Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Windows XP on PowerPC?
- Thread starter supremeleader573
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Interesting take. Windows 2000 is regarded as one of the most stable operating systems of all time.
I agree. WinNT 2000 was an awesome OS.
Did I say 2000? I meant 98, sorry. It was late and I was tired when I wrote that >.>
Agreed. Windows (Server) 2003 is where it's at.
I wouldn't say XP is less stable than 98. XP is miles better than 98 in every way. I grew up on 98, my grandmother (who got me into computers in the first place) would still use 98 today if she could get away with it. I hated it. My dad had XP at the time and it was so much better.
I will agree that I like 2000 over XP, but definitely XP over 98.
My opinion of Windows stability goes something like this
Code:
7>2003>2000>Vista>8.1>XP>10>8.0>NT4.0>98SE>ME>95I liked NT 3.51. Horrible UI but a solid OS. You can even run Office 97 on it - now that's fun. 
Yep, when it froze on my laptop, a friend was shocked because of the rarity.
By Microsoft standards, definitely - especially given its in-house predecessors.
For me, Douglas Adams sums it up:
Which is why during the mid to late 90s, I was bemused at the reaction of "A Mac? Eurgh!" from grown adults whenever I recommended the Mac as a replacement to their DOS/Win boxes. I still encounter these attitudes today but nowhere near as much.
That is indeed the case
What I was trying to say is that you’d have to rewrite every single driver and even write new ones to make use of your hardware
Ok, cool. I thought that might be what you were trying to say, but I wasn't entirely sureThat is indeed the case
What I was trying to say is that you’d have to rewrite every single driver and even write new ones to make use of your hardware
Ah, good point. Being on an NT base definitely helps stability. I largely agree with your assessment of stability although my experience with 10 seems to be better than the average user experience.
You can use a 64 bit distro if there is a package for the 32 bit libs, which will allow you to run not only Wine but also other 32 bit software, assuming the distros have some sort of compatibility. I don't know what "Linux Subsystem for Windows" is, I am referring to a direct install.
As for PPCs, Wine may indeed not work, I'm a PPC Linux noob, I don't know.
SBS 2003 is still Windows 2003... They’re all the same OS with different feature sets. Except for web and standard having lower CPU and Memory limits.
When you’re using 2003 as a desktop OS none of that really matters. Enterprise and Data Center are still the best ones. The only thing SBS had going for it was it’s easier to set up. I never found Windows Server hard to set up in the first place though.
Easier to set up?
I was fortunate that I never had to set it up at work. It was all set up at the time I got there. I did have to redo everything at one point, but we'd already moved on to a Win 2012 server by that point and this was mainly a backup.
But as automated as that process went, I wouldn't have called it 'easy'. But, I've never been an IT person, it just defaulted to me at the small businesses I worked for.
Nope. Server 2003 Appliance Edition rules coz that's what my fridge runs
IMO the best version ever was Windows 2000. It's very stable in my experiences. Plus 7 looks way too much like Vista for me to ever like.
I guess for me, the best Windows release would be one that looks like Windows 2000, has support for 16, 32, and 64 bit Windows executables (and can run any installer needed) and has complete backward compatibility with DOS applications.
Now the 16, 32, and 64-bit thing would be a bit of a challenge, but only a bit. Windows uses what is effectively a dos virtual machine known as NTVDM to run 16-bit apps in 32-bit versions of Windows. They can't use it with 64-bit versions because of the way x86 gets to 64-bit, it never actually supports all 3 at once. Instead it flips 16-bit to 64-bit, if memory serves.
However, that doesn't mean people haven't worked around some of that.
GitHub - otya128/winevdm: 16-bit Windows (Windows 1.x, 2.x, 3.0, 3.1, etc.) on 64-bit Windows
16-bit Windows (Windows 1.x, 2.x, 3.0, 3.1, etc.) on 64-bit Windows - otya128/winevdm
github.com
There's very strong indications that 64-bit Windows 2000 existed on Alpha and Itanium. I'd die to get my hands on it.
Last edited:
Yeah, that would probably be the hardest part. I have found a little executable that allows you to run MS-DOS programs on 64 bit Windows however. I'll have to check out that link you sent.Now the 16, 32, and 64-bit thing would be a bit of a challenge, but only a bit. Windows uses what is effectively a dos virtual machine known as NTVDM to run 16-bit apps in 32-bit versions of Windows. They can't use it with 64-bit versions because of the way x86 gets to 64-bit, it never actually supports all 3 at once. Instead it flips 16-bit to 64-bit, if memory serves.
However, that doesn't mean people haven't worked around some of that.
GitHub - otya128/winevdm: 16-bit Windows (Windows 1.x, 2.x, 3.0, 3.1, etc.) on 64-bit Windows
16-bit Windows (Windows 1.x, 2.x, 3.0, 3.1, etc.) on 64-bit Windows - otya128/winevdm
Ooooo, that would be epic.
The problem is by the time Itanium boxes were finally shipping in limited quantities in 2001, XP64 was in beta so no one cared about 2000 anymore.
Gosh, I remember spending hours and hours in EDIT perfectly fine-tuning autoexec.bat and config.sys on my main 98SE box to tailor everything exactly to my liking so that I could exit a Windows session and enter Real DOS mode to play games with the hardware configured correctly for that environment.
If you desire the Win 2k aesthetic, XP to Win 7 (I haven't tried the later releases) have the option to change the UI to the Windows Classic/Basic theme. After installing XP, that was one of the first things I did and beyond looking far more pleasing to my eye, it also freed-up considerable CPU cycles.
Ooooh yes. I used a menu that allowed me to select between several configurations.
You still have to do something about the icons though. For XP there's this lovely patch:
Inexperience Patcher 0.7.2 by vertigosity on DeviantArt
www.deviantart.com
That's too badThe problem is by the time Itanium boxes were finally shipping in limited quantities in 2001, XP64 was in beta so no one cared about 2000 anymore.
Ah, honestly I do the same (just look at my XP screenshot in the September desktop screenshot thread)Gosh, I remember spending hours and hours in EDIT perfectly fine-tuning autoexec.bat and config.sys on my main 98SE box to tailor everything exactly to my liking so that I could exit a Windows session and enter Real DOS mode to play games with the hardware configured correctly for that environment.
If you desire the Win 2k aesthetic, XP to Win 7 (I haven't tried the later releases) have the option to change the UI to the Windows Classic/Basic theme. After installing XP, that was one of the first things I did and beyond looking far more pleasing to my eye, it also freed-up considerable CPU cycles.
Thank you! I'll look into that :3You still have to do something about the icons though. For XP there's this lovely patch:
Inexperience Patcher 0.7.2 by vertigosity on DeviantArt