[Home]Windows 2000/Talk

HomePage | Windows 2000 | Recent Changes | Preferences

Showing revision 6
Actually, it isn't completely correct to say that XP is the successor to 2000. XP is the successor to 9x/Me? and NT Professional, but there is currently no successor to the Windows 2000 server products. "Windows Server .Net" or some similar foolishness, is currently, I think, in beta 3. To say that XP is the successor to 2000 over-emphasizes the role of 2000 as a desktop operating system and under-emphasizes it as a network operating system. - 9jack9.
In the sense that XP was built upon 2000, you could say that it is the successor. I think that XP was supposed to replace *both* 2000 and ME, by making 2000 easier to use for desktop but keeping it powerful enough for networking. Also (I think) that .net isn't itself an operating system, but a programming-design protocall or something like that. -- sodium
Well, it's reasonable to say that XP is mostly built on the code of W2K, so in that sense it's the successor to W2K. However, it's supposed to also be the successor in the sense of "migration path" from all Windows desktop operating systems. So, does that make it the successor to W2K Pro, 9x/Me?, or both? I dunno. Also, there are two versions of XP, XP Home and XP Professional, so you could say that XP Home is the successor to 9x/Me? and that XP Pro is the successor to W2K Pro.

Microsoft says that the "next generation of the Windows Server family" is "Windows .Net Server Beta 3". They also refer to "Microsoft's .Net vision", which includes pretty much everything, including Windows server versions, server applications, programming platform, and Internet-based services. - 9jack9.


... does that make it the successor to W2K Pro, 9x / Me, or both?
My understanding was that it was both, including large-scale networking. I suppose .Net must be the next generation of windows, but I think it will be a few years before it comes out (whatever Microsoft claims). -- sodium
Which leads me to the conclusion that brief discussions of successor in the article doesn't add a lot of value, unless it tries to detail all of these things. -9jack9.


HomePage | Windows 2000 | Recent Changes | Preferences
This page is read-only | View other revisions | View current revision
Edited December 6, 2001 3:11 am by 9Jack9 (diff)
Search: