Windows 2000 certainly had all the same support for fast graphics graphics as Windows XP. Plenty of gamers actually preferred Win2k over XP because it was lighter weight and could deliver better frame rates under some circumstances.
Mike On Wed, Jul 31, 2024, 10:06 AM cz via cctalk <cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > Windows NT and 2000 did not have the "cut through" ability for apps to > talk to video without going through security proxies, thus games were > always terrible on them. > > Windows XP was the first OS (well aside from Windows 95/ME/whatever) > that allowed fast access. This made it a security sinkhole, but everyone > loved it and that's why it was adopted as the standard for so long. > > C > > On 7/31/2024 9:57 AM, Jim Brain via cctalk wrote: > > On 7/31/2024 7:25 AM, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote: > >> On Wed, 31 Jul 2024 at 06:14, Jim Brain via cctalk > >> <cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > >>> In the interest of facts, I don't think this is correct. > >>> > >>> Windows NT 3.1 utilized the Windows 3.1 UI look and feel > >>> > >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT_3.1 > >>> > >>> Windows NT 3.5 continued the 3.1 look and feel. > >>> > >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT_3.5 > >> OK, true but misses out a major release, the best one of NT 3.x. > >> > >> I think it would be simpler to say: > >> > >> NT 3.1, 3.5 and 3.51 used the Windows 3.1 UI. > >> > >> NT 4 used the Windows 95 UI. > > I was trying to be a bit pedantic, since I was correcting information in > > the previous posting. I honestly did not remember 3.51, and I was not > > sure if 4 used the WIn95 UI or a facsimile of it built from some of the > > same source. > >> > >> Windows 2000 used the same UI as Windows ME: it's a modified updated > >> version of the "Active Desktop" from Windows 98. > > I was not aware (or, maybe I was, but it's been long enough I forgot) > >> > >>> Windows 2000 > >>> was supposed to unify the OS variants, but it didn't quite make it > >>> (though I think W2K moved the graphics subsystem into the kernel for > >>> better performance), > >> No, that was NT4. > > > > I think you're referring to the GFX subsystem move, and I stand > > corrected. If you're referring to NT 4 being the unified OS, I would > > disagree. > > > >>> and Windows XP was the first unified OS > >> It wasn't really "unified" in any way. That was marketing spiel. > > A poor choice of words. I did not mean to imply the code was merged, > > but that they had tried to offer feature parity in the WinNT tech. > > > > > > Jim > > >
