Windows board broke up to other boards.

[Computer Hope Admin]

Update:

I've now made it so posts in the Windows board (not each of the Windows child boards) can only be replied to. No new posts can be created, which should help solve issues with users doing that.

The funny thing is, what if the person doesnt mention what OS they are talking about right away (which happens often)

Most users will now fill out what OS they're using in their profile so that can be relied upon if needed.

What I would do here is just change the new subforums to actual forums of the Microsoft category. That way, all the boards would show up on the forum index.

Personally I wouldn't like that since it'd add four additional boards to the main page, which would take up a lot of space, still trying to keep things easy as possible and I think that would complicate things and be annoying to scroll through. But if needed we can put it to a vote to see what the overall community thinks.

[Cityscape]

I really like the new format.

But i still think Windows NT & 2000 could go with XP as they are all similar Windows NT line systems. But it's also fine the way it is...

My prob before was when I asked a question about Windows 3.1 it get lost among the XP-Vista stuff. Now that'd never happen. I like the new layout a lot.

Please don't change it back

[Dusty]

Only criticism is that the Last Post column doesn't show which child board it's in.

[michaewlewis]

I have a suggestion for the server board. It should be titled "Windows Servers" instead of "Windows Server 2003 and 2008" or add Server 2000 to the mix too. But wasn't there an NT Server too?
Reason for the suggestion is here: http://www.computerhope.com/forum/index.php/topic,88040.msg590166.html (See title)

[Computer Hope Admin]

But i still think Windows NT & 2000 could go with XP as they are all similar Windows NT line systems. But it's also fine the way it is...

Because many users are no longer using NT or 2000 I still think it's best these two remain seperate to help posts made about these versions of OS's not get lost in the XP section.

Only criticism is that the Last Post column doesn't show which child board it's in.

I agree this does make things difficult. I'll see if I can find some type of fix or solution for it.

I have a suggestion for the server board. It should be titled "Windows Servers" instead of "Windows Server 2003 and 2008" or add Server 2000 to the mix too. But wasn't there an NT Server too?

Agreed, changed.

[Cityscape]

I have a suggestion for the server board. It should be titled "Windows Servers" instead of "Windows Server 2003 and 2008" or add Server 2000 to the mix too. But wasn't there an NT Server too?
Reason for the suggestion is here: http://www.computerhope.com/forum/index.php/topic,88040.msg590166.html (See title)

I agree with michaewlewis, all the Windows Servers should be under one section.

Versions of Windows servers were:
- Windows NT 3.1 Advanced Server (1993)
- Windows NT 3.5 Server (1994)
- Windows NT 3.5 Server (1995)
- Windows NT 4.0 Server (1996)
- Windows NT 4.0 Server Enterprise Edition (1997)
- Windows NT 4.0 Terminal Server (1998)
- Windows 2000 Server, Advanced Server and Datacenter Server
- Windows Server 2003 (Sandard, Enterprise and Datacenter editions)
- Windows Server 2008

[Computer Hope Admin]

Cityscape, The description should match what you mentioned above, just thought I'd throw that out there. If you think it needs more let me know. However, still debating about keeping the 2k / NT section since there are Workstation versions of these OS's. Although based off about the last month not many posts in this section so it's possible it could be migrated into one.

What's everyone think about this?

Overall it seems that this change has become generally accepted. If you still don't enjoy something about this change that I haven't already addressed please speak up. I'd imagine in a few more weeks I'll also be demoting this thread so it's no longer a sticky.

[evilfantasy]

Less is more...

I think it is good the way you have it now. Maybe take the Workstation out of the Windows NT / 2000. I've only seen them described that way a few times. Actually Windows 2000 could be put in with XP since they are almost the same.

[Computer Hope Admin]

Couldn't agree with you more that less is more. I try my hardest to live by the KISS principle.

Any hesitations / complaints about this suggested change?

I'd move 2000 to XP so that category would be Windows 2000 and XP. However, would keep 2000 also in Server for those users and then move NT to Windows 3.x, 95, 98, and ME section. So we'd eliminate one of the categories and end up with.

Windows 2000 and XP
Windows Vista and 7
Windows Server
Windows 3.x, 95, 98, NT, and ME

[patio]

It would be nice if the Fatherboard could reflect new Posts...rather than it only reflecting Windows posts...

[BC_Programmer]

I don't think NT should be with 3.1,95, and 98, simply because of their vast architecture differences.

In fact, Windows 3.1 is really more a DOS program then a OS...

[michaewlewis]

It would be nice if the Fatherboard could reflect new Posts...rather than it only reflecting Windows posts...

Don't you mean, the Motherboard?

[Cityscape]

Any hesitations / complaints about this suggested change?
Windows 2000 and XP
Windows Vista and 7
Windows Server
Windows 3.x, 95, 98, NT, and ME

I've said this before and I'll say it again: NT should not be with 95/98/ME.
NT is way too different. NT is way more like Vista then is it 95/98/ME.

I'd say leave it the way it is or add NT/2000 with XP.

[michaewlewis]

the main thing that is different is that it is built on NT technology and not DOS. Most of the rest of the OS is similar. Most people wouldn't know the difference anyhow.
Also, doesn't NT use a lot of the same drivers as 98?

[patio]

Don't you mean, the Motherboard?

I as usual have no idea what i mean...