Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > How many here have USED Windows 2000?

How many here have USED Windows 2000?
Thread Tools
macmonkey
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Indianapolis IN
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 27, 2000, 03:47 PM
 
I hear everyone (most) whine about how terrible Windows is; how many people here have actually tried Windows 2000, or the Whistler beta? If you have, and still think PCs are terrible, you either need a new PC, or you did something really wrong to that computer.

Windows 2000 is the interface of 98 with the power of NT 4. Brad, from MacMonkey, has had his Win2k PC running since February with only one restart, that was to install a hard drive.

Until OS X, the Mac OS may be better than the 9x series, but 2000 cleans the Mac OS's clock.
     
pdjr
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Oklahoma City, OK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 27, 2000, 06:27 PM
 
I completely agree, macmonkey. Windows 2000 Professional is one bad-a$$ operating system. I pray that Mac OS X will be as stable and robust as Windows 2000 Professional.

Disclaimer to avoid flamers: I'm Mac-only at home and work for a Mac-only publishing company. I only use Win2K to review PC-based software. (If I don't put this at the end of my posts, people relegate me to the "he's just a Windows-freak" bin.)

To be honest, I'm bi-OS and have been for years.
     
dinero68
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 27, 2000, 08:37 PM
 
Windows 2000 is better than 98. But ... I think my TI-85 OS is. Anyway, Win 2000 isnt that great. its designed as a server O/S, not a home user O/S. So.... I really don't consider it. But yeah, it runs ok, and its stable. Its still ugly, and its a HUGE hog. Runs slow on not new computers.

WHISTLER?!?! ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME?!! I have never tried that, never will. That is the UGLIEST O/S EVER! ACK! Man! I'm going to puke just thinking about it!

Ca$h
     
macmonkey  (op)
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Indianapolis IN
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 27, 2000, 10:45 PM
 
Ahh, once again, people speaking of that which they know nothing of. It is incredibly easy to switch Whistler's look to that of Win95, or any other skin for that matter, Whistler is as skinnable as WinAmp or SoundJam.

Also, 2000 is a BUSINESS OS, not a server OS, Windows 2000 Server is a Server OS. A business OS is more stable, a server OS is rock solid. Windows 2000 does crash, I've seen it, but I've never seen 2000 Server, or Advanced Server crash. In many ways, 2000 looks better and works better than the current MacOS, so I wouldn't call it ugly.

I'm not being a PC zealot, hell, I RUN MacMonkey.com, the website with an ongoing anti-ihateapple.com feud! I just like for people to know what they're saying, if you're gonna insult Windows, do it, by all means, but be distinct, say 9x, or 95, or 98, or Me, just something to distinguish it from the REAL operating systems Microsoft puts out.
     
Kozmik
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Techno City (Detroit)
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 27, 2000, 10:54 PM
 
My school has Windows2000 Professional, and I must say, it ROCKS.

420th post!

[This message has been edited by Kozmik (edited 11-27-2000).]
<A HREF="http://www.macnet2.com/cgi-bin/Ultimate.cgi" TARGET=_blank>
MacNet v2 Forums</A>
     
blizzard
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Fort McMurray, Alberta
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 27, 2000, 11:54 PM
 
I have also seen Win2000, and while it is better than Win98 I still like my Mac. If your argument is to be that it is stabler than the MacOS, well, Win98 is already stabler than the MacOS. If you are saying that it is more advanced than the MacOS...same thing. Windows kicks MacOS around the block, technically, so I look at different things than those technicalities. One, MacOS still trashes Windows 98/2000 in terms of attractiveness. It baffles me that Microsoft cannot make an attractive UI. Plus, and this is the other major one, I can fix the MacOS. The same cannot be said for Windows. And I still haven't met anyone who can solve a Windows problem by messing around in the 'System Folder' of that OS.

But I agree with your philosophy, which is that you shouldn't diss that with which you have no experience.

Blizz.
Living, working, and freezing in the Canadian north.
     
The Godfather
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Tampa, Florida
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 28, 2000, 12:31 AM
 
I use Win2000 every day at school. I start and quit small and big programs at will and it has NEVER crashed on me. This computer is a Celeron 600 with 128MB RAM. AutoCAD and PSPICE never crash, heck not even IE5 will crash this PC. This is the MOST stable system I must say.

However, this PC is in an NT network, which $uck$.
     
Cipher13
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 28, 2000, 02:01 AM
 
*rollseyes*
Ok, look at it like this - Windows 2000 may be more stable than MacOS. But it is so much easier to fix a problem of any magnitude on the MacOS.
Not Windows. It still has those ancient underpinnings, and its guts are just... messy. Really messy.
But anyway. Y'all know my opinion.
BTW: The best Windows release to date is Win 95. And even that sucks like hell.

Cipher13
     
macmonkey  (op)
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Indianapolis IN
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 28, 2000, 08:10 AM
 
'ancient underpinnings'???? What are you on, because I'd like some....

Windows 2000 is a COMPLETE rewrite of the NT kernel. It is totally different, and most problems are fixed easier than Windows 9x, what's more, there usually aren't that many problems to fix. I don't think dragging one extension at a time and restarting the computer over and over again to see which extension is conflicting with which. OS X will fix a lot of the things with the Mac OS, and make it run like Windows 2000, or better, so I can agree, that Apple is doing something about it.

How it looks is really just your opinion, some people think the Mac OS is ugly, I'm not going to argue, so long as OS X is as skinnable as Windows 2000 and Whistler.
     
DBursey
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 28, 2000, 09:14 AM
 
I've used Win2K at a friends home, and have heard his professional opinion. He is of the opinion that it is the most stable MS OS ever, and that it would be better labelled as Windows NT 5.
     
macmonkey  (op)
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Indianapolis IN
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 28, 2000, 12:46 PM
 
I think the numbering is right. NT 4, 2000, yup, sounds about right, just like Word going from 6 to 98, the numbering was pretty close to reality.
     
SillyPooh
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Beirut, Lebanon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 28, 2000, 01:25 PM
 
What Blizzard said is very accurate. Basically, you can't mess up with Windows (it's gonna be messed-up by itself!). No really, what you and me and Mr Joe Bloke can do to tweak macOS, you can't dare to try that on Windows. So I agree Windows 2000 is a very nice and stable OS, but not for me because I do serious work, and if something ever happens to my machine with macOS, I know exactly where to look for the problems. But no doubt windows is a very good OS, it only depends what you want to do with it - or Where you want to go today?!!!

There are still a couple of things that keep macOS 9 a very sexy OS and no doubt OSX will be too. I do like for example - and thousands of web designers will agree with me - the fact that I can change my IP adress and connection settings in a click or two. This is a detail, but how many details do you need to see that MacOS has everything that's needed and more!

Today, why do pc users use Windows? Because they don't have the choice. Linux is, up till now, not a viable solution. Everything revolves around Microsoft This and Microsoft That and these people wouldn't have a computing experience without them. Us, mac users, don't. We have chosen this platform because of the different OS that comes with it, and that's it. My computing experience does not revolve around Apple, nor do I abide to its rules. I am free to evolve in an environment that I build myself every day.
     
Dragonlance
Guest
Status:
Reply With Quote
Nov 28, 2000, 02:16 PM
 
i havent used win2000 extensively, in that i havent looked i nevery nook n corner for all its features, but i did use it for a couple of months. features to note :
-Relitavely low system requirements when compared to OSXi am refering to Win ME, which i think isnt very different from win2000).
-Extremely Stable, didn crash even once, the same can be said for OSX.
-Good interface, which was easy to understand since it has generally been the same sine win95.
-good bye DOS, just as the Wintel world says goodbye to the command prompt interface, mac users get to embrace it with the unic shell in OSX.
-win2000 needs quite a bit of HD space, which is probably the only down side to it, other then that, its all good in my opinion.
     
dinero68
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 28, 2000, 02:55 PM
 
In windows its freaking annoying to fix things that get screwed up whenever you install something. Nuff said. BLECH.

Ca$h
     
MacOS761
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Palatine, IL
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 28, 2000, 03:49 PM
 
A quick check of outpost.com tells me that Win2k costs a measly $300... We don't know for sure, but I sure as anything expect Apple to sell OS X final for the standard $100. So... I would expect it to be better, but in fact it is about the same as far as technical points. Hm...

------------------
We're supposed to sing about piraty things!
<a href="http://www.macronyms.com" target="_blank"> </a>
kelsevinal: i am impervious to your "nerd" attacks
     
mac freak
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Highland Park, IL / Santa Monica, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 28, 2000, 05:55 PM
 
Not to mention that MS probably has 50x the R&D money Apple has.
Be happy.
     
macmonkey  (op)
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Indianapolis IN
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 28, 2000, 11:43 PM
 
Windows 2000 and especially Whistler can be tweaked as much as the Mac, and if you know what you're doing in Windows you can fix problems just as fast as a Mac. You *think* you're doing it faster because it's on a Mac, but in reality, its just because you don't know how, or maybe not the fastest way to do it on the PC. There are a few things the PC doesn't handle that well, though, dual monitors to name one. it's a BITCH to set that up on a PC, even when you've done it several times.

Also, I doubt Apple will sell OS X for $100, maybe an upgrade from OS 9, but the full version will probably run $300, I wouldn't be surprised at all.
     
mac freak
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Highland Park, IL / Santa Monica, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 29, 2000, 12:28 AM
 
If Apple sells it for $300, don't expect me to get a legal copy...

But really -- knowing Apple, they shouldn't charge more than $150 for it... they know it would have a hard time selling.

Oh, and you obviously know very little about OS X if you think there is any way to "upgrade" to it from OS 9. Sure, you can install it over OS 9. But it's *NOT* an upgrade, because none of the old system is part of the new system.

You're waaaay too used to MS and their OS prices... Apple won't rip you off and charge you a hundred bucks for a freaking upgrade. They'll charge a hundred bucks for the whole damn OS.

------------------
Be Happy.
Be happy.
     
Cipher13
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 29, 2000, 03:50 AM
 
Apple will charge for OSX the same as they did for OS9. I gaurantee it.

Cipher13
     
The Godfather
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Tampa, Florida
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 29, 2000, 05:09 AM
 
Originally posted by mac freak:
Not to mention that MS probably has 50x the R&D money Apple has.
Most likely because Apple spends 98% of its earnings in marketing
     
SillyPooh
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Beirut, Lebanon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 29, 2000, 11:16 AM
 
$300?? No way man!!

Maybe you're talking canadian dollars?? - I have no idea how much that is, don't flame me for that!
     
macmonkey  (op)
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Indianapolis IN
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 29, 2000, 01:12 PM
 
I didn't say that it would be an upgrade program, I said it would be for OS 9 users. It's the same OS, it's just giving a benefit to those who own OS 9, MS does it the same way, a Windows 98 upgrade CD and a Windows 98 full CD just come in different packaging, they are the exact same CD.

     
pneumatic
Guest
Status:
Reply With Quote
Nov 29, 2000, 05:41 PM
 
Originally posted by macmonkey:
Windows 2000 is the interface of 98 with the power of NT 4. Brad, from MacMonkey, has had his Win2k PC running since February with only one restart, that was to install a hard drive.
So? I have a file server/scanning station/CD burning station here running simple file sharing and used daily for scanning. It's been running that long on OS 8.6. I just shut it down to switch to OS 9 and TCP/IP sharing. Other than that, it runs 24/7/365 and has done so since it was set up. It's not our main server, but it actually gets used pretty heavily.

Maintain your OS and machine properly and it will run pretty trouble free, no matter what OS it is.
     
dodita
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Bandung, Indonesia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 29, 2000, 07:49 PM
 
Since I use Win2k a lot and bought pismo (?? what a step),
My oppinion is 2 ways:
1. Student ? wanna be web developer ? = &gt; win2k
2. Student ? wanna be a vj ? =&gt; MacOS

Each time open my pismo , I found new things from macos (9.0.4), ease to use mainly, and beginning to love it. Unfortunately I can't develop anything here (got lots ASP deadlines from work), pismo is my only medium to show up at the presentation for my client
DodOT
     
Asimuth
Junior Member
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 30, 2000, 05:28 AM
 
I've just started as operations manager for a software development company that works 100% windows. At home I use a Mac and previously I have worked on NT4 and Win95 at work.

Win2000 is the best windows system I have ever worked on and it is significantly better (in stability terms) than the Mac OS8.6 I have at home. I have it on a PIII/600/128 and, while it doesn't fly, it works acceptably fast.

What I miss the most, when I am away from my Mac, is dragging clippings to the desktop. Dragging web addresses, and email addresses to where I want and launching from there. My Windows developer employees (who have had no Mac experience) really have no idea what proper drag and drop functionality is.

Then again Apple still doesn't support two button mice...

     
Cipher13
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 30, 2000, 07:16 AM
 
And Asimuth, therein lies the entire MacOS versus Windows war.
Whatever OS you use, its a compromise.
Personally, I prefer the MacOS in EVERY way to Windows. However, people say that Windows is more stable. Not in my view. OS 9.04 and 9.1 NEVER crash for me anymore, ever.
Only thing that crashes is IE5 every once in a while.
And whats the big deal about things bringing down the whole OS?
ICQ crashed hard on me before... MacsBug got me out of that. Same when Audion was corrupted... hung every time I went to open it, about 15 times in all (I kept double clicking the Audion associated mp3 files rather than dragging them to SoundJam), and never brought the System down once.
But, for others, it may be different.
You may find Windows 2000 better. Good for you. Best of luck with it.
I find OS9 better. And will keep it till it is no longer a viable operating system.
So whether you get the 'feel' of the MacOS, or the "stability" of Windows, you're trading one thing for another.
Weigh up the options and use whatever is best for you.
EDIT: Before anyone asks, I own Windows 2000. I don't like it. I run it on VPC, and on a real wintel (well, before I erased it).

Cipher13

[This message has been edited by Cipher13 (edited 11-30-2000).]
     
macmonkey  (op)
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Indianapolis IN
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 30, 2000, 06:21 PM
 
Originally posted by Cipher13:
Whatever OS you use, its a compromise.
There you go, that's about the best way to say it. I do miss those clippings, but when on a Mac, I find myself command clicking an awful lot. I really think if someone could make an OS that had all the good things of both OSes, and gave you the option of the things that are basically the opposite, they'd have the perfect computer.

     
ibookuser2
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 2, 2000, 04:55 AM
 
I am forced to use Win2K at school.

I do not like or use windows for several reasons. Most of all, Windows IS NOT AN OPERATING SYSTEM. DOS is the operating system. Windows is just a bunch of libraries and a GUI on top of it.

I'm not saying that this is not the way to do things, as Mac OS X runs on the same principle. The problem with windows is DOS has not been majorly updated since 1985. Windows has just kind of been thrown on top of it, and uses it mostly to boot up. This leads into my next reason.

Microsoft's goal is not to confuse people with a lot of confusing computer lingo or filename extensions and all of that kind of stuff. This is a good idea, and is essential in making a usable operating system. HOWEVER, ms's attitude about this is wrong. They solve it by simply covering it up, not getting rid of it. It's like DOS, lurking there in the shadows. The file extensions are invisible, but they're there. You never see your AUTOEXEC.BAT file, but it's there.

Another effect of this is found in the control panels. Go in there and look around, especially the network control panel. Microsoft has invented their own terms for things to make them more "user friendly." This makes it extremely difficult for anyone without extensive knowledge of Windows to set things up. Why can't they just call the darn settings what they really are? Like using the term Obtain IP via DHCP rather than Obtain IP address automatically? Why can't they just call things the same as the rest of the world???

Any user that does more than basic word processing and so on has problems. On a mac, sorting through these problems can be difficult, at times, i will admit. However, go try and troubleshoot a PC. If there is a corrupted file or driver, I can't simply remove it from a folder. I first have to find it on a large hard drive. Then I must open up a cryptic text file, find the right line, and remove it. If I do so incorrectly then I have rendered my computer inoperable.

Thats enough reasons for one night...

     
macmonkey  (op)
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Indianapolis IN
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 4, 2000, 01:17 PM
 
Originally posted by ibookuser2:

I do not like or use windows for several reasons. Most of all, Windows IS NOT AN OPERATING SYSTEM. DOS is the operating system. Windows is just a bunch of libraries and a GUI on top of it.
This shows exactly how much you know about Win2k and Whistler. iTard.
     
SillyPooh
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Beirut, Lebanon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 4, 2000, 01:38 PM
 
Hey macmonkey, I think you can't give yourself the right to argue about who knows something here and who doesn't. If your point of view is different that that of another person, fine, say you disagree, but don't try to play the Godfather here, 'cause you will loose.
     
Don Pickett
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: New York, NY, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 4, 2000, 05:07 PM
 
Posted by macmonkey

This shows exactly how much you know about Win2k and Whistler. iTard.
macmonkey? I'm beginning to have my doubts.

Interesting - basically a very intense, very divisive argument over which flavor of ice cream is best.

Don
The era of anthropomorphizing hardware is over.
     
mac freak
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Highland Park, IL / Santa Monica, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 4, 2000, 05:14 PM
 
Win95, 98, and ME are nothing but a crappy GUI stamped onto DOS (Dumb Operating System), which is not very good in itself.

Windows 2000, NT, and Whistler, on the other hand, are UNIX-based... like Mac OS X. This is why they are so much better than previous versions. They will always be more stable than Mac OS (but not X) -- it's just the way it goes. BUT, I still believe there is no reason to buy a PC over a Mac unless you're a diehard gamer.

Not to mention that it costs 3x as much anyway...

------------------
Be Happy.
Be happy.
     
Don Pickett
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: New York, NY, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 4, 2000, 05:29 PM
 
Windows 2000, NT, and Whistler, on the other hand, are UNIX-based...
I haven't heard this. Is it true?

From what I've heard, NT, 2K and Whistler are based on the concept of kernels, etc., but are not based on any variant of BSD or *nix. That is to say, they're structure is *nix-like, but not *nix based. They're ground-up Micrsoft OSes, which explains the Blue Screen of Death.

Don
The era of anthropomorphizing hardware is over.
     
macmonkey  (op)
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Indianapolis IN
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 4, 2000, 10:57 PM
 
You're right, NT is not built on UNIX. And technically, neither is OS X directly. It's based on Mach, a derivative of BSD, a derivative of UNIX. Like your uncle's cousin's mother-in-law's former college roommate.

I'm not trying to be a 'godfather'. He said Windows 2000 was based on DOS, this is like saying OS 9 is based on ProDOS and OS X is based on the Win9x kernel.

     
mac freak
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Highland Park, IL / Santa Monica, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 5, 2000, 12:04 AM
 
You should re-signup as "Microsoft Monkey." You are the most religious MS supporter outside of the company I've ever seen... but then again, maybe you AREN'T outside the company

All of my Windows-using friends don't like MS and Windows any more than we do. They just prefer the popoularity and speed of Wintel over Apple.

------------------
Be Happy.
Be happy.
     
ginoledesma
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 5, 2000, 02:49 AM
 
I live in a dorm that is all PC, one-Mac (me). Most everyone has Windows 98, an occassional few running Win95, even fewer running Linux, and one running Win2K. I helped set-up Win2K on a PIII 700 since Win98/Win98SE absolutely refuses to install on it. The owner of that PC has been running Win2K since July 2000 and has not had a major crash yet. He runs his computer 18 hours a day.

There are the occassional hangs, but killing the task/process is an oh so lovely process. It doesn't take long for the task list manager to show up, nor does it take long for the process to be killed. Try that on Win9x.

I favor Win2K over WinME in stability and rock-solidness. Alas, gaming on Win2K is another story. Too bad.

Much as WinME is supposed to build up on WinNT core, it isn't as rock solid as Win2K. That's my opinion from personal experience.
     
CDS
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 5, 2000, 04:04 AM
 
Well being that all I have used for the last 6 months is Win2000, I would have to say its the best OS MS has ever come out with....I have yet to have a lock-up. It is truly a great Workstation O/S.....3D work is my life and Win2000 is great for multi-tasking, multi-threading and SMP...(not to mention a little seti on the side)!
One thing tho, make sure you have plenty of Ram...128megs is the bare min, Im currently running 768megs and a 120gig raid.
Some older Scanners and printers dont seem to like WIn2000 either!....just waiting for some Updates!
Just a few fries short of a Happy meal
     
macmonkey  (op)
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Indianapolis IN
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 5, 2000, 07:20 AM
 
I'm not an MS supporter by any means, but when they have a good product, I will support them. Win2k is a good product, and I get sick of people bashing it, especially when they know absolutely nothing about it. It's hypocritical for you to bash Windows 2000 when the OS you and I are currently using is 15 years old.

I despise a lot of Microsoft products, basically all the Win9x derivatives, any version of Office before 2000 and 2001. Internet explorer before 5.0, maybe you guys shouldn't be so steadfast against Microsoft just because they're microsoft? At least I have a reason to support them in the current endeavors; good products.
     
ginoledesma
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 5, 2000, 10:16 AM
 
Originally posted by Don Pickett:
I haven't heard this. Is it true?

From what I've heard, NT, 2K and Whistler are based on the concept of kernels, etc., but are not based on any variant of BSD or *nix. That is to say, they're structure is *nix-like, but not *nix based. They're ground-up Micrsoft OSes, which explains the Blue Screen of Death.

Don
If I recall well, wasn't Windows NT named in honor of VMS?
V + 1 = W
M + 1 = N
S + 1 = T

I'm not sure if it was based on VMS, though.
     
tonymac
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 5, 2000, 10:51 AM
 
NT stands for "New Technology" as in no longer based on DOS.
     
shmerek
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: south
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 5, 2000, 06:05 PM
 
I don't do windows.

------------------
Away put your weapon I mean you no harm
Yoda
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:55 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,