You call 8.1 a new OS but don't consider 98SE or 95B new? You also kind of blow off the NT thread which is pretty relevant since they merged the two.
Incorrect.
I used Windows 2000 as an end user, and it yes it was marketed somewhat to end users.Incorrect. Either someone can't count or they are acting like they know something when the list actually reveals ignorance. Until XP, NT and 9x kernels were two different worlds. Windows NT and Windows 2000 were not intended as consumer OSes and do not count.
The only reason MS didn't jump consumers straight to Windows 2000 instead of Windows XP was because Windows NT 4.0 before it didn't support Plug and Play and none of the Windows 95/98 drivers were cross-compatible. That's why they came up with universal WDM for Windows 98SE and Windows 2000.
The problem with Windows 98SE was that it still worked the same with Win9x drivers so there was no incentive for consumer device makers to create and use WDM drivers. They kept making their VxD drivers and such that would not be compatible with Windows 2000, so selling 2000 as an upgrade to 98 could not work. They had to make WDM drivers a requirement somehow long enough before the release of Windows XP so that we'd get WDM drivers for every major device before switching consumers to NT core. That meant shoving stop-gap WinME down our throats. It required WDM for Hibernate and other advancements and nixed enough DOS underpinnings to finally force a transition to WDM from hardware makers. OEMs finally insisted on WDM drivers for all new system components. In a year's time, we were ready for Windows XP. People like to rag on MS, but I say: GOOD JOB. 9x was well beyond its life expectancy. Good riddance.
ISO mounting is nice to have in the OS because you can simply hand the ISO to somebody and they can mount it.Why is ISO mounting such a big deal? That's something anyone with a brain figured out in seconds and something anyone without a brain could download a free app for. And anyone that needs to mount an ISO probably knows how to download. I never understood the need for every tiny potential app to have to be bundled into the O/S. There's a large multi-billion dollar software industry to service every conceivable niche market and ISO mounting is just that. A tiny niche used by a tiny percentage of users. Do spreadsheets have to be bundled into the O/S? Presentation apps? Video editors? There has to be a line drawn between what the O/S does and what the end user adds based on their own specific needs. Everything can't be bundled in and if anyone tried an all-inclusive package like that it would be a disaster. If a new O/S is such a generic upgrade that including ISO mounting is viewed as one of the biggest selling points, it's a failure. You better have something more important to convince users to buy. Anyone that has been using Windows since Win95 has been able to mount ISOs since Win95. Thanks Microsoft, you added something we could do without for 20 years now.
That's why smart people kept Windows 7.
You call 8.1 a new OS but don't consider 98SE or 95B new? You also kind of blow off the NT thread which is pretty relevant since they merged the two.
I used Windows 2000 as an end user, and it yes it was marketed somewhat to end users.
IIRC Quake III Arena ran fine on Windows 2000.
I've been continually revising that post and specifically edited out where I said that I wanted to consider it like 98SE but I can't ignore where MS was going with it. They clearly considered making 8 the final stand-alone version that would be continually revised for free going forward but they weren't committed to it. WinME was just as unworthy as Win8.1, but I understand why they did it. Also, 98SE did not make significant changes to 98's desktop like Win8.1 did to Win8's desktop, so perhaps it is more justified.
Back in the day we rolled out 98SE VERY quickly because of the issues it fixed. With 8.1 I didn't feel that need because already changed people's start menus.
Why is ISO mounting such a big deal? That's something anyone with a brain figured out in seconds and something anyone without a brain could download a free app for. And anyone that needs to mount an ISO probably knows how to download. I never understood the need for every tiny potential app to have to be bundled into the O/S. There's a large multi-billion dollar software industry to service every conceivable niche market and ISO mounting is just that. A tiny niche used by a tiny percentage of users. Do spreadsheets have to be bundled into the O/S? Presentation apps? Video editors? There has to be a line drawn between what the O/S does and what the end user adds based on their own specific needs. Everything can't be bundled in and if anyone tried an all-inclusive package like that it would be a disaster. If a new O/S is such a generic upgrade that including ISO mounting is viewed as one of the biggest selling points, it's a failure. You better have something more important to convince users to buy. Anyone that has been using Windows since Win95 has been able to mount ISOs since Win95. Thanks Microsoft, you added something we could do without for 20 years now.
I still can't believe it took Windows this long to get this.
OS X has had this since its debut, and before that had other native disk image formats. Linux/BSD/UNIX has also had it for eons.
I would imagine he bought a new computer somewhat recently that had Win 8 pre-installed on it.
TBH I cant remember the last time I mounted an ISO, im guessing its been over a decade
What happened to Windows 9?
Eight nine ten.
Maybe they skipped 9 because "nein" in German means no. There would have been memes. Memes for days. Memes with Hitler.
I am the only vivi the mage here!!!!!!!!! Just kidding, there is someone else who uses the vivi avy.
I updated all my computers to Windows 10, it was really simple. Outside of the reg edit port change and cisco ipsec VPN, all went well.
The real issue is not the fact that the user of the device can opt out, it's the fact that if they don't, they expose the password of networks they may not even control. Say you have friends over that you trust enough that they just know your wifi password, they enter it, and they forget to disable that option. Boom, now all their facebook friends know your wifi password. yeah you can append some optout bullcrap to your SSID, but you should not have to do that. This is overall a dumb feature. The way it SHOULD work is that network operators can optionally submit their network to Microsoft as being public. Make it so the network owner has to opt in, not the guests having to opt out.
But guess the easiest solution is to simply have a guest network and never give out the password to your main one.
He seems to have forgotten how he felt about ME....
not even the right order. It would be more like 1,2,3,NT,95,98,2000,XP,Vista,7,8,10
Holy hell! There are some pretty big privacy issues with Windows 10!
http://www.slate.com/articles/techn...bad_they_are_and_how_to_plug_them.single.html
not even the right order. It would be more like 1,2,3,NT,95,98,2000,XP,Vista,7,8,10
That's how we know Microsoft is only numbering consumer Windows versions intended to be sold and operated as the primary operating system on a home PC. THAT's why we don't have Windows 2003 Server or 2008 Server. They don't even include Workstation OSes where a current stand-alone consumer OS was available at the time (Win2K, NT 4.0, etc). Both are idiotic because they don't understand the perspective and make silly assumptions while pretending to be more correct. If they spent more than two seconds thinking about why they included 2K but not ME, they'd realize that their assumptions about what should be in the sequence are wrong.ME would fit in between 2000 and XP.
NT 3.5 was before 95, but NT 4 was after.
If you start including the server and mobile versions, then it starts getting REALLY confusing
ME would fit in between 2000 and XP.
NT 3.5 was before 95, but NT 4 was after.
If you start including the server and mobile versions, then it starts getting REALLY confusing