Quote:
Originally Posted by paulsherwin
I don't remember it being significantly slower than NT4 when machines were upgraded.
|
NT4 ran adequately on 64 MB of memory, while 128 MB was really a starting point with Win2k.
Quote:
Originally Posted by julie_m
My understanding is, the designation "Windows 9" was avoided on purpose, in case some software thought that was enough to be the beginning of "Windows 95" or "Windows 98" and refused to run, or tried to use some sort of compatibility mode.
|
That was always incredibly unlikely. The API calls for version return the actual Windows version number - 4.0 for 95, 4.1 for 98 and 4.9 for ME.
Skipping 9 was mainly marketing.