On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 13:24:57 -0500, Nil
wrote:
On 26 Jan 2015, Sam E wrote in
alt.home.repair:
What number would Windows ME be?
BTW, it seems like another 9x, even though it's supposedly later
than 2000.
Windows ME was the last in the line of OSs that began with DOS and
included Windows 95 and 98.
Parallel to the DOS-based Windows was the "NT" product line. It was
descended from Microsoft-IBM's joint OS/2 product. The first released
version was NT 3.1, then Windows 2000, then Windows XP, and so on.
The end of the DOS-based OSs overlapped the beginning of the NT-based
OSs. The naming conventions are pretty arbitrary and have little to do
with the order they were released.
I actually thought Windows ME was released in 1999, but I looked it up.
http://www.theguardian.com/technolog...dows-1-to-wind
ows-10-29-years-of-windows-evolution
It was released in 2000, as well as Windows 2000.
I suppose this is what caused problems using the year as the release
name. Even though Win ME could have been called Windows 99 and no one
would have complained, since it was developed in 99.
Windows ME and Windows 2000 was where MS sort of forked or branched off
in two directions. Win2000 was supposed to be more for businesses while
WinME was for home.
Just my opinion, but it would seem that MS released both of them in
2000, just to make more sales, because WinME was a poor attempt at
upgrading Win98SE, and Win2000 was based on NT and was their "new
direction". But WinME contained both the code from Win98se and some NT
as well. MS could (and should) have spent a little more time developing
their new OS and just released one STABLE version. Because WinME was
unstable, while Win2000 was fairly stable, but lacked the tie to Win98.
As it says in that webline (above), WinME was Microsofts biggest failure
(at that time), but later Vista was even worse. It almost seems like
every other version of Windows has been dud ever since after Windows
98.....
I guess they're too fast on the trigger to make another release and thus
more sales....