Which version of Windows NT was the biggest jump in technology from the prior version

[Wolverine607]

Out of all Windows NT desktop versions all the way until Windows 10 (NT 10.0), which version to the next do you think was the biggest jump in technology.

I say Windows NT versions so we can stay with one OS family. I would not count the jump from Windows 98 to XP as it was not only a huge advancement in technology, but getting rid of the old 9X line and permanently moving everyone to the NT line and a change to a completely different OS and not an advancement within the same OS family.

I am talking about OS advancements staying within the same OS family/cloth. So since Windows NT was there back then and here now, I figure to use this as the base as Windows 9X has not made any advancements nor new versions since Windows ME in 2000.

Ok so out of all of the Windows NT versions, which was the biggest jump in technology and advancement in your opinion.

Windows NT 3.1 to Windows NT 3.5

Windows NT 3.5 to Windows NT 3.51

Windows NT 3.51 to Windows NT 4.0

Windows NT 4.0 to Windows 2000 (NT 5.0)

Windows 2000 (NT 5.0) to Windows XP (NT 5.1 for 32-bit and NT 5.2 for 64-bit)

Windows XP (NT 5.1 and NT 5.2) to Windows Vista (NT 6.0)

Windows Vista (NT 6.0) to Windows 7 (NT 6.1)

Windows 7 (NT 6.1) to Windows 8 (NT 6.2)

Windows 8 (NT 6.2) to Windows 8.1 (NT 6.3)

Windows 8.1 (NT 6.3) to Windows 10 (NT 10.0)


In my opinion, I think the biggest jump would either be from NT 4.0 to 2000 (NT 5.0) or from XP (NT 5.1) to Vista (NT 6.0) as the kernel had a massive leap in advancements and technologies as well as so many new OS features thus the change in the kernel major version number.

Granted Windows 8.1 to Windows 10 went from NT kernel version 6.3 to NT 10.0, but it was not even close to that leap in advancement as form NT 4 to NT 5.X or NT 5.X to NT 6.X as it was Microsoft not wanting to cause confusion with the NT kernel version no longer matching the Windows version name.

Your thoughts.

 

[Ketchup]

Interestingly, I agree. Vista (Server 2008) was that huge jump that Windows needed, and all proceeding OSs by Microsoft are still based on TMK. Yet, they have improved it. But it was the beginning of a very solid platform.

Honorable mentions still go to XP and Windows 98, which both started great advances over their predecessors.

 

[DigDog]

it's not even a question worth asking, XP is the apex of old school computing, Vista is the first modern NT OS.

 

[postmortemIA]

it's not even a question worth asking, XP is the apex of old school computing, Vista is the first modern NT OS.

Except that XP is Windows 2000 with a skin...

 

[ViRGE]

I am surprised to see we're all in such agreement. My immediate response to the question was Vista as well, and that was before seeing any of the responses. NT 5.0 gets an honorable mention here - it got real USB and PnP hardware, and I don't need to explain how critical that is - but Vista is still the OS we really use even 10 years later. New networking, sound, and video layers, WPF, a modern security/permissions model, Hyper-V, etc. It isn't just a bunch of important improvements, but it's the biggest collection of improvements of all the NT releases.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Moving from 7 to 10 is the largest jump available. XP was great back in the day but I'm not living in the past. Vista was bloatware after which 7 was a welcome relief. ME was the most unstable version I've ever used.

 

[mikeymikec]

Further points in favour of NT5 - proper IDE DMA support out of the box, and DirectX 5.

I hated trying to get IDE DMA working with some chipsets on NT4 - sometimes the DMA registry tweak would do it, though sometimes NT4 SP4 would take a dump on the installation with that tweak in place, sometimes the third party drivers were best, sometimes they were iffy... Argh.

 

[xpclient]

Except that XP is Windows 2000 with a skin...

Oh not this shit again! Every time someone says XP was 2000 with a skin, I want to point him to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_XP Windows XP was a huge leap ahead, probably not as many things revised as NT6.0 aka Vista but the user experience of XP was much better than Vista. Windows 7 fixed most of Vista's annoyances (although not all of them). The guy who led Windows from Windows 98 to Vista, Jim Allchin did all the great work. His biggest accomplishments on the client side of Windows are Windows NT 4.0, 2000, XP and Vista. He also established Microsoft's server business. So all of the NT releases under his lead were huge advancements.

Then all the Metro silliness arrived once Sinofsky fixed Vista's bugs and took credit for Allchin's/Vista-era innovations by rebranding it as Windows 7 and adding some features. Then he ruined it with MS Bob 8 along with Julie Larson Green assisting MS in ruining Office with 2007 Ribbon and Metro and they've lost direction now.

 

[mikeymikec]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_10

That's a pretty small list in comparison to the others. Admittedly for it to realistically be "the last version of Windows", the list of necessary additions needed to be pretty small, but I can't help but think that hailing Win10 as "the last version of Windows" seems premature / a very odd time to pick, given the changes that have occurred post Win7.

I'm also wondering whether there's going to be a release similar to OS X whereby a major change occurs that rules out a tonne of older hardware in some way. I also find it odd that the Settings / Control Panel mess is really what we're going to end up with in the long term.

 

[Rhonda the Sly]

Voted XP to Vista, though I gave a hard look to NT4 to 2000 bump.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_10That's a pretty small list in comparison to the others. Admittedly for it to realistically be "the last version of Windows", the list of necessary additions needed to be pretty small, but I can't help but think that hailing Win10 as "the last version of Windows" seems premature / a very odd time to pick, given the changes that have occurred post Win7.

People get caught up on this phrase a bit but I think because Windows now does automatic updates for features, security, and OS versions all for free the version number becomes less important because we're all expected to be running the same code. Will there be another major version bump? Likely, Microsoft will use that to generate interest but, at the end of the day, it will be the current version - the version everyone will be using. Windows.

It's not that there won't be another version bump but that it won't matter.

I'm also wondering whether there's going to be a release similar to OS X whereby a major change occurs that rules out a tonne of older hardware in some way.

Yes, it's in the EULA somewhere.

 

[mikeymikec]

Yes, it's in the EULA somewhere.

If you could point it out, I'd like to know.

 

[samdavid4]

Voted XP to Vista, though I gave a hard look to NT4 to 2000 bump.

People get caught up on this phrase a bit but I think because Windows now does automatic updates for features, security, and OS versions all for free the version number becomes less important because we're all expected to be running the same code. Will there be another major version bump? Likely, Microsoft will use that to generate interest but, at the end of the day, it will be the current version - the version everyone will be using. Windows.

It's not that there won't be another version bump but that it won't matter.

Yes, it's in the EULA somewhere.

And all these years later, you were totally right. Windows 11 is very similar to 10 and even based on NT 10.0. I almost didn't even upgrade at all.

 

[Steltek]

If you haven't seen it, this is a pretty decent interview on Youtube with Dave Cutler.

 

[Oyeve]

For me, at the time when I was a network server builder, the jump from NT 3.51 to NT 4.0 was a game changer. From an engineering and connectivity standpoint. 3.5 and 3.51 was a networking nightmare.

 

[DigDog]

it's not even a question worth asking, XP is the apex of old school computing, Vista is the first modern NT OS.

this was 7 years ago yo.

 

[mindless1]

Win2K to XP, as it was what brought the majority of the world's PCs over to NT. Even if you want to argue it's just a skin with some media enhancements, that's what tipped the scales towards NT being the majority OS.

I realize that this is not really the point being asked about, but it was essentially what raised the level of tech for the average consumer, to a reliable level.