98 Guy wrote:
" used improper usenet message composition style
by unnecessarily full-quoting:

As I understood it, Win2000 was supposed to be a combined version,
able to work on standalone computers (i.e. upgrade from Win98SE)
*and* networked computers (i.e. upgrade from NT versions)

Wrong on several counts.

First, you make some sort of distinction between networked and
non-networked operating systems, as if to imply that win98 was somehow
not suited for networked use (that it was somehow designed for
stand-alone use) - which couldn't be further from the truth.

Second, you imply that win-2k was a direct replacement for win-98. That
is also wrong.

No, not at all, as, in the part of my post that you snipped I typed
"but, after its release, Win2000 was found to not work well on
standalones, so the revised standalone version became WinME."

Sorry, after reading to the end of your post, I now see you didn't snip
that bit at all, sorry!!

Anyone running win-98 was doing so as a non-system
administrator (in an organizational setting) or was running it in a
home/soho setting. They would continue to run win-98 in those settings
until their next computer purchase - which could have been a computer
with windows ME or Windows XP.

So-called power users, developers or servers would have already been
running windows NT4 either in an organizational setting or soho setting,
and those are the ones that would have switched over to Windows 2k.

Again, as I typed, Win2000 was supposed to be the combine, but didn't
work in standalone situations, so implying it did work as a networked
replacement

Home users that were also "power users" or early adopters didn't switch
from win-9x/me to Win-2k for a variety of reasons, but predominantly
because early driver support was lagging on win-2k, particularly for
sound cards. Power users (in home settings) are more likely to be avid
game players.

Micro$oft's own sales documents specifically mention that win-2k was not
designed for home use (the support load that microsoft would have
experienced from home users trying to figure out how to use win-2k would
have been overwhelming). And the hardware requirements in terms of CPU,
ram and hard-drive size were higher for win-2k vs 9x/me, and in those
days that difference equated to significantly more expensive price tag.

So you might think that win-2K was somehow part of the upgrade or
migration path for win-9x/me - but for all the reasons mentioned above,
it wasn't.

Just look at your own experiences with people you know, and how many of
them went from win-98 to win-2k (in 2000 or 2001) vs win-xp (in 2002 and
beyond).

I stuck with Win98SE (on my desktop computer, which I still use,
occasionally) until I brought this laptop which came with Win7
pre-installed. I then dual-installed various Linux installations which
is where I send most of my on-line time, basically just booting Win7 to
get various updates!

At my last place of work, the Australian Taxation Office, they only
updated to Win7 from WinXP, sometime after I left in 2011. Don't know
when any previous updates had occured.

Most family members have updated Windows versions as they brought new
computers, so no real "updating" of OS's.

but, after its release, Win2000 was found to not work well on
standalones, so the revised standalone version became WinME.

Again, this distinction between OS functionality or OS performance and
the network "connected-ness" of the machine is bogus.

O.K., as I started my previous post "As I understood it,", your
understanding was different!!

Daniel