On Wed, 31 Jul 2024 at 06:14, Jim Brain via cctalk <cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > > In the interest of facts, I don't think this is correct. > > Windows NT 3.1 utilized the Windows 3.1 UI look and feel > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT_3.1 > > Windows NT 3.5 continued the 3.1 look and feel. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT_3.5
OK, true but misses out a major release, the best one of NT 3.x. I think it would be simpler to say: NT 3.1, 3.5 and 3.51 used the Windows 3.1 UI. NT 4 used the Windows 95 UI. Windows 2000 used the same UI as Windows ME: it's a modified updated version of the "Active Desktop" from Windows 98. > Thus, I believe the UI hate evaporated before Windows XP. Agreed. > I remember using 3.1, 4.0, and 2000. I deployed all of them in production. > As I recall, I loved the stability > of 3.1, but the UI was old and outdated, especially when 95 came out. Agreed. > 4.0 offered the nicer UI, but the driver situation was still a problem, > compared to the better driver support for Windows 95/98. True. Also, no Plug'n'Play, no ACPI, no USB, no FAT32. > Windows 2000 > was supposed to unify the OS variants, but it didn't quite make it > (though I think W2K moved the graphics subsystem into the kernel for > better performance), No, that was NT4. > and Windows XP was the first unified OS It wasn't really "unified" in any way. That was marketing spiel. > and the > first with a 64 bit variant. Kinda sorta yes, but it was not 64-bit at release. First an Itanium version came out a year or so later, then a year or so after that, an AMD64 version followed. -- Liam Proven ~ Profile: https://about.me/liamproven Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk ~ gMail/gTalk/FB: lpro...@gmail.com Twitter/LinkedIn: lproven ~ Skype: liamproven IoM: (+44) 7624 277612: UK: (+44) 7939-087884 Czech [+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal]: (+420) 702-829-053
