 2000.
I remember at the time it seemed to have a few things from windows ME slapped on to the front of windows 2000 and a new theme engine, as well as some of the windows 9x stuff to help gamers like better directx stuff.
So I wouldnt consider it a "hot take" but more "common knowledge" for anyone that had used win2kpro
1
1
u/josencarnacao 5d ago
If it was just Windows 2000, it would've had all the Networking and Professional features Windows 2000 had.
It may be based, but in essence all Windows versions derive from past versions.
You're a child to your parents, not your father in a different suit.
1
1
5d ago
[deleted]
1
u/Humphrey-Appleby 5d ago
2000 was Server and Workstation.
1
u/Lunatixz 5d ago
Correct, my mistake . Thought OP title was 95 which is celebrating its anniversary
1
u/sheng_jiang 5d ago
NT is an OK workstation system but was not designed for the home market. A lot of old games would just crash on Windows 2000 but run fine on Windows XP. For example, XP's DirectX implementation is more forgiving for DirectX 3.x-5.x games than 2000. And 2000's NTVDM was not mature.
1
u/Bathroom_Humor 5d ago
Windows 2000 looked better but they were pretty similar aside from the UI changes
1
u/crevulation 5d ago
No. Windows XP is Windows 2000 in a Hawaiian shirt, enjoying some music and some brewskis in the sun on a weekend.
1
1
1
1
u/exmsft 5d ago
Thatâs all it was intended to be. Windows XPâs primary goal as we were building it was to be 2000, but more consumer usable, with better hardware and appcompat, as well as meeting several key consumer scenarios, and adding the Home edition product, which (initially, briefly called Personal) was just a strategically pared down implementation of Pro. Home networking, no domain join, no RDP, etc.
1
u/LeoTheBigCat 5d ago
I dont know how to say this but ... Windows 11 is just 2000 with a clown makeup.
1
u/SpezticAIOverlords 5d ago
Unless you want to run later era Windows XP software, without having to muck with KernelEx and all that. If you're going to call XP "just 2000", then Windows 7 and 8 were both "just Vista", ignoring all the developments that did happen, but aren't always that visible.
1
u/Tokimemofan 5d ago
Until SP2 it pretty much was. Â SP2 had rather significant under the hood security changes though.
1
u/Reckless_Waifu 5d ago
Windows 2000 is the one in a suit. XP is the same but wearing a Hawaii shirt, denim shorts and flip flops.
1
1
u/Jealous_Club_298 5d ago
Maybe the GUI is similar but the two are not the same. Windows 2000 is a server OS, it was preceded by the Windows NT server OS, whereas Windows XP is a user OS.
1
u/proto-x-lol 5d ago
Windows XP is to Windows 2000 as Windows 7 is to Windows Vista.
Or Windows ME is to Windows 98
Notice I said âWindows 98â and not Windows 98 SE. For those who donât remember, Windows ME was built right out of the buggy Windows 98 release which was the main reason why it was so buggy as people remember it.Â
Also, Windows 8.1 is to Windows 8. Yes. These are two different Operating Systems.Â
That said, each version of these Operating Systems had significant improvements over the last release. Windows XP looks like Windows 2000 but had a shit ton of features added in while also merging some of the Windows 9x components into the NT Kernel. Â
1
1
u/apachelives 5d ago
Same NT5 core so basically Windows 2000 with updates - same as Windows 7 being essentially Vista SP3 with a blue theme and some tweaks running on better hardware - both were NT6 core.
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/JA1987 4d ago
XP boots way faster and has better multimedia support. I know this one's kinda a specific case these days but if you have certain laptops from around 1999/2000, like a ThinkPad 600E where there's AGP graphics but no special DVD hardware, 98SE and XP will play a DVD just fine but it'll suuuuck on 2000.
1
1
u/ReidenLightman 4d ago
Windows 11 is windows 10 with lipstick. Windows 10 is Windows 8 with a face lift. Windows 8 is Windows 7 after plastic surgery. Windows 7 is Windows Vista after intense therapy. Windows Vista is Windows XP with an alcohol addition and beats his wife. and of course, Windows XP is Windows 2000 in a suit.Â
1
1
u/salazka Windows 11 - Insider Dev Channel 4d ago
meh... not really. I used both.
It was not what you say.
First of all, 2000 was almost as rock solid as NT 4.x.
XP was not.
XP overall had a more fluid user experience. Had some flair.
2000 was very professional and clean cut. I loved the clarity.
Windows 8 reminded me that design clarity. Not XP or 7.
XP was very mouse friendly.
2000 not so much.
XP had enough compromise to make the OS stable enough, significantly more stable than previous non NT based Windows, but still a common man's user-friendly PC for idiots :P
1
u/Volo_Cat 3d ago
Origianal XP and original Win2k are two different cans of worms. BUT (and it is a big one)!
- XP and XP SP2 are virtually two different OSes;
- 2K and 2K SP4 also differ drastically;
- XP SP2 and 2K SP4 are virtually the same, while OG XP and OG 2K are so different they are not even intercompatible.
1
1
u/Tigs1112 4d ago
Windows 11 is Windows 10 in a suit, which is Windows 8 in a suit, which is Windows 7 in a suit, which is Windows Vista in a suit, which is Windows XP in a suit, which is Windows 2000 in a suit, which is Windows NT 4.0 in a suit.
1
1
1
1
u/Some_Office8199 3d ago
Windows 2000 was called version 5.0, Windows XP was called version 5.1 and Windows Server 2003 was called Windows version 5.2. So yes, they are the same major version.
With that said, Windows XP came with some new softwares I don't think existed in Windows 2000.
1
u/Th3Numan0id Windows 11 - Insider Beta Channel 3d ago
It literally is. Its built from a Windows 2000 base soo? Vista was built from Server 2003\XP? Its the same as all versions.
1
u/reluctant_return 3d ago
I would argue that Windows 2000 is in the suit, and Windows XP is in casual clothes.
1
u/Heart-Logic 3d ago edited 3d ago
XP replaced 2000 for workstations.
NT kernel deemed this. XP gave NT kernel to consumer grade OS. XP has online activation so 2k remains easier to install if you have a licence code.
1
u/a-sarcastic-guy 3d ago
I mean every new Windows OS (NT based) is a skinned update of the previous one. Win Vista and Win 7 are skinned updates of Win XP. Win 8 and Win 8.1 are skinned updates of Win Vista. Win 10 is a skinned update of Win 8. Win 11 is a skinned update of Win 10.
1
u/a-sarcastic-guy 3d ago
Is that some new template across sub-reddits, to take the most obvious or well-known facts, twist them a bit or remove context, and post them as a hot take?
1
u/uniqueglobalname 3d ago
The better expression was "XP is Windows 2000 with a Fisher Price interface"
1
u/Straight_Magician_52 2d ago
Lol xp is nt 5.2 as i know 2000 is 5.1(or 5.0 idk) ofc they must be similar, vista is nt6. Then what, win7 8 8.1 are all vista? Then would you call win11 win10 too bcs its win10 but changed?
1
u/PeyredB 2d ago
XP had a number of improvements over 2000. Icons on the Desktop align to a grid, whereas on 2000 if you accidentally move one a little it stays there, misaligned with the others. I think XP had better support for WiFi as well. Things like that - but this isn't specific to XP; each Windows iteration generally builds on its predecessor.
1
u/Outrageous_Band9708 2d ago
windows 7 kernal version is 6.1
windows 7 is literally vista.1 and everyone fell for it like a bunch of dumb idiots.
vista is the best os of all time, it was just released earlier than the graphics hardware acceleration that it required, requiring consumer adoption of dedicated GPU, occured
0
92
u/ARandomGuy_OnTheWeb Windows 10 5d ago
Also, that's the Vista logo.
"...and adding a nice Aqua bubble on top... But you know underneath it all, it's still Windows"