Windows NT was much more robust, and had greater system requirements. It also had compatibility issues with games and DOS mode stuff, especially if you used NTFS. With Windows 2000, true preemptive resource segregation would (mostly) be part of Windows entire lineup.
i don’t recall those- but i remember being excited when windows XP came along- We went from windows ME (Yuck) to XP and thought it was just the bees knees- We resisted making the switch to 7 later on, but then got to like it quite a bit when we did-
My neighbour got into windows 2000- then eventually got XP- He liked 2000 quite a bit- We never got that version-
Windows certainly has gone through a lot of growing pains- Wish they had stuck with 7 personally- or at least gave folks option of continuing with it and developing it alongside 10- I still use 7 as my gaming computer and photography/photoshop- but now use linux- as my daily online os- i dual boot now- best of both worlds-
Do have laptop with windows 10- meh- it’s ok i guess- but only because i make it look like 7
Actually, the magic of Win2K was integrating Win9x plug and play (or plug and pray as we used to say) with the NT kernel.
It was not a small feet. NT kernel was meant for business applications where the hardware would be specified form birth to death.
Win2K revolutionized this idea -— and it really was the bomb at the time.
Not that NT4 was bad, but it had a lot of crutches to get the consumer hardware to work with it at the time.