sure but can you play all titles?

Yes, it "manners".

Hi wuddih!

NT and 2000 have not many visual or structural differences. 2000 was basically NT 4.1 with ported multimedia/entertainment programs from 98.

Yeah. What part of my "2000 - great, user friendly NT, XP precursor" was confusing? The part where I said it was great? Or that it was a user friendly version of NT? Or how it hinted at the coming greatness that was XP?

so no clue what your comment on that should say, you probably never used any of those version really.

Well this is awkward. I've been using computers since 1980. That was 5 years before the very first (awful) version of Windows. When Windows finally did come out, it was sold in Color and Black&White versions. Haha, computers were a different beast back then.

What I'm saying is 1) I'm like super old, and 2) you probably shouldn't make assumptions about people.

and if you used all those version, you should know that the only version that had a nearly flawless introduction and most less problems at start was 2000, every other version was a mess at first.

You're definitely remembering history differently that I am. XP's release was everything they could have wanted from 2000 that wasn't. 2000 didn't get adopted by people, because although it was a step towards general-purpose everyday use (built on the rock-solid NT foundation used by business), it was being sold alongside ME (built on the shaky DOS-Frontend Windows). ME was for consumers, so who was 2000 FOR? Nobody knew, so nobody bought it. Both 2000 and ME flopped at release, but 2000's flop wasn't for technical reasons. XP was rushed out the door the next year.

second to that is win8,

Whoa whoa whoa. Are you saying (and I want to make sure I'm completely correct on this) that

Windows 8 had the second most flawless release in Windows history?

Yeah, no. You're definitely remembering history, even very recent history quite differently than I am.

win7 had more compatibility issues.

Everything about this statement is factually incorrect. VISTA had boatloads of compatibility issues, and WIN8 had boatloads of compatibility issues. Win7 was nearly as flawless a release as XP. Both had the benefit of being built on technically-great-but-flawed predecessors, 2000 and Vista.

but in long-term any version was superior then its predecessor. If I had a gun pointed to my head and I had to choose between Vista and XP, I would choose the better option, Vista.

Vista is technically superior to XP. XP has deep fundamental problems that stayed pretty hidden until 64-bit computing. The broken memory model in XP alone is something no right-minded person (with more than 2 gigs of RAM) would put up with in this day and age. Not to mention the security model turning XP into a hotbed of viruses.

Vista had a dumbed down UI compared to XP's all-access-pass. Vista's security model, while intended to fix XP's horrendous barely-existent one, was itself full of flaws. And Vista's improved security model led to awful driver compatibility, which lead to instability and crashes. Vista was a misstep in the right direction. Win7 was where they finally got it right.

But see, nobody is going to hold a gun to your head and make you choose between XP and Vista. Because Win7 exists now, and is superior to both.

people saying win8 is shit,

Only people that have seen it or used it, and who know about computers.

reduce it simply to its optional tile ui and the missing start button.

No. Metro apps take full-screen. You can't multitask. YOU CAN'T MULTITASK IN WINDOWS! That's absurd. It makes no sense.

The missing start button is a side-effect of the awful, slow, harder-to-navigate Metro tiles. More about pretty than work. Fine for a toy, not fine for a workstation.

the button is back

It isn't, but continue.

yeah. but it's

"its". An apostrophe doesn't mean "Look out, here comes an S!". Do you put apostrophes in other possessive pronouns? Hi's? Her's? You probably do say "her's", knowing you.

previous functionality is gone and that is good.

It isn't, but it may be too much for me to expect you to understand why.

Why would it not run? I think it must be something else causing problems.

First I use windows 7 and it works perfectly so the problem is not the platform but your computer and second actually on steam official FAQ the only windows versions it is listed as supporting are XP, Vista and 7.

he just googled a old news from the alpha release to respond this topic

I'll tell you what I'm talking about: my own experience, so calm down. Win 98 was shit, I agree, but XP simpy destroyed my systems. Good for you, that it worked better on your PCs. For me it was a nightmare.

P.S. never tried NT though