Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: dayglored
There was never a Windows NT 1 or Windows NT 2.

Although technically correct, Windows NT 3.1 was based on OS/2, its predecessor. So although there is no direct correlation about a numbering scheme of NT version 3 following OS/2 versions, indirectly one might say there is (very loosely). I'm a former NT/Windows Server admin and supported OS/2, NT, and Windows (in addition to flavors of DOS back to version 1) and still have various copies of the software including a shrink-wrapped new box of OS/2 version 2.0 (early 1990s) that I never opened.

33 posted on 06/05/2017 11:17:00 PM PDT by roadcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]


To: roadcat
> Although technically correct, Windows NT 3.1 was based on OS/2, its predecessor. So although there is no direct correlation about a numbering scheme of NT version 3 following OS/2 versions, indirectly one might say there is (very loosely). I'm a former NT/Windows Server admin and supported OS/2, NT, and Windows (in addition to flavors of DOS back to version 1) and still have various copies of the software including a shrink-wrapped new box of OS/2 version 2.0 (early 1990s) that I never opened.

Yep, you make a good point about the (loose) connection to OS/2 versioning.

50 posted on 06/06/2017 7:55:55 PM PDT by dayglored ("Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson