244
5 reasons why desktop Linux is finally growing in popularity
(www.zdnet.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Apr 2024
244 points (93.9% liked)
Linux Gaming
15352 readers
67 users here now
Discussions and news about gaming on the GNU/Linux family of operating systems (including the Steam Deck). Potentially a $HOME away from home for disgruntled /r/linux_gaming denizens of the redditarian demesne.
This page can be subscribed to via RSS.
Original /r/linux_gaming pengwing by uoou.
Resources
WWW:
Discord:
IRC:
Matrix:
Telegram:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The last objectively good Microsoft OS that didn't have any significant user-hostile features was Windows 2000, IMO. Windows 7 -- specifically, before invasive "telemetry[sic]" started getting backported to it from 10 -- was just the last version before the hostility got bad enough to get me to switch.
Hard agree. Windows 2000 was rock solid, reasonably lightweight and had no shenanigans going on in the background. It's EOL (edit: actually I think it might have been a specific version of directx only being supported on XP maybe) was one of the things that pushed me to Linux.
That and the native Linux Unreal Tournament 2004.
Besides the backported bullshit from windows 10 (which could be removed, admittedly, you'd have to know it was there, and which package to uninstall..so not exactly newbie friendly), what was hostile about windows 7?
I used it from release day until EOL and I found it to be the best version of windows ever and the pinnacle of the platform, before it started taking a hard drive with Windows 8 and fell off the cliff with 10/11.
Windows 10/11 is why I'm on linux now, and on linux to stay.
"Activation," same as XP and Vista. That's why I said 2000 was the last "good" version with no hostile features at all: it was the last version (except for ME, which wasn't "good") that didn't require activation.
ROFL
Okay, let me rephrase: to the extent that any Microsoft OS could be described as "objectively good," Windows 2000 was the last one of them.
Okay, let me rephrase for you: in choosing which of Microsoft's stinking piles of shit was the least stinky, some people chose Windows 2000. However, most people just left the stinky area and didn't look back.
You do realize I was conceding your point, right? You don't have to be a jerk about it.
Windows 2000 was a good operating system by any measure. It was rock solid, capable, well-supported, could scale from desktop to large enterprise deployments and everything in between, reasonably secure compared to their previous operating systems, etc. I never did like Microsoft operating systems, but Windows 2000 was actually good. It was a breath of fresh air at the time. We had NT 4, which was stable and reliable, but was limited by a lack of DirectX and became cumbersome in large deployments. Then we had Windows 95/98/ME, which was the garbage that crashed all the time.
ROFL