Windows 2000 compared with 98 and ME or When things go wrong 

We had a local Windows 2000 print server at work until about 2 years ago. It sat plugging away with around 10 consecutive years of uptime. (The last time it was shut down, it was to replace a nearly dead hard drive back in 2005). The hard drive from 2005 finally failed in 2015. We finally took Windows 2000 out of service (but not the machine it ran on).... What a great OS! We added a spare SATA controller we had on hand, bought a new 32GB SSD for 20 bucks and put FreeBSD on it. That 17 year old dual P3-Xeon server with 1GB of RAM continues to handle our printers to this day.

Apart from 98SE, I still use Windows 2000 on one of my rigs. You have to be sure you install SP4 on top of it. There are also 1 or 2 unofficial SP's on top of that. My Win 2000 rig was specifically designed to be a Home Theater PC, connected to a surround sound system & a projector. There is also a fan-made hybrid O/S called 98SE2ME, which combines the best of those 2 systems, which I have also used awhile ago but do not have a current installation presently.

I deeply loved Win2k and used it as my main os for ages. It sure was harder to setup for gaming than 95/98/meh , but in return it was rock solid, and capable of run 24/7 for serious periods. 9x kernel based os were plainly unable to do that. I have terrible memory but still remember the Kyro cards... what a beautiful piece of hardware, with that electric blue heatshink. What a nightmare to live with. They had terrible compatibility and were a constant source of missery and frustration. I still have one in my drawer, probably returned from a friend I gifted to (a very poisoned gift). I wouldn´t suggest starting with one of those for a retro setup involving gaming at all. Commenting 5 years later, I know.

Hello. Thank you for the nostalgia of comparing these Windows versions. I was just wondering what is the game you're showcasting in this video?

The great thing about Win2k is that it works well with VirtualBox, unlike Win9X. I do my retro-gaming on a Linux machine and Win2k on a VM lets me play 2D Windows games like Diablo and Civilization II.

2000 requires SP4 for USB 2.0 and XP requires SP1 (SiS USB 2 drivers will work on RTM)

I would format a spacious HDD with another tool, and limit the size of the system partition to avoid potential problems with LBA28 and make imaging easier. The disk controllers were a major pain when they appeared on the actual motherboards. First time I got an intel 9xx express board, I left the HDD hanging off one side on the same cable as the CD-ROM, before installing the controller drivers. Windows 2000 is a great professional system in function and appearance that doesn't attempt to hold the user's hand like WinXP or Me does, and with excellent stability in longer uptimes. GoG repacks unfortunately bump system requirements... A genius feature playing CD music off the HDD. But the installer should be as minimal as possible, and not impose additional restrictions to avoid case where it doesn't run on either very old or very new systems (like InstallShield).

Still remember using it on Celeron 400a@450 on ZX chipset with 64MB if RAM and S3 Trio32 VGA. Best times. Windows 2000 UI is the best Microsoft created so far. Since then each releass is getting worse. Especially rounded corners on Windows 11.

W2k is my main retro system. I use the old Geforce FX5200 128mb and it ran Quake GL with 107fps. I should mention it has 1gb ddr ram and an older Northwood pentium 4 @2.553ghz 533mhz fsb. I switched from WinME to 2k because 2k has no memory or cpu limits unlike 9x which was hard coded to orignally support 512mb max and can only use a single core/thread cpu. Sure tweak 9x to use more memory but it does not use it. Anything over 512mb on a 9x system is wasted and doesn't do anything for performance. Right now I am playing Star Trek Deep Space Nine The Fallen on it which is based on a modified unreal engine. I add a note that I use the fx series because it is the last nvidia to support fog based support. It was dropped from the 6 series and above. Table fog does make a difference in older titles. Example: Try to run Shadows of the Empire on both a fog table supported card then a non supported one. That is only 1 example from the top of my head. As always mate good video and don't be put off by 2k, it is a learning curve.

windows xp is essentially 2000 re-release a few years later, even xp drivers work on win 2000

can you put the link for the windows version in the description? is that legal and malware free? :D

Then I had Celeron @667MHz I had keped two system on my computer: 98SE and 2000 because 98SE because 98SE has more performance and I was able watch videos on my computer without lags.

I want to see NT4 SP6 on this machine!

Win2k was my favourite before W10.

Phil, you are wrong there. Win9x does have a fail safe mode.

Should people use a GeForce4 Ti4200 under Windows 98 SE?

You know what?? me ftw!!

Win2K was in my experience far more robust, in particular when I was developing software and having regular crashes through the development cycle Win2K just kept on chugging. Every crash in 95 or Me was a good chance to take the OS down too.

used w2k daily for eight years, can't remember having issues with the voodoo 3, geforce 2, geforce fx, or radeon 9800 i used during that time.

I liked Windows 98 the most and I still use it on an older PC. If only it hadn't those nasty "illegal operations" and BSODs...

Win2K is great but as you found, it can have some driver issues with some older hardware, where the devs focused more on WIn9x (3DFX drivers for instance are missing a couple of options, but otherwise work perfectly fine). also SP4 is very much necessary because vanilla Win2K was known to have compatibility issues with games in particular , issues which were addressed with the later service packs. where Win2K really shines is stability, its certainly more stable than Win9x , and even more than WinXP due to being a more no-nonsense OS, it also will generally run better on older hardware when fully updated (SP4 will run great on a PIII, XP SP3 not so much). I suppose I have a bit of nostalgia for WIn2K as I used it quite a bit on my dad's work PC (which also had a Geforce2 in it) and found it to be better than my own Win98 machine.

Your experience on Win2k was far different than mine. I ran it on a K6-2/400 OC'd to 485 mhz and a TNT2 PCI video card. No issues at all, no matter what I threw at it, and frame rates in pretty much every game were better under 2k than they were in 98SE and ME.

w2k was very robust... I used it for video editing back in the day

Thumbnail: “Windows 2000 Built on new technology technology” Microsoft seems to be the god of pleonasm.

"windows 2000 is built on NT Technology" ... on New Technology Technology but seriously it was my favorite version of windows, it was based on the same code as current iterations of windows but without the bloat or the mistrust in its users that XP activation introduced

I remember trying out Windows 2000 back in the day. Although it was a very stable OS, thanks to the NT kernell, it was also somewhat heavier on system resources. At the time my machine was not very powerful, so going from ME to 2000 took a significant impact on performance. Asides from that, I don't remember having trouble with drivers, the installation or anything like that.

Phil did you quit gaming when Win2k came out? I can see you are very 9x dominant, so this is my theory :) 'Back in the day' most of the worst aspects for me about computing were caused by the hodge-podge 9x versions of Windows, when 2000 came out I swapped over and never looked back. The technology under the hood is so much better.

From 2001 to 2003 My main PC system used a 1 Ghz Athlon Thunderbird CPU and I was running Windows 2000.I went through several graphics cards like the ATI All in Wonder 128 Pro,then the ATI Radeon 8500 and finally the ATI All in Wonder 9700 Pro graphics card on that system.I loved the stability of Windows 2000 on my system too (never had any lockups or blue screens). I had 640 MB of RAM in it (which was a lot for January 2001). I preferred it at the time to Windows XP because it didn't have activation ( a worse form of DRM) and just the product key code.The system works great to this day and is operational though obsolete.

What most people don't understand is that 2000 and ME were meant to be for two different consumers, ME was for the everyday home consumer (much like XP Home), and 2000 was intended to be a workstation OS for professionals and most businesses (More so than XP Pro was). In my experience with 2000 I've found that it tends to favor Intel platforms over AMD ones.

Windows XP was essentially Windows 2000 dressed up like a clown and a service pack. You are completely correct, sometimes hardware just doesn't work well together. Great video, Phil!! :)

Windows 2000 was most stable Windows I've ever seen. And to be honest you're the first person I see that can actualy show it bisbehaving. Funny experience despite the fact that most issues you've encountered seem to be related to hardware prepared for (most popular at the time) Win 9X branch.

With Windows NT and 2000 that wasn't the case. SP4 for Windows 2000 and SP6 for NT is pretty much the only way to go. There is no reason to do any less. Windows XP on the other hand there were measurable increases of overhead on SP1 and SP2 so for lower end systems SP1 or no service pack could function better. Windows 2000 was great for business applications and for some games it worked fine. But honestly developers never targeted Windows 2000 as a gaming platform like they did 9x/ME.

I had a lot of experience with Windows 98 / ME / 2000 back in the day. I was dual booting 98 / 2000 for a while and then booted ME / 2000 for a period of time too. I never had any issues with ME, so I'm not sure where the hate comes from. Most of my issues came from Windows 2000 back in the day because the architecture was newer and most games/apps/drivers weren't optimized for the NT kernel. Windows ME is merely 98 with a face-lift and a few additional features integrated. Great video, glad you took the time to outline some of the issues you had.

Win2k was the revolutionary OS step, not WinXP or Win7. I don't remember having had any major issues when running the Win2k beta on my "gaming" PC in 1999. You basically got NT4's stability paired with Win98's more modern desktop and multimedia features. XP did not really add anything useful for me. Usually, I configured its look and feel to match what I was used to on 2k and it got pretty close.

2k really had little to offer the home user. It didnt even have directx out of the box. It was more suited to the corporate environment in which it excelled. 98 and ME were better for home users. XP bridged the gap being the first nt os with native directx our of the box and designed to be usable for offices and home users alike. 2k only got dirextx as an afterthought. A tack on update for home users who mistakedly bought the corporate win2k instead of the home user winME by mistake.

What I have found, from installing Windows 2000 about 500 times, back when XP was new, W2K loves Intel platform's. I don't know why this is so but trust me, I had way less hardware compatibility with the driver's and endless patches on the Intel platform's, CPU's, chip sets, network cards.

Win2k was a stable badass! I ran it for years!

Am sad that even 2000 is no longer enough to run Diablo II and StarCraft 1. Latest patch (and the latter now being free) requires XP. There is a function in a certain DLL file exclusive to XP.

Windows XP was bassed in Windows 2000, this last personally was the best os, I had w2k sp4 on my old computer "2004", And I could play all games like on windows xp and more stable, maybe this game didn't was designed for a NT kernel . Btw Windows 98 like Millennium were a wonderful os for play games and multimedia, but win98 was more stable than millennium edition.

i have windows 98 in 2004-2008. i have windows 2000 in 2009-2010. i have windows me in 2010. i have windows xp in 2010-2011. i have windows vista in 2009-2017. i have windows 7 in 2017-2021. i don't have windows 8. i have windows 8.1 in 2014-2019. i have windows 10 in 2017-present.

Looking forward to you next videos. Windows 2000 really only became usable with much later service packs that's for sure in terms of it being a general OS away from being used in enterprise and client settings. It's a real shame OpenGL couldn't work on the Kyro2 II card. :( Great content as usual. The Win XP video and your next projects will be interesting.

I loved windows 2000, I never recall having any major issues in gaming and all the other computer tasks I did from programming to graphic editing, it ran it all well. Windows 2000 beta was the first beta version of windows I ever tried. It worked great. I had many people tell me windows 2000 is for businesses and I shouldn't use it, but I refused to listen as I found it worked great and it spawned a great line of nt based operating systems like xp up to windows 10, yay stability!. I guess they wanted me to go back to windows 98? I dumped windows 98 se a long time ago. Never wanted to go back to rebooting just to change tcp/ip, plus the instability. I had 512MB-768 MB of memory around the time. So memory footprint wasn't an issue. I would try out windows xp until windows would slow down and drag and eventually I wanted to reinstall, I kept going back to windows 2000 pro. I had it quad booting I guess you could call it, so things got complicated. Windows 2000/xp for microsoft, redhat and suse for linux, i tried others on older systems when i'd have enough parts to make a secondary computer after upgrading. I had promise raid controller and sata controller, so I had many hard drives in my system. I can't really bring myself to go back and do that anymore with having 6-8 hard drives in a system at any given point and all that multi-booting. I rarely reinstall anymore(typically if a hard drive failure or computer upgrade occurs) and will use virtual machine if I ever want to use other operating systems on my main machine.

Oh yes, Win 2000 was a HUGE change for Microsoft. It introduced the Snapin tools and a list of things I'm sure you know about. Compared to Win95/98 and DOS, Win 2000 for me at least gave me a headache lol, but I got through it and looking back it seems sort silly. I don't think Microsoft went forward with it either, they turned 2000 into a Server OS I think. Thank you for the video Phil, I enjoyed it. 👍

I never will miss when i was an kid like 13 age and was using windows 98/me with Duron 950Mhz + Riva TNT2 with LOW fps on Counter-Strike 1.5, BUUUT when i install XP and enter on the game, the fps was most of time in 100, a HUGE boost by kernel i think.

The STMicro Kyro II was released just a few months before STMicro closed its PC graphics division, so it never received much driver support. The NT drivers for 2000/XP were at most beta, but feel like alpha quality. The card works best under Windows 9x, where the drivers are just a bit more mature. The Kyro II was a departure from other graphics vendors of the time where it used weird rendering techniques like tile deferred rendering and aggressive hidden surface removal to try and offset its weak rendering capabilities. These features proved to be the downfall of the Kyro because they were buggy, slow and often caused rendering problems in games. I have a Kyro II myself and I've never been able to get it running on anything other than Windows 9x.

thanks so much for this video, it's very interesting to see where 2000 really stands compared to the older operating systems. also interesting seeing what kind of support the kyro 2 driver for the nt kernel had and where they focused their efforts.

What game are you playing in the video, pal? Looks good for it's time.

Windows XP is very similar to 2000. Some say it is 2000 with a new coat of paint. Back in the day, I ran an Adobe Premiere 6.0 editing machine (Compaq Deskpro EN, P3 933mhz, 512mb of ram, two 60gb hard drives, and a Pinnacle DV500+ PCI analog capture/firewire card.) I ran into TONS of compatibility problems with drivers and software with Windows 2000, so much that I was forced to use Windows 98. It seemed like the capture card and software was designed for a Windows 9x environment and nothing else. I think that is the case with a lot of hardware and drivers, that there is major incompatibility between 9x and 2k/XP.

Win 2k was my favorite OS during my younger days of assembling my gaming PCs, it was robust, lots less of BSOD, less maintenance, more gaming time.

@9:55 Yeah retro computing is all about issues and troubles. That being said, present day computing is with even more issues and troubles. 😂😂😂😂😂 The Kyro 2 seems to be broken... or the drives are abyssmal $h!t.

It's a shame your Win2K experience didn't go so well. I had great experiences with it using P3 and Athlon systems with Voodoo3 and early GeForce cards.

I absolutely adore Windows 2000. I even found a brand new copy on ebay to own. I remember when I was about 16 going through the beta testing of this OS, I had every version. Windows 2000 was an absolute game changer for microsoft and the Windows OS. The OS is absolute LEAGUES ahead technology wise than the old 9x versions which were iterations of kernals spanning all the way to 386 hardware. The fact that they created a full 32bit OS with an entirely new driver model, doing away with old VXD drivers for the new WDM model without many issues is absolutely astounding. Windows 2000 is the the true OS that launched us into the new century. I loved it back then and still swear by it for my retro machines today. It is basically XP without the fisherprice bloatware.

Would be interested to see you make another cool video like this but for server2003 because it can use vista drivers for many things (graphics etc.,.... and yes I know for some cards those vista drivers also work in windows7 or windows8.1 like for the nvidia fx5200).

Do a Vista SP2 retro gaming review with decade old 2007 hardware which was available at its launch.

The irony is that most of the people who disliked WinMe on your previous video recommended Win2k as a replacement , while Win2k on your configuration was troublesome, and WinMe was more or less fine.

I am not surprised Win2k was a litter slower, The OS was built for business applications and probably has more services running in the background

I wish you can find drivers for the HP Thin Client T5710 for Windows 2000 and XP.

windows 2000 was the peak of my entire life. I miss those days

I installed Win 2K on a Pentium II with 64 MB of RAM and a 16 GB SD card in an SD to IDE adaptor, and It works for the most part. The only problem I have is that the system sometimes doesn't detect the "hard drive" on startup, but restarting the machine usually fixes the problem.

I had to use Windows 2000 on my Intel 915 build last week. The build was borderline experimental as far as Windows 98 is concerned, with Sata and PCI-E, and the installation would go to black screen. I believe the issue could be the PCI-E card, because I was able to use the Sata drive with 98's DOS mode just fine. I might try to use my PCI card just to install 98 before getting all the chipset drivers up and going for the PCI-E card, but Windows 2000 is incredible, very smooth installation and operation, complete driver support, not a single blue screen of death, supports older D3D titles as well as more modern ones. Even runs a ton of GOG games. After I got DOS box going, I started to question why people even go for Windows 98 in the first place, Windows 2000 is just all around better.

Back in the day was dual booting 2k and ME on a Super 7 system (ALi chipset, Voodoo 3 GPU). Had a lot of issues trying to get non-office related stuff to work on 2k, after installing a service pack, it would no longer see any gameport joystick, even swapping the sound card that provided the game port interface didn't help. Many games would hang, there was a large decrease in FPS, but game timing was messed up - the clock would run fast in games. The ALI chipset drivers were perhaps mostly responsible, also SP4 wasn't out yet.

I had WinME and ill say it now i had no memorable issues with it..i did have to replace some older cards from thelate 95 early win98 era and used it for about a year before i jumped to 2k on a AMD socket A Thunderbird..Ahh the good old days😄

play doom with windows NT 4.0

I used Windows 2000 as my main OS from 2002 all the way until sometime in 2017 when web browser support just wasn't good enough any more for the modern internet. It certainly has its quirks and optimally setting it up does require a lot of work and you have to know what you're doing, but once all that is done, it is just a stable, barebones OS - just how I like it.

Windows 2000 might have been underperforming slightly in games, but it made up for that in stability. Win98 and especially ME, you would have to format almost every LAN. Windows 2000 ran smooth and never crashed it seemed to slow down, unlike the other systems.

It's just because the PowerVR chipset sucks, I've had just about every card you can think of, from the Chips and Tech. controllers and Chromatic Research cards all the way up to a GeForce 7950GT and a Radeon 9950 - Never had any issues except with a few clearly broken cards (3D Rage Pro AGP 2x that appeared to have coffee stains, for example, worked intermittently).

The base NT kernels that 2000 & XP shipped with lack support for true UISB 2.0 support, my understanding is the service packs add this function in to the kernel, also on your USB keyboard issue try an add in card or an external USB hub with its own power as had issues with some older onboard USB chipsets and wireless devices.

It seems that 2000 is more of a workstation/server OS.

Ironic when Windows 7 won't even play Doom 95 Collector's Editon without a certain DLL download, but of course works excellent if you use a Doom sourceport. Windows XP will play some 16 bit programs that Windows 7 simply won't touch, the Best of Entertainment games are kind of hit or miss, but won't work at all on 7. The greater irony is most if not all DOS games will work fine on newer OS through the use of DOSbox, but dedicated Windows programs from the '90s just absolutely fail past anything newer than XP.

On Windows 2000 I was never able to put my Sound Blaster PCI128 to work due to ACPI. When I changed it to "Standard PC" mode I got blue screen and was unable to boot... That was the end of 2000 for me

I personally did try win 2000 workstation back in the day, it crashed a lot with games that win98 we ran fine, I had an amd duron 800 at the time.

If the OS isn't meant for regular home use, maybe don't sell it as it were...though that might just be an excuse for releasing (again) an OS that's in fact BS. People blaming the marketing are very naive... MS apologists are everywhere, i wonder why, in this world of bots and bought comments and shills.

As a gamer in late 90's to the early 2000's i went from win 98 to win 2000 even though XP was out there because i didn't like the loading time of XP and the heavy load (at that time) brought by the new GUI. I stayed with win2000 as long as i could and was satisfied by its stability and lighter GUI, eventually i had to stop using it and switched to XP when new games stopped working under it and drivers support stopped.

I have a pentium M with LPT port and for work purpose needed to switch to old system. At the end : Windows 98 unusable, Windows 98 SE too much buggy, Windows ME perfect, Windows 2000 bugged.

windows 2000 just stick with the max service pack, and avoid Via motherboard chipsets, just my exp, i used 2k before it was officially launched and went back to it after XP kept rotting away needing reinstalled, once i got server 2003 and used a workstation tool on it, i moved to that, till xp x64 was up to snuff, then i used that, till i got ahold of server 2008, the 2008r2, then win7, then 10.. win 2k, really is a great OS.. one tip, use nlite to build all your drivers you may need into the ISO you are gonna use to setup your install, and, i have even gotten it to work with usb3 by baking the usb3 driver into the ISO(xp/7 drivers worked in my case), its genuinely a great os, always was, just... you do need to deal with some issues that tend to be driver related. another 2k tip, on the cd/iso, you will find a compatibility tool, its also helpful on xp and later at times... worth keeping around... ;)

For me, here's another reason for Windows 2000 over anything else: The Win2K Quadro drivers provided support for output image scaling all the way up to version 261, when support was discontinued. In XP they removed support for scaling way a few years prior, so technically while XP had support until version 301, it is useless for retro gaming.

See if win7 will run on it. Thats what I ended up using for me reto PC after trying 2k, and XP. 2k worked perfect for me but I couldn't update any of the games to community created patches and updates. XP also didn't allow the patches to work despite allowing me to install them where 2k failed at that point. Also XP like your PC didn't want to play ball, things just kept crashing and errors, games and general windows explorer crashes. Struggled to get win 7 to initially install but once I got past that I found everything worked great and I got most of my games updated and like magic I also got my audigy 2 zs to work with the creative drivers which 2k and xp didn't want to work. Its actually quite awesome running an early 2000s PC on win7. Runs reasonably quick too.

Used Windows 2000 from when I got my first PC (Idk, probably 2004 or 2005) up until 2010

I vastly preferred Win2000 despite the DOS incompatibilities. Something about having a computer you didn't have to reboot 6 times a day...

Windows 2000 was what I turned to after Windows ME took a dislike to my RAM upgrades. Many happy years of gaming on this before I took the odd decision to move to Windows XP 64

Great video; very interesting. Looking at doing an W2K Athlon 3200+ and Voodoo 5 5500 build myself in the near future.

Promise gear has always been a little bit garbage. I use to have a promise IDE controller that didn't support CD drives because it wasn't standard IDE. Windows couldn't even use its generic IDE controller drivers with it. They were even crap when buying more high end gear. Their RAID cards had horrible performance compared to their 3ware and adaptec counterparts. I was actually surprised to see you use one of their cards in the initial build.

If you want to use SATA with win 2000 I always found using an IDE to SATA adaptor or just switch and use a CF card with an adaptor

I can't ger Direct 3d to work in win2000. I tried geforce 2 and geforce 4 cards and none of them had direct3d working , in the direct setup it says Direct 3d not available. Can someone help?

Win2K wasn't a choice for playing games. In fact I am surprised that those games were able to run. Otherwise was a very robust OS.

years back i had a MSI mobo and a sempron cpu matched with a nvidia 7600gs. was a great pc fast as all hell back then but it would not game on windows xp. every game i would load would crash with a "nvidia infinite loop error". I could never get nvidia to help with this issue they claimed it was a Microsoft related issue and Microsoft said it was nvidia. same hard ware running win 2000 never had issue and when i put win 7 on it a few years back it never had issue. to this day i dont know what caused the issue but that hardware has long been retired.

For Windows 2000 I would recommend: Windows 2000 Professional SP4 Rollup Integrated November 2014 by Sagittarius. Alternatively, you can search for Microsoft Windows 2000 Collection by DocRetro (this one also includes many other apps, tools etc.). It includes all available Windows 2000 updates integrated (including last DirectX 9 for Windows 2000). It's the best way to install Windows 2000 on a retro machine or through VMware or VirtualBox.

Win98 and WinME were real bad to me. Win2k was a blessing to work with.

no wonder you had problems, you use a way too modern machine for that, 2000 came out about 2000

I've had problems with GOG games on true hardware as well. Some of them you can strip the gog stuff out of and it will work, others they fiddle with stuff to run in their virtual box on modern hardware. I can say if you use the pure original Quake 2 form the cd or an iso of the original cd, you won't have any issues with it under Windows 2000.

If you try to run windows 2k on a cpu with no mmx,you can expect problems.

win2000 was the best windows imo ..i really loved it, since it was based on the NT Kernel it was much more stable than 98se and was highly compatible (what xp was not - it took long until games were actually playable on xp especially those using open gl [i guess that was the main issue])

Hi Phil. I want to apologize for being a bit rude with you on VOGONS. It is good to see you have taken my advice though. Windows 2000 is shit without sp4. I normally have to deal with all kinds of shit on the internet, with everybody having more lead than brains, so I am normally a bit abrasive, but it's never personal. I am also German, so I do tend to be very frank a lot of the time. Sorry again, TwoOfFive/Ampera

sata II (300) on a standard PCI card? i didnt think that was possible.....

Ich weiß ja, das du eher so PC affin bist und nicht so Laptop mäßig, aber weißt du zufällig wo man für alte Sony Vaio Laptops Treiber herbekommen kann? Weil Sony ja anscheind seine Treiber Platform abgeschaltet hat. Und Vaio selbst natürlich die alten Geräte vor 2014 nicht supportet. Bei mir geht es ganz speziell um den Sony Vaio PCG-F808K. Danke

I prefer Windows 2000 over Windows 98 SE or Windows ME.

My dad loves to rant about ribbion cables, he hates them for those weird wire glitches they would have. It was a common topic when I opened up the old xp machine, 17 years of dust and it looked better than the only 10 years on the vista machine (now running linux os's) which we for some reason had kept (and I now use like this)

It's a pity you ran in that much trouble with Win2000. I love that OS and used it well into the life of Win XP. And even today I use the classic Windows theme on Win 7 because I am so familiar with the Win 2000 look

I realize this video is ancient now, but Windows 2000 is a much better server and workstation OS than Me or 98. As for gaming, 98SE is a decent one. We still have some older backup servers running Windows 2000 SP4 that have had 12 years or more of uptime. They're being migrated over to Fedora 28 soon enough, but man, those are some really amazingly solid systems. Me is alright, I'd pass over it for 98SE any day. But we always had issues with it ruining other OS's on the same drive. Had a lot of just weird experiences with that one.

vista is the oldest os that nativly supports sata sometimes the cmos has a sata config mode