Agreed, basically the most incorrect thing I've ever read on the Internet. Windows 2000 was amazing.

Suggesting Windows 2000 gave him "no idea what modern operating systems were like" was pretty jarring too.... far from being "obsolete" it was only four years old at the time and from the perspective of the average user not stuck on a 486 lacked only a bit of UI gloss compared with the state-of-the-art XP. If nothing else, you'd expect he might be impressed at the progress the internet had made since 1999

That quote definitely doesn't make sense. Maybe he's thinking of Windows ME, widely regarded as being worse than 98? It's an odd thing to mix up for anyone familiar with the two.

Indeed after hearing about Windows 2000, I'm under the belief that it wasn't the OS at fault, but rather the horridly outdated and poorly maintained systems that the school was running it on. They never saw a defrag in their life, and took at least 10-15 minutes to book up, and even at that, doing anything was painfully slow. Should you accidentally hit the start button or run something, you were in for another painfully long wait.

I apologise to the Win 2000 fans. I never actually have tried it on a system in much greater health, but from what I've heard in the last few days, I'm sure it's not that bad, and guess I was just a bit mis-lead by the ridiculous systems they ran on.

I'm actually very willing to bet the school is still running those systems today.

Maybe it was because it was easier for the college to lock down the Windows 2000 workstations as opposed to the Windows 98 computers with Novell NetWare. I don't know, though, and I can't speak for the author. The story has more holes than swiss cheese. I honestly don't believe any of the account, but it is useful for bringing up nostalgia.

It shouldn't hurt your head. Windows 2000 marked a switch from the 95/98 line to the NT line and that created some compatibility problems in early days. The rest of this is subjective.