|
|
User Controls
|
New User
|
Login
|
Edit/View My Profile
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac
|
Articles
|
Forums
|
Links
|
News
|
News Search
|
Reviews
|
|
|
|
News Centers
|
Windows/Microsoft
|
DVD
|
ActiveHardware
|
Xbox
|
MaINTosh
|
News Search
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats
|
The Lobby
|
Special Events Room
|
Developer's Lounge
|
XBox Chat
|
|
|
|
FAQ's
|
Windows 98/98 SE
|
Windows 2000
|
Windows Me
|
Windows "Whistler" XP
|
Windows CE
|
Internet Explorer 6
|
Internet Explorer 5
|
Xbox
|
DirectX
|
DVD's
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips
|
Registry Tips
|
Windows 95/98
|
Windows 2000
|
Internet Explorer 4
|
Internet Explorer 5
|
Windows NT Tips
|
Program Tips
|
Easter Eggs
|
Hardware
|
DVD
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews
|
Applications
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002
|
|
Hardware
|
Intel Personal Audio Player
3000
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse
Explorer
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info
|
About This Site
|
Affiliates
|
ANet Forums
|
Contact Us
|
Default Home Page
|
Link To Us
|
Links
|
Member Pages
|
Site Search
|
Awards
|
|
|
|
Credits
©1997/2004, Active Network. All
Rights Reserved.
Layout & Design by
Designer Dream. Content
written by the Active Network team. Please click
here for full terms of
use and restrictions or read our
Privacy Statement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Time:
18:26 EST/23:26 GMT | News Source:
Microsoft |
Posted By: Julien Jay |
This article summarizes Microsoft's decades-long effort to evolve Windows from a single, one-size-fits-all desktop operating system for everyone into a robust family of server and desktop operating systems. On November 10, 1983, Microsoft announced Microsoft Windows, an extension of the MS-DOS® operating system that would provide a graphical operating environment for PC users. Microsoft called Windows 1.0 a new software environment for developing and running applications that use bitmap displays and mouse pointing devices. With Windows, the graphical user interface (GUI) era at Microsoft had begun.
The release of Windows XP in 2001 marked a major milestone in the Windows desktop operating system family, by bringing together the two previously separate lines of Windows desktop operating systems. With the upcoming release of Windows .NET Server, Microsoft will complete a cycle of server operating system upgrades it began nearly a decade ago in 1993, with the release of the first version of Microsoft Windows NT® Server. To understand the progression of Windows server operating systems you have to look back earlier than 1993, however, to the even longer line of Windows desktop operating systems stretching back to the early 1980s.
|
|
#1 By
1401 (24.74.52.178)
at
6/29/2002 7:37:34 PM
|
Windows 1.0 was a rockin' OS...
|
#2 By
2062 (68.129.88.88)
at
6/29/2002 11:06:58 PM
|
This was posted on xp-erience.org 3 days ago on there front page, the microsoft site itself has been around for a long time. Why dont you give credit where credit is due?
-gosh
|
#3 By
531 (66.188.129.246)
at
6/30/2002 12:06:10 AM
|
Give me a break. They said the source is Microsoft. That's credit. That's who deserves it.
Go soak your head if you want to start an argument.
|
#4 By
135 (208.50.201.48)
at
6/30/2002 12:56:44 AM
|
Never heard of xp-erience.org
xp-erience.org today has an article about ASP.NET Matrix project.
Activewin reported on Matrix days ago.
xp-erience.org isn't crediting activewin for it, why is that?
xp-erience.org is running off Apache/Linux, why is that? [hint: www.crystaltech.com guys! IIS5 with .NET]
Look, I'm not going to attack xp-erience.org, since I've never viewed the site until today. But let's not have a repeat of the neowin.net idiocy.
|
#5 By
2062 (68.129.23.8)
at
6/30/2002 6:07:12 AM
|
http://www.wininsider.com/ posted this article june 28th, along with windowsxp.nu, and neowin.net, before activewin.com did. This article is no big deal, it hasnt been updated for a month, and yet 4 sites all of a sudden posted the article at the same time? Give me a break, one site posted the article and the others copied it. If you want to act like a little kid and call me names because i pointed this out, then go ahead and cry about it. Activewin takes articles from other sites, just like other sites take articles from activewin and don't give credit.
-gosh
|
#6 By
61 (65.32.168.97)
at
6/30/2002 8:47:30 AM
|
Honestly, I'm getting sick and tired of this, you dolts have absolutley NO idea as to where this information came from and therefore need to shut your mouths.
|
#7 By
135 (208.50.201.48)
at
6/30/2002 12:38:12 PM
|
Looks like the neowin.net whiners are back.
|
#8 By
7650 (24.28.118.89)
at
6/30/2002 5:21:40 PM
|
Does it really matter who got to it first? NO.
Does it matter to me that it is on ActiveWin so that I can read it--YES
Should ActiveWin credit the ORIGINAL source (Microsoft) and not some other 3rd party site who they have no idea who got it first?--YES.
End of discussion.
This post was edited by Sclomp on Sunday, June 30, 2002 at 17:22.
|
#9 By
135 (208.50.201.48)
at
6/30/2002 7:39:39 PM
|
Phaedrus - Agreed.
This story is access by first going to windows.microsoft.com and then clicking on the link to the left side titled 'Windows History". Wasn't that easy?
It seems pretty blatantly obvious that if a story exists on some third party site(cnet, msnbc, microsoft, whatever) that it is not only possible but entirely plausible that multiple people may come upon the story independently. After all, that is sort of the purpose of these sites publishing the story.
HAL-9000 - You can go back to neowin and play with the other children.
|
#10 By
371 (213.84.104.16)
at
7/1/2002 7:48:24 AM
|
I posted the story on WindowsXP.nu with credit to wininsider where I read it. Sure MS is the real source, but I think there is nothing wrong with a netiquette giving credit to a site who discovered the news. I allways do that when activewin discovers MS news.
But maybe it's just me.
Bink
http://www.windowsxp.nu
|
#11 By
3 (62.253.128.4)
at
7/1/2002 10:01:48 AM
|
It is sad to see that because some sites like ours give credit where credit is due we get complaints about it from those who do it differently. We even got complaints when we credited a site for their DirectX 8.1b news - we credited them because they got more info on the the release from a place other than the direct site...still hey we're always in the wrong.
This post was edited by Byron_Hinson[AW] on Monday, July 01, 2002 at 10:09.
|
#12 By
135 (209.180.28.6)
at
7/1/2002 10:56:06 AM
|
kevinu - Crystaltech rules! I've had my site hosted there for 2 years, and I highly recommend them.
Bink - Read post #13.
This post was edited by sodablue on Monday, July 01, 2002 at 10:57.
|
#13 By
371 (213.84.104.16)
at
7/1/2002 12:10:31 PM
|
#17 sure AW should link direct to the source of the story, but most news sites put a little thank you to the site where AW found the item.
And what is a "2-bit site" ?
SodaBlue: I read no. 13 but in this case I dont think so, cause this article was over 2 weeks old.
But OK let's cut the crap, it's just what I think.
|
#14 By
135 (209.180.28.6)
at
7/1/2002 2:05:53 PM
|
Bink - The original message claimed this xp-erience.org site was the source, but I notice on that site they have many articles which were first posted on Activewin which are not attributed to activewin. But I don't think we can conclude from that that Activewin was the source, just because I saw it here first.
Chances are very likely that activewin received the tip for the article via an email. I have done this in the past, where I might see a link to an article on /. and I will email it to AW. But I don't say I saw this on /., I say I found this article which is quite interesting... Sometimes those articles are actually links within the comments.
Anyway, it's generally considered proper netiquette to not accuse people of stuff when you have no substance behind your claims. I find these accusations quite ridiculous just from a logical argumentation standpoint because there are so many flaws in the theories.
|
|
|
|
|