top | item 43214908

(no title)

natnatenathan | 1 year ago

Ha, I worked on that project. That drove a lot of good requirements into Windows that set us up for web based services (eventually)

discuss

order

p_ing|1 year ago

Are you free to expand upon your role and perhaps some of the actual tech/fixes that made it back into Windows?

slt2021|1 year ago

Seriously, Windows 2000 was one of the most stable OS back in the day, rock solid. I used 2000 server as a desktop OS, instead of 98.

unlike shit show that was windows 95/98/ME

Arech|1 year ago

While I don't disagree with that, in my experience all Windows instability on WinNT family (and I tightly worked with all end user versions of Win from 16 bit W3.11 to the recent Win11 with a very few exceptions) are caused by faulty hardware and/or bad drivers that can't handle it. I don't think I could remember any issue that I can't attribute to bad HW/3rd party driver.

Wrt Win95 & it's kind - all processes in that family essentially run in a single address space, and data "isolation" were "achieved" only through obscurity. If you knew some magic constants that were easily obtainable from disassembly, you could do anything there. So no wonder it was as bad as the worst program you've installed..

smackeyacky|1 year ago

Windows 2000 server was peak windows. All the subsequent versions just got harder to maintain as they gradually ruined the user interface. Nobody cares about the UI on consumer windows but if you’re spending a lot of time in RDP the vista based server products are terrible.

I don’t hate windows 2019 but Linux is better, easier, faster and a relief after any futile attempts to use IIS or sql server in 2025.

globular-toast|1 year ago

I went from 98 to 2000 (rather than ME) and it was an amazing experience. It showed me what an operating system could be like. Of course, what I really wanted was Linux, but I didn't know better at the time.

cobbaut|1 year ago

> Seriously, Windows 2000 was one of the most stable OS back in the day, rock solid. I used 2000 server as a desktop OS, instead of 98.

Really? Oh, compared to other Windows versions...

Because it never came close to the stability of OS/400, Netware 3, AIX, Solaris or even OS/2 v2.

UltraSane|1 year ago

So it is one of the most successful examples of dogfooding in history?

DaiPlusPlus|1 year ago

> Windows that set us up for web based services (eventually)

...and then .NET and SQL Server started shipping for Linux.

tharkun__|1 year ago

SQL Server is really Sybase tho, which was always capable of running on UNIX.

Can't say much more, but I worked on a huge (internal) Sybase ASE on Linux based app (you've _all_ bought products administered on this app ;) ) way back (yes, pre-SSD, multi path fiber I/O to get things fast, failover etc.) and T-SQL is really nice, as is/was ASE and the replication server. Been about 20 years tho, so who knows.

chupasaurus|1 year ago

There are 2 decades between those 2 points, .NET was -4 y.o. at the first one.