Inline comments:
John Jay Smith said:
--Win95 was a great improvement..a revolution (although it did borrow
ideas form others)
--Win98 was like 95 but it sorted out all the buts and added some new
technologies
--Win98SE had some minor improvements
"Win95 was a revolution "
Are you kidding me - it was freakin' buggy !
A lot of folks kept their dumb terminals on the mainframe rather than
use Win95.
It took them 3 years but Win 98 was Win95 Sp1.
THAT (Win98) should have been released
Win95 was really Beta Win98 and they got away with it.
When they announced Windows 95 ( rather than a name like Windows 3.x or
Windows 4.0), I thought it was so they could sell it every year ( Win96,
Win97 etc). I thought that it was marketing genius. I thought it would
be the previous years' version with all the service packs/updates. I was
very surprised they didn't do so.
--WinMe, was an abomination. They tried to load 1000 gui improvements
on a core that just couldnt handle the task! Results? It kept
crashing....
--Win2000 was another milestone, but the target was not on the masses,
thus it was not so popular as it deserved.
--WinXP was the best OS MS had made, flexible, easy to use, stable,
popular (meaning that you could find drivers)..
END OF THE GOLDEN AGE OF WINDOWS
You skipped the biggest winner - NT. THAT ran all the non-mainframe
servers in the early days.
I been trying and can't see why IE7 and Vista are " the future "
according to Steve Ballmer, quoted in today's Fortune magazine:
http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/ap/2006/05/31/ap2783614.html
' "There's a lot of innovation still coming in Internet browsing and
hardware," Ballmer told investors at a conference organized by Sanford
C. Bernstein and Co. LLC. "If we don't keep Windows fresh,
Windows will not continue to flourish."
Microsoft is currently working on new versions of its browser, Internet
Explorer 7, and operating system, Windows Vista. '
HUH ?
Where's the money in a new IE7 ?
Bobb
