What was the point of releasing ME and 2000 if they released XP just a year after?

What was the point of releasing ME and 2000 if they released XP just a year after?

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    What was the point of releasing XP if Vista was right around the corner?

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    To milk some final money from the 9x line

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >2000
      >9x
      uh?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The rational was consumers didn't need NT yet and most things would probably be better for compatibility if Windows was kept on DOS/Win9x for consumers.

        9x is what you call any DOS based OS after Win3.1
        It encompasses 95/98 and ME. For the most part they can be treated the same as far as software combability goes

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >9x is what you call any DOS based OS after Win3.1
          >It encompasses 95/98 and ME. For the most part they can be treated the same as far as software combability goes
          Exactly and 2000 is NT based.

          Also it's not "DOS based", when booting the Windows kernel replaces the DOS one entirely, DOS is just a bootstrapper. Has been true since 3.x.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    most businesses like to make money.

    glad I could help.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Stupid normie morons bought Me and it came preinstalled on a bunch of shit. 2000 was everywhere enterprise though.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Well, ME was DOS-based and designed for consumers and 2000 was NT-based and designed for professionals. At this time, there was no version of Windows NT for consumers, and they wanted to change that and switch consumers from DOS over to NT. They pursued this ambition before with Windows Neptune but it never got off the ground, but they tried it again with Windows Whistler which would later become XP.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      See

      >9x is what you call any DOS based OS after Win3.1
      >It encompasses 95/98 and ME. For the most part they can be treated the same as far as software combability goes
      Exactly and 2000 is NT based.

      Also it's not "DOS based", when booting the Windows kernel replaces the DOS one entirely, DOS is just a bootstrapper. Has been true since 3.x.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architecture_of_Windows_9x#Kernel

      The DOS kernel is only used for compatibility, there's nothing "DOS based" there, it's running it's own kernel.
      It's somewhat as dumb to say like Linux is GRUB based, bad analogy but you get the idea.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Cont.

        First answer on: https://retrocomputing.stackexchange.com/questions/25726/does-the-kernel-of-windows-95-98-me-have-a-name
        Provides a good insight.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Money obviously.
    ME was the last Windows OS of the DOS line and aimed at consumers, just like 98 and 95.
    2000 was already based on the NT line, which was so far only aimed at companies. Used for workstations and servers.
    With XP they dropped the DOS line altogether and based everything on NT. Which was probably wise because ME was buggy as hell.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      ME was such garbage. I remember my parents got a new computer in 2000 and I was so hype but it came preloaded with that garbage and crashed all the time. Plug in a usb device? Crash. Unplug? Crash. Install a driver? Crash. Install software? Crash. Just sit on the desktop sometimes? Blue screen for no reason. I remember downloading an iso of win2k on my 56k modem for days and thanking god that computer had a cd burner

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Possibly got pressured by Mac OS X release. Imagine trying to sell Win2000 when your competitors OS looks like this.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      They made IE for Mac?
      Why? Lmao

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        This was before Safari.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Safari was released in 2003
          I'm surprised it's that recent

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >As a result of the five-year agreement between Apple and Microsoft in 1997, it was the default browser on the classic Mac OS and Mac OS X from 1998 until it was superseded by Apple's own Safari web browser in 2003 with the release of Mac OS X 10.3 "Panther".

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Windows 2000 looks better and works better.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    it was more of a last hurrah for the windows team. it had been obvious for a while that the NT kernel was way more stable and performant. But NT was missing some neat features that the windows team had added with multimedia, graphics. 95 and ME were both stepping stones to unification. After ME there was no windows classic team anymore, or Windows NT team, everyone got folded into the Windows team. So, 2000 was the last Windows NT release and Windows ME was the last windows release. XP was the first Windows release.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Modern Windows is still NT tho, even says NT 10 or NT 11

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It's the new technology kernel. there was no way Cutler and Lou Perazzoli were gonna let them drop the NT moniker

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    This gives me goosebumps. I remember it and it was exactly like this. Shit got done or there was no going home. Fun times.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    2000 was marketed and sold towards SMB/enterprise
    Whistler a.k.a Windows XP wasn't ready and Windows 98SE was long-in-tooth for OEMs. ME was Microsoft's short-term answer.
    ME was actually superior to Windows 98SE and is the apex of 9x/MS-DOS lineage.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *