For the same reason I’m not still running 7…because you can’t actually stay on one version forever. I’m going to put the whole Linux thing aside because… Yeah, that’s a topic of its own and I think anyone with half a mind knows the reasons why Linux isn’t everyone’s first choice.
But at some point Win 10 will reach EOL and will stop receiving updates. It’ll stop receiving new versions of DirectX etc. People will stop making drivers for it. Software will start requiring things in newer versions of Windows, etc. The list goes on, but inevitably you have to update.
Luckily with Windows, you can usually skip one full release, but you can’t really make it past 2. Hence why I said 12. Am I crazy about the way 12 is shaping out? No. But you’d be crazy to think that you can just remain on 10 forever so I’m being realistic.
Also, Windows is well known to have a shitty even/odd cycle where every other release sucks and the alternating ones are less bad. So hopefully 12 will be the same. For example, 95 was really good, 98 was meh, XP was fantastic, ME/2000 are kind of a joke, Vista sucked, 7 was good enough, 8 was miserable, 10 was okay, 11 is awful… So if the pattern continues, 12 should be better than 11 at least.
I didn’t think this actually needed an answer but… Maybe I’m getting old and am too used to Microsofts cycles. Also, my point was “this isn’t a problem till 12” meaning, I’m not touching 11 so it doesn’t even matter till I start considering 12. Never said I was definitively doing it.
I did in fact use them. Most consumers didnt. Not really worth going to the in and out intricacies when the majority of people brushed past 2000 and never touched pro or had a need for server.
anyone who used NT4 and thought 2000pro was a bad drop is bonkers.
Also, I’m dubious of your experience because 2000 pro WAS window 2000. There was no ‘non pro’ - if you used windows 2000, every day you either saw it boot up saying windows 2000 Professional or Windows 2000 Server or Windows 2000 Advanced Server.
So you’re either misremembering, or kinda full of shit. Confusing it for Windows ME perhaps?
Here’s the summary for the wikipedia article you mentioned in your comment:
Windows 2000is a major release of the Windows NT operating system developed by Microsoft and designed for businesses. It was the direct successor to Windows NT 4.0, and was released to manufacturing on December 15, 1999, and was officially released to retail on February 17, 2000and September 26, 2000for Windows 2000 Datacenter Server. It was Microsoft's business operating system until the introduction of Windows XP Professional in 2001. Windows 2000 introduced NTFS 3.0, Encrypting File System, as well as basic and dynamic disk storage. Support for people with disabilities was improved over Windows NT 4.0 with a number of new assistive technologies, and Microsoft increased support for different languages and locale information. The Windows 2000 Server family has additional features, most notably the introduction of Active Directory, which in the years following became a widely used directory service in business environments. Four editions of Windows 2000 were released: Professional, Server, Advanced Server, and Datacenter Server; the latter was both released to manufacturing and launched months after the other editions. While each edition of Windows 2000 was targeted at a different market, they shared a core set of features, including many system utilities such as the Microsoft Management Console and standard system administration applications. Microsoft marketed Windows 2000 as the most secure Windows version ever at the time; however, it became the target of a number of high-profile virus attacks such as Code Red and Nimda. For ten years after its release, it continued to receive patches for security vulnerabilities nearly every month until reaching the end of support on July 13, 2010, the same day that support ended for Windows XP SP2.Windows 2000 and Windows 2000 Server were succeeded by Windows XP and Windows Server 2003, released in 2001 and 2003, respectively. Windows 2000 is the final version of Windows NT that supports PC-98, i486 and SGI Visual Workstation 320 and 540, as well as Alpha in alpha, beta, and release candidate versions. Its successor, Windows XP, only supports x86, x64 and Itanium processors.
Yeah, okay, so this was all just a “Omg just use Linux” type post.
Not everyone can conveniently just ditch a major OS for something with less support. Like I said before, there is a reason everyone isn’t just jumping ship for Linux. People have plenty of legitimate reasons for it from work, to time commitment, to driver support, required software that doesn’t support it, etc.
Good for you that you can switch and deal. Not everyone can. I’m not sure why so many Linux proponents are entirely fucking blind literally every possible reason that might keep someone off Linux and have to come fucking flying in on crusades on some fucking high horse of “Oooh, what peasants, of course everyone should just be switching to Linux!”
For the same reason I’m not still running 7…because you can’t actually stay on one version forever. I’m going to put the whole Linux thing aside because… Yeah, that’s a topic of its own and I think anyone with half a mind knows the reasons why Linux isn’t everyone’s first choice.
But at some point Win 10 will reach EOL and will stop receiving updates. It’ll stop receiving new versions of DirectX etc. People will stop making drivers for it. Software will start requiring things in newer versions of Windows, etc. The list goes on, but inevitably you have to update.
Luckily with Windows, you can usually skip one full release, but you can’t really make it past 2. Hence why I said 12. Am I crazy about the way 12 is shaping out? No. But you’d be crazy to think that you can just remain on 10 forever so I’m being realistic.
Also, Windows is well known to have a shitty even/odd cycle where every other release sucks and the alternating ones are less bad. So hopefully 12 will be the same. For example, 95 was really good, 98 was meh, XP was fantastic, ME/2000 are kind of a joke, Vista sucked, 7 was good enough, 8 was miserable, 10 was okay, 11 is awful… So if the pattern continues, 12 should be better than 11 at least.
I didn’t think this actually needed an answer but… Maybe I’m getting old and am too used to Microsofts cycles. Also, my point was “this isn’t a problem till 12” meaning, I’m not touching 11 so it doesn’t even matter till I start considering 12. Never said I was definitively doing it.
yeah someone never used nt4 would think that. gha.
Windows 2000 pro and server 2000 were enormous steps up in QOL and functionality.
I did in fact use them. Most consumers didnt. Not really worth going to the in and out intricacies when the majority of people brushed past 2000 and never touched pro or had a need for server.
anyone who used NT4 and thought 2000pro was a bad drop is bonkers.
Also, I’m dubious of your experience because 2000 pro WAS window 2000. There was no ‘non pro’ - if you used windows 2000, every day you either saw it boot up saying windows 2000 Professional or Windows 2000 Server or Windows 2000 Advanced Server.
So you’re either misremembering, or kinda full of shit. Confusing it for Windows ME perhaps?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_2000
Here’s the summary for the wikipedia article you mentioned in your comment:
Windows 2000 is a major release of the Windows NT operating system developed by Microsoft and designed for businesses. It was the direct successor to Windows NT 4.0, and was released to manufacturing on December 15, 1999, and was officially released to retail on February 17, 2000 and September 26, 2000 for Windows 2000 Datacenter Server. It was Microsoft's business operating system until the introduction of Windows XP Professional in 2001. Windows 2000 introduced NTFS 3.0, Encrypting File System, as well as basic and dynamic disk storage. Support for people with disabilities was improved over Windows NT 4.0 with a number of new assistive technologies, and Microsoft increased support for different languages and locale information. The Windows 2000 Server family has additional features, most notably the introduction of Active Directory, which in the years following became a widely used directory service in business environments. Four editions of Windows 2000 were released: Professional, Server, Advanced Server, and Datacenter Server; the latter was both released to manufacturing and launched months after the other editions. While each edition of Windows 2000 was targeted at a different market, they shared a core set of features, including many system utilities such as the Microsoft Management Console and standard system administration applications. Microsoft marketed Windows 2000 as the most secure Windows version ever at the time; however, it became the target of a number of high-profile virus attacks such as Code Red and Nimda. For ten years after its release, it continued to receive patches for security vulnerabilities nearly every month until reaching the end of support on July 13, 2010, the same day that support ended for Windows XP SP2.Windows 2000 and Windows 2000 Server were succeeded by Windows XP and Windows Server 2003, released in 2001 and 2003, respectively. Windows 2000 is the final version of Windows NT that supports PC-98, i486 and SGI Visual Workstation 320 and 540, as well as Alpha in alpha, beta, and release candidate versions. Its successor, Windows XP, only supports x86, x64 and Itanium processors.to opt out, pm me ‘optout’. article | about
At some point I’d think you would have left windows behind for most daily tasks. I left around 20 years ago and haven’t had a problem at all.
Yeah, okay, so this was all just a “Omg just use Linux” type post.
Not everyone can conveniently just ditch a major OS for something with less support. Like I said before, there is a reason everyone isn’t just jumping ship for Linux. People have plenty of legitimate reasons for it from work, to time commitment, to driver support, required software that doesn’t support it, etc.
Good for you that you can switch and deal. Not everyone can. I’m not sure why so many Linux proponents are entirely fucking blind literally every possible reason that might keep someone off Linux and have to come fucking flying in on crusades on some fucking high horse of “Oooh, what peasants, of course everyone should just be switching to Linux!”
Fuck off with your condescending bullshit.
I use macOS.
Same problems, different name, and some new problems thrown in on top. Moving along.
Such as?