4 ms·
You're forgetting Windows 2000. Regardless of how good you consider it to be, including Windows 2000 would break the alternating good/bad pattern.
by dag11 14y ago
You're forgetting Windows 2000. Regardless of how good you consider it to be, including Windows 2000 would break the alternating good/bad pattern.
- thehodge 14y agoand windows ME
- ChuckMcM 14y agoI think technically Win2K lived in the branch known as 'NT' so there was Windows NT, W2K, and then merged back at the Vista point (and made usable by Win7) point. The timeline as presented would be accurate for a 'home' desktop user.
- DrJokepu 14y agoXP was also based on the NT kernel and it was a direct descendant of Windows 2000.
- wluu 14y agoNT "branch" releases: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT#Releases http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT#Releases And that was: * NT 3.1 - Had Windows 3.x type UI * NT 3.5 - Had Windows 3.x type UI * NT 3.51 - Had Windows 3.x type UI * NT 4 - Had Windows 9x type UI * Windows 2000 (NT 5) * Windows XP (NT 5.1 - XP x64 was 5.2 though) * Windows Server 2003/R2 (NT 5.2) * Windows Vista/Server 2008 (NT 6.0) * Windows 7/Server 2008 R2 (NT 6.1) * Windows 8/Server 2012 (NT 6.2) I remember NT 4 was used on the main server(s) at my highschool. I think it's safe to say, XP was the first consumer/"home" user version. Though, Windows 2000 (Professional) was used in corporate environments.
- mbell 14y agoThe list provided focuses on consumer oriented OS's. Windows 2000 was a decidedly business only OS. They didn't merge as the user facing front of windows till XP.
- CamperBob2 14y agoAnd Windows 95 was most certainly not "Bad" compared to Windows 3.1x, unless you personally redefine the word "Bad" to mean "A godsend."
- eikaterine 14y agoHe did say "roughly."