Windows 95 vs Windows XP...both revolutionary??

[NFS4]

Well, we all know that Windows 95 was a big step in the right direction for computing. Do you feel that XP is as big a step as Microsoft is claiming? I mean, I think it's a great OS and all and it has a lot of innovations, but I don't know if it it is as big a step as Win95 was.

 

[Flatline]

NO IT IS NOT. XP is basically what you would get if you kind of mashed Win2K and ME together and added a couple of GUI features.

 

[Passions]

XP = Win2k + WindowsBlinds.

or

XP = Win2k + MacOSX wannabee.

Not very revolutionary to me.

 

[Flatline]

Actually, Bobby, I think it looks more like Mandrake.

 

[HansXP]

As has been stated, XP isn't revolutionary. Windows 2000 was, however - the first stable version of Windows that could also be used by just about anybody.

 

[NFS4]

<< As has been stated, XP isn't revolutionary. Windows 2000 was, however - the first stable version of Windows that could also be used by just about anybody. >>


Win2k was revolutionary to me. It was just a Win98 look-alike with NT stability IMHO.

 

[Flatline]

Actually, Win2K was more like NT 4.0 with increased usability and plug-and-play support; the new GUI, while similar to 98 (as is XP if you turn off the retardo-view), is a tried-and-true GUI that allows users to simply sit down and use the OS (unlike NT, which behaved more like Win95).

 

[Raincity]

<< - the first stable version of Windows that could also be used by just about anybody >>

It does not take too much brain cells to run a NT 4.0 workstation. As for the topic, No. All the Windows releases up to Win 95 where pretty much useless. DOS 6.2 was faster and more stable. Even a idiot could navigate through Dos if he was forced to learn it. XP Pro just does not flip my cookie right now. The extra cost of the upgrade then the added cost of buying software to replace what wont run right like EZCD 4.02 just does not grab me. Then having to go dissable all the crap I dont want running like system restore and system update. Then all this added spyware in Messager and MP 8. The security flaws have not even been addressed by MS. I think I will pass on XP untill something compells me to buy it.

Rain

 

[Xray]

Yes

I believe it will be revolutionary for people that have been using Win 95 to Winme

For people who have been using 2k. no

 

[HansXP]

<< It does not take too much brain cells to run a NT 4.0 workstation >>



I'm not just talking about using it. Anyone can sit down, enter a password, and get going. But think about NT4's setup, boot process, configuration mode, etc. Win2K is much more simple in those areas, and therefore more people can do more with 2K than they could with NT4.

 

[GigaCluster]

<<

<< As has been stated, XP isn't revolutionary. Windows 2000 was, however - the first stable version of Windows that could also be used by just about anybody. >>


Win2k was revolutionary to me. It was just a Win98 look-alike with NT stability IMHO. >>




Isn't Windows 2000 the first Windows-series operating system that totally abolished the DOS foundation?

 

[HansXP]

<< Isn't Windows 2000 the first Windows-series operating system that totally abolished the DOS foundation? >>



No, NT has never had DOS attached.

 

[bjc112]

Xp has spyware.. where did u hear that one.. i never knew that..

 

[trmiv]

Windows 95 was a huge revolutionary step for the Windows platform, I think most people would admit that. I also think Windows 2000 was a huge step, but not as big as Windows 95 was. I do think that Windows 2000 has been the most impressive OS Microsoft has ever released.

I don't think XP is really that revolutionary in its design, especially since a lot of it is Windows 2000 underneath. What I do think is revolutionary about XP, however, is that it is finally uniting the Windows platform to a common kernel. Finally the NT kernel's stability comes to the home market. Game and driver developers will be forced to develop for an NT based OS without using the excuse "it's a business operating system, thus our game was not fully tested in that environment" when their game doesn't work well in 2000.

 

[Electrode]

Window 3.0 was revolutionary, becausr of it's graphics and sound capability.
Windows NT 3.1 was revolutionary, because it was the first pure 32-bit windows. I don't think it was the first 32-bit OS (the oldest I know of is Linux, which came out 2 years earlier)
Windows 95 was revolutionary because of it's easy-to-navigate UI and plug-and-play support.

Windows 98 was the first to offer USB support and the FAT32 filesystem, but it's not revolutionary.
Windows 2000 offered improved stability and ease of use in a server environment, finally competing with *nix systems. Still not revolutionary.
Windows XP offers an XML-based UI. Not exactly revolutionary.

I don't know much of anything about Windows .NET, but from what I've heard, THAT will be revolutinary.

 

[Noriaki]

Win95 was the first useful version of Windows.

Windows XP isn't as revolutionary because it's really just an evolution of Windows NT4. Windows 95 was a much bigger jumper over Windows 3.11 than Windows 2000 or XP are over Windows NT4.

 

[hopster]

Well, I for one think it's a big step to be getting the masses away from the 95/98/ME engine and onto the nt/2000 bandwaggon. Like engines hopefully will streamline things and allow for better support all around...

I would have been a 2000 man myself earlier if it wasn't for the lack of gaming total gaming support... and I wasn't interested in having a dual booting machine... So, for me it's a very good thing. I've been pounding XP for the last 3 days as hard as I can and have yet to have a single application crash outside of an IE freeze in java... let a alone a system crash! Jeez, those were common place in ME for my system.

 

[KevDODOUBLEG]

Yes, it is a big step for the home users (although most of them will only really notice the UI, not the kernel change). Bigger than 95? Nope, 95 was a HUGE jump, it was basicly a jump from dos to windows, 3.1 was just something that a few programers put together to keep microsoft in people's minds and to hold them off until a real OS was released.

 

[Trashman]

Well lets keep in mind that both NT and Win2K were not intended for the average joe or home user....so yes I think XP is revolutionary in that respect that finally there is a OS as reliable and stable as 2K geared toward that market.

 

[Xray]

Yes, it is a big step for the home users (although most of them will only really notice the UI, not the kernel change

Maybe right at first thats all they will see but when they realize that they forgot what their boot up screen looks like..Well

 

[holycow]

<< Well, we all know that Windows 95 was a big step in the right direction for computing. Do you feel that XP is as big a step as Microsoft is claiming? I mean, I think it's a great OS and all and it has a lot of innovations, but I don't know if it it is as big a step as Win95 was. >>



no.. xp isn't a big step for home users, but it is a big step for microsoft.. microsoft wanted to replace win95 with nt since 1995 or 1996.. now they finally did it.. took them 5 or 6 years to do.. to microsoft, xp is a big step to big $$.