31 Jul
2024
31 Jul
'24
12:25 p.m.
On Wed, 31 Jul 2024 at 06:14, Jim Brain via cctalk
<cctalk(a)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.
Windows 2000 used the same UI as Windows ME: it's a modified updated
version of the "Active Desktop" from Windows 98.
Thus, I believe the UI hate evaporated before Windows
XP.
Agreed.
I remember using 3.1, 4.0, and 2000.
I deployed all of them in production.
As I recall, I loved the stability
of 3.1, but the UI was old and outdated, especially when 95 came out.
Agreed.
4.0 offered the nicer UI, but the driver situation was
still a problem,
compared to the better driver support for Windows 95/98.
True. Also, no Plug'n'Play, no ACPI, no USB, no FAT32.
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.
and Windows XP was the first unified OS
It wasn't really "unified" in any way. That was marketing spiel.
and the
first with a 64 bit variant.
Kinda sorta yes, but it was not 64-bit at release.
First an Itanium version came out a year or so later, then a year or
so after that, an AMD64 version followed.
--
Liam Proven ~ Profile: https://about.me/liamproven
Email: lproven(a)cix.co.uk ~ gMail/gTalk/FB: lproven(a)gmail.com
Twitter/LinkedIn: lproven ~ Skype: liamproven
IoM: (+44) 7624 277612: UK: (+44) 7939-087884
Czech [+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal]: (+420) 702-829-053