3 ms·
Let’s not forget that XP had twice the system requirements that 2000 did. I think the main difference is really just that XP had a “Home” edition that came pre
by hnlmorg 2y ago
Let’s not forget that XP had twice the system requirements that 2000 did.
I think the main difference is really just that XP had a “Home” edition that came preinstalled on home PCs.
There’s no reason Microsoft couldn’t do that with 2000, and in fact I read that some stores did stock Windows 2000 instead of Windows Me (though this wasn’t something I personally witnessed).
- p_l 2y agoI'm not talking about environments that could run Home Edition - one of the things MS disabled in Home was ability to join AD domains, something that was available on 9x. From what I recall, an important point for releasing ME at all was that compatibility (both in applications and drivers) was not yet ready at the time of NT 5.0 going gold, leading to a stopgap solution being deployed.
- hnlmorg 2y agoIn my experience, offices did run Windows 2000. I also knew offices that ran NT4 too. I guess it depends on the office though. At risk of stating the obvious: Different organisations will do things differently.
- p_l 2y agoNT4 was reasonably rarer due to hardware compatibility issues as well as software compatibility. Windows 2000 brought great change there, but it only really finished with the very soon after XP. The organizations that really needed NT for various reasons (engineering software, SMP, higher security settings, etc.) did move as early as NT4, indeed. Also, non-trivial amount of Alpha workstations with NT4 (as well as Pentium Pro ones)