[smackeyacky]

I get the nostalgia for XP, it was the first windows consumer edition that didn’t suck, but for a server OS 2000 was so lean and easy to manage it makes me wonder how MS lost to Linux. Back then, it was a genuine competition, now you’d have to be crazy to choose windows to deploy anything.

[p_ing]

Windows Server still has it's place. AD DS, file services, and SQL Server being the big ones. Linux doesn't have apps that do these things 'better'.

[EvanAnderson]

I wish MSFT could build Active Directory and the associated constellation of services on Linux. You can make a reasonable simulacrum with Samba but it isn't as well-integrated.

(My fever dream wish is for a "distribution" of NT that boots in text mode and has an updated Interix subsystem alongside Win32. Throw in ZFS and it would be awesome.)

[p_ing]

An NT that boots into text mode wouldn't be terribly useful for software designed for NT today given the high dependency on UI libraries.

I too wish for an NT that was CLI-only, striped of services as much as possible.

     Starting Windows NT...
     
     C:\>

It's too bad Microsoft has no interest as a business in on-prem software.

[EvanAnderson]

Server Core is close to what you're talking about re: CLI only.

I agree re: MSFT having no interest in on-prem software. It saddens me.

[p_ing]

Core isn't close. It's still a graphical interface.

[EvanAnderson]

I guess I misread you, then. I thought you were arguing that a text mode wouldn't be useful. That's why I suggested Server Core. It's CLI, but uselessly framed in a GUI framework.

Like I said in my earlier post, text mode NT is my fever dream fantasy. Maybe you were saying the same thing.

[genewitch]

i never used windows XP, i went from 2000 pro to XP x64 edition, which came out 2 years after XP did.

[Hnrobert42]

Maybe, but Win 3.1 was good for me.