this post was submitted on 21 Nov 2024
607 points (86.5% liked)
linuxmemes
21611 readers
1495 users here now
Hint: :q!
Sister communities:
Community rules (click to expand)
1. Follow the site-wide rules
- Instance-wide TOS: https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/
- Lemmy code of conduct: https://join-lemmy.org/docs/code_of_conduct.html
2. Be civil
- Understand the difference between a joke and an insult.
- Do not harrass or attack members of the community for any reason.
- Leave remarks of "peasantry" to the PCMR community. If you dislike an OS/service/application, attack the thing you dislike, not the individuals who use it. Some people may not have a choice.
- Bigotry will not be tolerated.
- These rules are somewhat loosened when the subject is a public figure. Still, do not attack their person or incite harrassment.
3. Post Linux-related content
- Including Unix and BSD.
- Non-Linux content is acceptable as long as it makes a reference to Linux. For example, the poorly made mockery of
sudoin Windows. - No porn. Even if you watch it on a Linux machine.
4. No recent reposts
- Everybody uses Arch btw, can't quit Vim, and wants to interject for a moment. You can stop now.
Please report posts and comments that break these rules!
Important: never execute code or follow advice that you don't understand or can't verify, especially here. The word of the day is credibility. This is a meme community -- even the most helpful comments might just be shitposts that can damage your system. Be aware, be smart, don't fork-bomb your computer.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Wasn't 98 the precursor to ME? I thought 2000 was the server version (or something like that)?
Windows 2000 sold as both a server OS and a workstation OS, but there was no home edition of 2000. There was also no professional version of Me. It would probably be more accurate to say there were two separate paths of evolution that converged with XP.
NT -> 2000 -> XP
98 -> ME -> XP
Though, XP is built off of the NT kernel, so you could also argue that the 9X line ended with ME.
Yep. In the beginning there were two threads of Windows garbage: Win NT (for companies, with NT kernel) and (MSDOS-based) Win 9x for peasants. Win 2000 was the "last" Win NT and Win Me was the last Win 9x.
That's not 100% true as Me used something called "Real mode DOS" which limited the OS interactions with DOS and Windows XP was an evolution of the NT kernel, and all subsequent windowses come from that kernel (Vista, 7, 8, etc.. and the Server variants).
Win Me was the "Mistake Edition" because it was half-baked, most of Microsoft was focusing by then on the next iteration of NT and they even didn't ship to developers the Me version but rather Windows 2000.
And probably Windows Me was on the knowing about 9/11:
"System Restore suffered from a bug in the date-stamping functionality that could cause System Restore to incorrectly date-stamp snapshots that were taken after September 8, 2001. This could prevent System Restore from locating these snapshots and cause the system restore process to fail. Microsoft released an update to fix this problem."
2000 was the first Windows with an NT kernel that was really usable on the desktop. Some may argue NT 4 but in 2000 almost everything worked as expected. XP was clearly better of course.
But you're right - ME was actually a successor to 98 and XP was the joint successor to 2000 and ME.
OP wasn't yet born in the late second millennium, they didn't suffer through monthly reinstalls.
/j!!
But yes, for home users NT Windows came with XP.
Can't believe they missed out on the glorious days where to make your product sound futuristic you just stuck the number 2000 somewhere in its name