3 Aug
2004
3 Aug
'04
6:09 a.m.
"David V. Corbin" wrote:
On Tue, 3 Aug 2004, Bert Thomas wrote:
Quite true for Windows 3.1, 3.11 95, 98. [i.e.
NOT an OS]
Not true NT3.51, NT4.0, 2000, 2003. [i.e. Validly called an OS]
Debatable for XP, ME
Why debatable for XP, ME? They are based on NT as
well, aren't they?
XP IS a version of NT, not just "based on it" (2000 IS NT5, XP would have
been NT6)
NT ("New Technology", or "Not Today") was a mix of OS/2 code (written
at
M-word by Gordon Letwin), and code that Cutler brought with him from DEC.
ME ("Millenium Edition") is the next (and LAST) version of
W-word 9x (95,98,ME)
95 was DOS 7.00 bundled (integrated) with W-word 4.00
M-word tried to switch their customers over to NT, with [false]
statements that Win2K was "the best of 9x AND NT" - it wasn't,
it was JUST NT. That didn't work, and they relented and brought
out one more version of 9x ("ME"). Then they tried again, and
forced their customers to switch to NT in the form of XP.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com