Liste des Groupes | Revenir à ol advocacy |
On Thu, 30 May 2024 12:02:56 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
>On 2024-05-29, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:>On Wed, 29 May 2024 15:31:56 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
>I used Windows 2000. It's inferior to Cinnamon, or Mate or Xfce in my>
opinion. (Of course these desktops have the advantage of running on
top of Linux.) But I can't quite understand why you run down Linux UIs
that look like the Windows' UI — what is it about Windows 2000's UI
that you think is somehow unique compared to other Windows desktops?
Well 2000 was better than NT 4.0, the king of BSOD.
My younger brother, who's been a Windows' programmer for a long time
now,
hated to see Windows 2000 go away. I don't know anything about NT, never
used it. I guess I was using XP at that time.
Originally there was going to be a NT 5.0 in 1998 but when the release was
pushed to Dec 1999 they decided Windows 2000 sounded cool, particularly
with the Y2K bug.
>
XP was built on the NT 5.1 kernel. We're now up to NT 10.0. MS jumped
from 6.3 to 10.0. Sometimes I think they like to confuse people :)
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.