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
point??????


> 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
suite?
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