Hacker News Reader

Actually XP was a slight modification over 2000, specially graphically. Hence the version naming 5.0 and 5.1.

I remember Microsoft held back updates to Windows 2000 to force people to upgrade.

I remember USB and wifi support in particular being painful. When I finally had to cave in, I was not happy.

How times have changed indeed :)

Still Windows 2000 was more oriented to servers (which btw was the main business for the NT line until XP). You could easily mistake an XP for 2000 if you removed the skinning.

I removed all the graphical changes for performance reasons on older boxes. People thought it was Windows 2000 as you said.

I ran 2k until i wanted to do a hardware upgrade, and the install didn't like the new motherboard (yes i switched the driver on the disk controller). Tried to get XP going, and ran into some complications. Said "fuck this!" and reached for a Linux distro...

I think situation was kind of the same with Vista and 7. Lots of the groundwork was laid in the first release but the later one was the more polished one that got the big sales.

Nope, Vista is 6.0 and 7 is, well, 7.0.

It's 6.1, you can look at the build version. The same thing as 2000 and XP

You're right, sir, I remembered wrong. In fact I was even stunned back then lol.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com