do you believe in... rumors?

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

geekfreak said:

cluberti said:

So, 95, 98, NT4, 2000, and XP were all screw-ups? Exchange, SQL, Sharepoint, etc - all screwups? Also, without Vista you would not have Win7, 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.

geekfreak said:

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!

geekfreak said:

cluberti said:

geekfreak said:

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."

BCXtreme said:

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.