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 of 3.1, but the UI was old and outdated, especially when 95 came out.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

Reply via email to