E11 / Windows ME question

From: Fred Cisin <cisin_at_xenosoft.com>
Date: Wed Feb 14 16:06:08 2001

> At 04:44 PM 2/14/01 +0100, you wrote:
> >Windows ME runs on a whole slew of processors, such as the ARM or Hitachi SH-
> >4, whereas Windows 9x only runs on Intels. I think binary compatibility is
> >expecting too much.

On Wed, 14 Feb 2001, Chuck McManis wrote:
> Nope, you are confusing Windows "CE" with Windows "ME" (what a difference a
> letter makes), the "CE" aka "Compact Edition" runs on a variety of
> processors,

At one point, "CE" was "Consumer Electronics"! Did it change?
There is a "new" variation of "Windows CE" called "Pocket PC".

> the "ME" aka "Millenium Edition" runs only on x86
> architectures.

and "ME" was a renaming of "98", which was a renaming of "95"
BTW, "98" will REFUSE to install unless there is a math coprocessor!
What possible reasons could there be for an OS to need floating

> Then there is Windows "NT" which ran on x86, PowerPC, and
> Alpha, and "Windows 2K" which runs only on x86 again.

"Windows 2000" was a renaming of "NT 5".
Did the non x86 versions of NT survive?

> Note you can buy all
> four of these operating systems from Microsoft today, confused yet?

I can't understand ANY current MICROS~1 product names!
Are they now created with a random word generator?
What is the intent behind the name "Visual Studio" for their compiler
What is "Interdev"?
Why is the Virus Transfer Protocol product named "Outlook"?

Grumpy Ol' Fred        cisin_at_xenosoft.com
Received on Wed Feb 14 2001 - 16:06:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Oct 10 2014 - 23:33:44 BST