- Aug 9, 2015
- My own little Idaho
So far I'm liking it WAY better thsn 10.
How about you?
How about you?
Windows ME (Millennium Edition) was essentially Windows 98 Third Edition while Windows 2000 was effectively Windows NT 5.0.Windows had a "2000" and one called millenium. That may have been the same OS with different names?
One of the main takeaways is the difference between cooperative and preemptive multitasking. Cooperative multitasking gives the OS less control over the applications it's running, meaning a hung or crashing application may not relinquish resources (clock cycles, memory) and the OS can do little about it. Preemptive multitasking gives the OS far more control should an application hang, crash, or hog resources - the OS can usually correct the process's resource utilization or kill it if necessary. This difference is why modern NT-based Windows doesn't hang or BSOD as often as its 9x predacessor did.^^ I liked this even about 40% went "phew" over my head.
Chillinn, you know your NT history. This is how I remember the story also.This guy deletes the Program Files in Windows 11 to see what would happen. It really doesn't get interesting until about the 9:20 mark, which mostly confirms what I always expected about Windows "upgrades," which is that underneath everything, Windows is still NT with many layers and layers of lipstick. I would prefer to run NT, of which there were 64-bit versions, and if could be made to run on modern processors, would be blazing fast, stable, but likely not very secure, though reasonably secure through obscurity, because no attackers would be targeting NT anymore.
NT, of course, was developed by Dave Cutler at Digital, who when poached by Microsoft, took not only his team with him, he took DEC's intellectual property, namely, NT. But a lot like how Xerox PARC didn't mind sharing ideas about their pioneering GUI interfaces with Apple and Microsoft, who both then copied Xerox's novel ideas for great profits that Xerox never realized, Digital wasn't all that interested in NT, which is why Cutler left in the first place. But to be clear, even though he developed NT, he also stole the data and the storage it was kept on and gave it to Microsoft, which became the basis for 2000, XP, 2007, 2010, 2011, and all the Server versions of Windows, making a mind-boggling fortune for Microsoft. Digital, a monster of computing technology since shortly after 1957, ended up being acquired by Compaq in 1998.
Windows ME (Millennium Edition) was essentially Windows 98 Third Edition while Windows 2000 was effectively Windows NT 5.0.
ME was a consumer OS through and through based on the old '9x cooperative multitasking kernel. It was generally good enough in this role in an era when a large slice of the market was still dialing in to the internet and multi-CPU desktop computers were rarities in the hands of dedicated hobbyists. It would also be the last iteration of '9x.
2000 was a more modern preemptive multitasking kernel with direct roots in the prior business-focused Windows NT 4. Windows 2000 is where all modern Windows OSs came from - XP, Vista, 8x, 10, 11 all draw relatively clean lines to Windows 2000 modernizing the NT interfaces and tools into something that could work in the consumer and business space with the capabilities to handle modern multicore hardware. I ran it for many years - only abandoning it once MSFT ended support for it - and miss the simplicity of the interface relative to what's come since.
Impressive. That's totally believable based on my own experiences with NT 4.I worked as a prepress operator at a commercial printer in the 1990's. The RIP (rasterizing image processor, everything going to the imagesetter ran through it) software ran on NT 4.0 on a 64-bit DEC Alpha. That machine ran 24/7 and never rebooted from the time it was installed in 1996 until I left in 1998.
No. My prior desktop (2009-2019) was almost certainly originally XP then migrated to '7 and then '10. The present 2019 workstation was installed with '10 from the start. The pre-2009 machine was '2000 with a reluctant migration to XP - back in the days of my desktops seeing 3-5 years of service.Do you still use XP since 2000 is no longer a viable option?