Windows 7 Forums
Welcome to Windows 7 Forums. Our forum is dedicated to helping you find support and solutions for any problems regarding your Windows 7 PC be it Dell, HP, Acer, Asus or a custom build. We also provide an extensive Windows 7 tutorial section that covers a wide range of tips and tricks.


Windows 7: do you believe in... rumors?

13 Sep 2010   #41

Microsoft Community Contributor Award Recipient

Win 7 Home Premium 64bit Ver 6.1.7600 Build 7601 - SP1
 
 

Good!

If you or anyone does a search on Norman Rockwell You can find just 'bout anything on "human nature"
There is even a "Mad" magazine cover. Done by Gaines of'course.

His prints run from the 9 teens to the early to mid 70's of the past century.

Norman Rockwell - Saturday Evening Post Covers

Norman Rockwell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
My System SpecsSystem Spec
14 Sep 2010   #42

Win 7 X32
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by cluberti View Post
So, 95, 98, NT4, 2000, and XP were all screw-ups? Exchange, SQL, Sharepoint, etc - all screwups? Also, without Vista you would not have Windows 7, and without WinME we would not have had Windows XP.... So, unpopular, yes - but screw ups? No.
actually without win 98 and win 2000 we would not have had xp. me microsoft tried to forget about.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
14 Sep 2010   #43

Windows 7 Home Premium x64
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by geekfreak View Post
Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by cluberti View Post
So, 95, 98, NT4, 2000, and XP were all screw-ups? Exchange, SQL, Sharepoint, etc - all screwups? Also, without Vista you would not have Windows 7, and without WinME we would not have had Windows XP.... So, unpopular, yes - but screw ups? No.
actually without win 98 and win 2000 we would not have had xp. me microsoft tried to forget about.
You can't possibly know that for sure. EVERY version of Windows has been a step in development, take any one of them out of the equation it will affect the others, not necessarily in a good way. ME and Vista were both mistakes that MS needed to learn from. No mistakes, no learning.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
14 Sep 2010   #44

Win 7 X32
 
 

2000 was brought out as an experiment to see if they could get home users to bite into nt. on the windows side of things me was being pushed. in correct order 2000 was a hybrid of 98 and nt. xp was create from the things microsoft learned from their mistakes with 2000.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
14 Sep 2010   #45

Windows 7 Pro. 64/SP-1
 
 

I have been trying to think of some thing that has been manufactured that is worth having that hasn't been updated or improved. Can't think of any thing. It's the same way with operating systems. We now have a new and improved operating system and it's called Windows 7. I'm looking forward to Windows 8.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
14 Sep 2010   #46

Windows Server 2008 R2
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by geekfreak View Post
2000 was brought out as an experiment to see if they could get home users to bite into nt. on the windows side of things me was being pushed. in correct order 2000 was a hybrid of 98 and nt. xp was create from the things microsoft learned from their mistakes with 2000.
2000 wasn't an experiment, it was the platform for AD. It just mattered that businesses tended to run 9x on their machines, rather than NT4, for the most part because NT4 was a PITA to get hardware working in, whereas with plug and pray 9x was far easier. 2000 was business-oriented, pure and simple; it was *not* designed for consumers, in any way, even if some of them purchased and used it. XP was the bite at the consumer NT, not 2000.

Make no mistake, though - 2000 was simply a platform to get AD in, and Novell out (and it worked). If Microsoft thought NT4 would do it, it would have used that instead. 2000 had plug and pray and a decent interface because otherwise, all you had was another NT4, which had a higher TCO than Win9x due to maintenance overhead and the frustration that was making sure your hardware was on the HCL. Win9x and AD security/permissions/delegation don't necessarily play well together, either, so they *had* to make something that would be appealing to businesses, and look! It's NT4 with Plug and Play!
My System SpecsSystem Spec
18 Sep 2010   #47

Win 7 X32
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by cluberti View Post
Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by geekfreak View Post
2000 was brought out as an experiment to see if they could get home users to bite into nt. on the windows side of things me was being pushed. in correct order 2000 was a hybrid of 98 and nt. xp was create from the things microsoft learned from their mistakes with 2000.
2000 wasn't an experiment, it was the platform for AD. It just mattered that businesses tended to run 9x on their machines, rather than NT4, for the most part because NT4 was a PITA to get hardware working in, whereas with plug and pray 9x was far easier. 2000 was business-oriented, pure and simple; it was *not* designed for consumers, in any way, even if some of them purchased and used it. XP was the bite at the consumer NT, not 2000.

Make no mistake, though - 2000 was simply a platform to get AD in, and Novell out (and it worked). If Microsoft thought NT4 would do it, it would have used that instead. 2000 had plug and pray and a decent interface because otherwise, all you had was another NT4, which had a higher TCO than Win9x due to maintenance overhead and the frustration that was making sure your hardware was on the HCL. Win9x and AD security/permissions/delegation don't necessarily play well together, either, so they *had* to make something that would be appealing to businesses, and look! It's NT4 with Plug and Play!
2000 was an experiment. it was created to see if microsoft could get consumers to buy into nt(which xp, vista, and 7 all are) as their home operating system.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
18 Sep 2010   #48

Windows 7 Home Premium x64
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by geekfreak View Post
Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by cluberti View Post
Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by geekfreak View Post
2000 was brought out as an experiment to see if they could get home users to bite into nt. on the windows side of things me was being pushed. in correct order 2000 was a hybrid of 98 and nt. xp was create from the things microsoft learned from their mistakes with 2000.
2000 wasn't an experiment, it was the platform for AD. It just mattered that businesses tended to run 9x on their machines, rather than NT4, for the most part because NT4 was a PITA to get hardware working in, whereas with plug and pray 9x was far easier. 2000 was business-oriented, pure and simple; it was *not* designed for consumers, in any way, even if some of them purchased and used it. XP was the bite at the consumer NT, not 2000.

Make no mistake, though - 2000 was simply a platform to get AD in, and Novell out (and it worked). If Microsoft thought NT4 would do it, it would have used that instead. 2000 had plug and pray and a decent interface because otherwise, all you had was another NT4, which had a higher TCO than Win9x due to maintenance overhead and the frustration that was making sure your hardware was on the HCL. Win9x and AD security/permissions/delegation don't necessarily play well together, either, so they *had* to make something that would be appealing to businesses, and look! It's NT4 with Plug and Play!
2000 was an experiment. it was created to see if microsoft could get consumers to buy into nt(which xp, vista, and 7 all are) as their home operating system.
Listen, I was around when Win 2000 came out, and I clearly recall an article saying that it was NOT a new home user OS (like 95/98), it was a new business OS (like NT). Windows 2000 was the successor to NT 4.0, not the successor to Win 98, as confirmed on Wikipedia. Windows ME was the successor to Win 98. I quote from Wikipedia: "Windows Me was designed for home use, while Windows 2000 was designed for business."
My System SpecsSystem Spec
18 Sep 2010   #49

Windows 7 Ultimate x64 Steve Ballmer Edition
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by BCXtreme View Post
Listen, I was around when Win 2000 came out, and I clearly recall an article saying that it was NOT a new home user OS (like 95/98), it was a new business OS (like NT). Windows 2000 was the successor to NT 4.0, not the successor to Win 98, as confirmed on Wikipedia. Windows ME was the successor to Win 98. I quote from Wikipedia: "Windows Me was designed for home use, while Windows 2000 was designed for business."
100% correct. 2000 was not intended for home use, ME was. Many people didn't like ME, and may have chosen 2000 (me included), but it was not the intention of Microsoft for that to happen.

And yes, ME, ME+, and Vista are all things to be learned from. And learned they have because what came after each of them was amazing.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
Reply

Thread Tools



Similar help and support threads for2: do you believe in... rumors?
Thread Forum
Call of Duty – Modern Warfare 3: DLC Rumors Fly Gaming
More sources chime in on Radeon HD 5830 rumors. Graphic Cards
Are the rumors true? Chillout Room
What happen to all the rumors of RTM coming out? General Discussion
Windows 7 pricing rumors retracted News

Our Sites

Site Links

About Us

Find Us

Windows 7 Forums is an independent web site and has not been authorized, sponsored, or otherwise approved by Microsoft Corporation. "Windows 7" and related materials are trademarks of Microsoft Corp.

© Designer Media Ltd

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:02 AM.
Twitter Facebook Google+



Windows 7 Forums

Seven Forums Android App Seven Forums IOS App
  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33