i have never used WinNT, tho i almost installed it when i went to Linux - then decided
not to due to lack of drive space for 3 operating systems. when i get a larger drive
for my OSs i want to do a Win98/Linux/WinNT system so i can learn NT, but as you
allude to, i was under the impression that NT is a new OS with almost nothing from
DOS, this comes only from reading the odd artical however, as i say - not from hands
on experience.
now that you tell this story, it sounds familer to me. i don't recall any specifics
however.
Adrian Smith
'de telepone dude
Telecom Dept.
x 7042
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2:58:28 PM 8/11/00 >>>
Sorry to break into this thread. It caught my attention.
A friend of mine told me a story about the birth of Win95.
A few guys who worked for a company were bought by "MickeySoft" ... one of
the guys for this purchased company thought it would be interesting to move
DOS to 32 bit. As the story goes ... Mickey managers were scared of Billy
Bob and didn't want to do the project. Billy had already told the press
that NT was the product. Period.
The maverick decided to do it on his own. Eventually the topic came up in a
meeting ... managers said the work wasn't possible. The maverick spoke up
and said the project was about complete. Billy Bob - seeing dollars in his
eyes - gave the project a thumbs up.
And that ... according to this story ... is how Win95 was born.
Now - somewhere - someone has written this in a book - anyone know the
title? Something about 'guys in the attic' ...
Just thought it was funny that the argument of Win95 being an OS is still
debated. But the above may explain why win95/98/ME development has been so
separated from Win NT.
