1. 11
  1. 8

    As much as I love 2000 (great mouthfeel, last time Microsoft felt like they were firing on all cylinders), all these guides feel like the schizophrenic ramblings of teenagers with too much free time. I know things and this just feels like Pepe Silvia-esque cargo culting.

    And even if I did somehow follow all this, I still wouldn’t really have a working browser nor tools I’d need like Zoom. I still love to mess with Windows 2000, but it’s just not a daily driver anymore. Let it go.

    1. 4

      I tend to agree but I can absolutely see a use case of keeping a VM with just that one version of Office (you like, or own, or whatever) installed, if that is what you want to use and installing it locally or WINE is not a solution.

      Also this isn’t as far-fetched as you’d think, I’ve had this one version of Office 2000 still installed on my parents’ computers until at least 2010-2015ish, and I personally hate the newer versions, whereas that one was kinda ok.

      1. 3

        Yeah, I absolutely use VMs extensively - they’re the best option for running fickle old software. I just don’t do this wacky kernel patching for newer API thing that requires slipstreaming or whatever.

        1. 2

          Slipstreaming has been kinda common back then even when it was current (I think I did it for XP and 7 myself, not sure about 2000) and I don’t find the task or time investment overly much for this kind of undertaking.

          1. 2

            I think there’s two different things here:

            • The guide is suggesting slipstreaming updates, presumably because they can’t get Windows 2000 to talk to Windows Update anymore (TLS version, SHA256 signing, etc.)
            • Actual kernel patching in this guide happens by installing something later, and isn’t using slipstreaming. Back then there’s no driver signing/patchguard requirements, so kernel mode is freely manipulable without needing magic tricks.

            As much as I love the Windows 2000 UI, XP is more practical in a VM today. It still has DOS support, runs apps quite a few years newer (without kernel patching), has an extra 9 years of updates if you include POSready, and things like Windows Update can be made to work.

        2. 1

          I almost always install my own Dutch copy of office 2003 in Wine, just because that’s the version of office in most productive in and grew up with.

        3. 4

          What happened to having fun? :-)

          I wouldn’t do it either, yet I am the kind of lobster who likes to play with other old OSes where I can’t get a working browser, let alone Zoom.

          Still I suggested the removal of the historical tag, since Windows 2000 does “happen to be old”.

          1. 3

            I like having fun, but these guides are for people deluded into thinking they can use it as a daily driver.

            1. 4

              I didn’t read it as a recommendation to do that, or any kind of zealotry to try to persuade people to follow that - simply instructions. That said, there’s no need for ad hominems, even if they would advise to do this as a daily driver. The very headline “Retrocomputing” plus “So, you want to use Windows 2000 in 2021?” could be read as “..at all”.

            2. 2

              ReactOS also runs old Windows software quite well, and it’s free software that is getting improved (even if slowly). I find that project much more fun to play with and participate in than performing necromantic rituals with old proprietary OSes.

          2. 2

            This is great - I will recommend it at $DAYJOB! We still run Windows 2000 Server in production.

            :-(

            1. 2

              OMG Windows 2000 was the best version. It took XP time to drag this version from me. Then it mostly went downhill.