Which version of Windows is the first to be considered "modern"?

[evilguy]

Apparently some people claimed that Windows NT 5.x is considered "modern". However, Microsoft considers Windows NT to have outdated security compared to Windows Vista when Windows Vista launched, and security was actually a big focus with Windows Vista. While I have actually created a thread and posted on here from my Windows 2000 machine, I still don't think it is "modern" personally, as Windows Vista was a huge departure from Windows NT.
So with all that in mind, was the huge departure from Windows NT necessary to become a "modern" version of Windows, or does Windows NT 5.x have what it takes to be considered "modern"?
Or is neither one, perhaps Windows was never "modern" right up until Windows 10? Or maybe Windows simply never was "modern" at any point in history?

 

[Eschewcel]

Gonna ask your question to a foid as a pickup line, maybe after around a hundred rejections, this one will work.

 

[Pixycel]

from what I understand microshaft has already discontinued support for most OS's older then windows 10. So if by "modern" you mean what most things are going to be optimized for and has security updates then windows 10 and 11 are really your only options as far as I know.

 

[evilguy]

from what I understand microshaft has already discontinued support for most OS's older then windows 10. So if by "modern" you mean what most things are going to be optimized for and has security updates then windows 10 and 11 are really your only options as far as I know.

Try telling that to enterprises who still pay for extended security updates for Windows 7.

 

[proudweeb]

Vista, 7/8/10 were basically just gui changes on top of it

 

[FrothySolutions]

Why wouldn't you just call it Windows 2000? Of course it had outdated security compared to later security standards, same as anything is outdated after enough progress/evolution is made.

 

[ordinaryotaku]

I would say either XP or Vista.

 

[evilguy]

Why wouldn't you just call it Windows 2000? Of course it had outdated security compared to later security standards, same as anything is outdated after enough progress/evolution is made.

Windows 2000 is actually NT 5.0 - IE 5.0, whereas Windows NT 5.0 is NT 5.0 - IE 4.0. Yes, a different Internet Explorer version means a different Windows version, due to IE being an OS (as in, permanently melded-in part of Windows) since IE 4.0. That started to change in Windows Vista in the "server core" configurations, and Windows 8 removed all remaining IE integration in all editions.

 

[NatalLiminality]

Bill Gates wants to sell your information to the state so they can monitor your every move

 

[Pixycel]

Windows 2000 is actually NT 5.0 - IE 5.0, whereas Windows NT 5.0 is NT 5.0 - IE 4.0. Yes, a different Internet Explorer version means a different Windows version, due to IE being an OS (as in, permanently melded-in part of Windows) since IE 4.0. That started to change in Windows Vista in the "server core" configurations, and Windows 8 removed all remaining IE integration in all editions.

You know all this but you fell for a "Download free RAM here" virus?

 

[TheDarkEnigma]

I'd say NT 4.0, since it has the same UI as Windows 95 but isn't based on DOS thus the direct ancestor to modern versions of Windows.

 

[FrothySolutions]

Windows 2000 is actually NT 5.0 - IE 5.0, whereas Windows NT 5.0 is NT 5.0 - IE 4.0. Yes, a different Internet Explorer version means a different Windows version, due to IE being an OS (as in, permanently melded-in part of Windows) since IE 4.0. That started to change in Windows Vista in the "server core" configurations, and Windows 8 removed all remaining IE integration in all editions.

But the Windows NT 5.0 codename wasn't introduced until Windows 2000 was released.

 

[NatalLiminality]

This entire question is flawed since modern isn't rigidly defined

 

[evilguy]

But the Windows NT 5.0 codename wasn't introduced until Windows 2000 was released.

Actually, neither Windows NT 5.0 not Windows 2000 had any sort of codenames. Windows NT 5.0 was planned to release under that name but was cancelled because Windows 98 Second Edition had IE 5.0, and a new version of Windows NT with IE 4.0 was going to seem out of place in comparison. So, they used Windows NT 5.0 as the basis for Windows 2000. When the development of Windows 2000 started, they revealed its final name right away, and never bothered to codename it.

 

[TheDarkEnigma]

Actually, neither Windows NT 5.0 not Windows 2000 had any sort of codenames. Windows NT 5.0 was planned to release under that name but was cancelled because Windows 98 Second Edition had IE 5.0, and a new version of Windows NT with IE 4.0 was going to seem out of place in comparison. So, they used Windows NT 5.0 as the basis for Windows 2000. When the development of Windows 2000 started, they revealed its final name right away, and never bothered to codename it.

What's your opinion on ReactOS?

 

[evilguy]

What's your opinion on ReactOS?

Was supposed to replace Windows but remains too unstable to this day. It was expected to be a decent replacement in 2015. It's now almost 2022 and it's still unusable! It doesn't seem to want to work with VirtualBox unless you make its emulated GPU have too little VRAM to qualify as a crappy GPU (let alone a normal one).

 

[TheDarkEnigma]

Was supposed to replace Windows but remains too unstable to this day. It was expected to be a decent replacement in 2015. It's now almost 2022 and it's still unusable! It doesn't seem to want to work with VirtualBox unless you make its emulated GPU have too little VRAM to qualify as a crappy GPU (let alone a normal one).

Considering that ReactOS is a small project of mostly volunteers trying to study the Windows operating system in order to legally reverse-engineer it it's understandable that it's not going to be perfect or stable.

Though, I do really wish ReactOS becomes stable enough for daily use but this is not the case sadly.

 

[thespanishcel]

I remember when I was a kid and my father bought a laptop with Windows Vista in 2007 or 2008, it looked so futurisic, modern and different than our desktop computer with Windows XP. But it was slow af and crashed all the time so it wasn't worth it kek.

 

[Cope_Time]

maby 95, since it was revolutionary

 

[crestfallencel]

i remember normoids lining up in the software stores to buy Windows 95, never seen that before

 

[epillepsy]

maby 95, since it was revolutionary

 

[FrothySolutions]

Actually, neither Windows NT 5.0 not Windows 2000 had any sort of codenames. Windows NT 5.0 was planned to release under that name but was cancelled because Windows 98 Second Edition had IE 5.0, and a new version of Windows NT with IE 4.0 was going to seem out of place in comparison. So, they used Windows NT 5.0 as the basis for Windows 2000. When the development of Windows 2000 started, they revealed its final name right away, and never bothered to codename it.

Wikipedia lists that specifically as the codename for Windows 2000.

 

[evilguy]

Wikipedia lists that specifically as the codename for Windows 2000.

Remember, Wikipedia also has their infamous incel article, that only accurately describes users of this site, not all other incels. They also think that P4 could refer to the Pentium 4. They also claimed Windows 95 would fail to boot on more than 440 MB of RAM. Of course they'd think Windows NT 5.0 and Windows 2000 are the same, and simply assume Windows NT 5.0 is the codename, as they don't understand that changing the IE version, at least since IE 4 and up until Windows 8, definitely meant changing the Windows version, even though the kernel version is the same.

 

[FrothySolutions]

Remember, Wikipedia also has their infamous incel article, that only accurately describes users of this site, not all other incels. They also think that P4 could refer to the Pentium 4. They also claimed Windows 95 would fail to boot on more than 440 MB of RAM. Of course they'd think Windows NT 5.0 and Windows 2000 are the same, and simply assume Windows NT 5.0 is the codename, as they don't understand that changing the IE version, at least since IE 4 and up until Windows 8, definitely meant changing the Windows version, even though the kernel version is the same.

The incel stuff, sure maybe, a lot of that is one opinion vs. another. But the Windows stuff, that's all verifiable fact.

 

[evilguy]

The incel stuff, sure maybe, a lot of that is one opinion vs. another. But the Windows stuff, that's all verifiable fact.

I can verify Windows 95 is able to boot on 512 MB of RAM. 768 MB is too much, however. It doesn't matter anyway, as Windows 95 will never run well, regardless of how good your computer is. Windows 95 would still be painful on a Pentium M, which should be an uber-fast, sci-fi CPU for it. OS/2 Warp 4 and Windows NT 4.0 were actually quite snappy on Pentium II hardware, whereas Windows 95 would take an eternity to do stuff even on a Pentium M.

Whoops, that was way off topic, all I wanted to tell you is that Windows 95 still works (as badly as normal) on 512 MB of RAM. Whereas Wikipedia still says it can only run on 440 MB before failing to boot.

 

[FrothySolutions]

I can verify Windows 95 is able to boot on 512 MB of RAM. 768 MB is too much, however. It doesn't matter anyway, as Windows 95 will never run well, regardless of how good your computer is. Windows 95 would still be painful on a Pentium M, which should be an uber-fast, sci-fi CPU for it. OS/2 Warp 4 and Windows NT 4.0 were actually quite snappy on Pentium II hardware, whereas Windows 95 would take an eternity to do stuff even on a Pentium M.

Whoops, that was way off topic, all I wanted to tell you is that Windows 95 still works (as badly as normal) on 512 MB of RAM. Whereas Wikipedia still says it can only run on 440 MB before failing to boot.

I think what they mean by that is, it isn't meant to. Like it says in this dev blog.

Windows 95 doesn't boot with more than 1GB of RAM - The Old New Thing

The inner workings of the Windows 95 memory manager's bootstrap algorithm.

devblogs.microsoft.com

There's always wiggle room as far as specs. But codenames, something either is or isn't named a thing.

 

[ReconElement]

My first laptop was a Vista machine, lots of incel memories with it since I spent all my time on it

 

[bigantennaemay1]

I don't know, but Edge was definitely the first time they had a modern browser that was compliant to standards.

 

[TheDarkEnigma]

I don't know, but Edge was definitely the first time they had a modern browser that was compliant to standards.

Because it's based on Chromium.

 

[bigantennaemay1]

and security was actually a big focus with Windows Vista.

Yeah, it was. I remember hearing they went so overboard with it, it made it a nightmare to run anything on it, especially PC games.

 

[bigantennaemay1]

Because it's based on Chromium.

Oh. Well, then what's the point of having Edge? I already have Chrome. And Firefox, for that matter.

 

[TheDarkEnigma]

Oh. Well, then what's the point of having Edge? I already have Chrome. And Firefox, for that matter.

It's using Chromium as its rendering engine. They just change the UI a little bit and made it more integrated with Microsoft services. They still force you to use Bing as the default search engine without giving you an option to change it.

 

[bigantennaemay1]

They still force you to use Bing as the default search engine without giving you an option to change it.

So it's still not modern, then.

 

[TheDarkEnigma]

So it's still not modern, then.

It's not like using Google is any better.

 

[bigantennaemay1]

It's not like using Google is any better.

Yeah, I only use that for work, though. I use Firefox on my own time.

 

[TheDarkEnigma]

Yeah, I only use that for work, though. I use Firefox on my own time.

Firefox is turning to shit. Technically it's it's own browser, but Mozilla is still funded by Google and they're just partnered with Facebook in order to push ads to their users.

 

[bigantennaemay1]

Firefox is turning to shit. Technically it's it's own browser, but Mozilla is still funded by Google and they're just partnered with Facebook in order to push ads to their users.

I've known about this, and Firefox's developers being LGBTQXYZ-supporting liberal faggots but I've been using Firefox for over a decade now, and I also don't know of any alternatives that I can put adblock on and which have a low learning curve. So I keep using Firefox. For now.