The Win9x/ME (please read as DOS based) series of OS was intended for home users.
The NT/2K was intended for business users.
Only as an example most games at the time would not have run on NT/2K, and Win9x/Me was essentially single-user only.
For some reasons with XP the good MS guys decided to force down the throat of pro/business users (that were very, very, very happy about Windows 2000) the bells and whistles and graphics they didn't ask for and force down the throat of home users (that were very, very happy about Windows 98, not so much about ME [0]) the complexities of the NT, user access, permissions, NTFS, and other things that at the time made no sense whatever.
Basically they (the MS guys) unified the two branches into one and the result was (of course) a compromise.
[0] I know it is hard to say this, but ME, beside some quirks that there was no time to fix, was not as bad as it has been depicted, as a matter of fact the "best" bastard retro system you can make today is a Windows 98 with selected components of ME integrated/backported or a ME with some features of 98SE brought back, the failure of ME (not entirely unlike the later Vista one) was greatly induced (IMHO) by two factors, underpowered hardware and issues with drivers, both - if you want - essentially the responsibility of OEM's.
> that were very, very happy about Windows 98, not so much about ME [0]
I disagree somewhat. The 9x family didn't handle multitasking well and had driver issues, frequently leading to lock-ups and BSODs. The architecture didn't handle isolation well, but NT did. Windows NT mostly stayed out of people's way in XP unless they looked for those menus. It was a huge problem for Vista, though.
Well, you have to put it in context, home users at the time could have:
1) free (in the sense of included in the price or their new PC) a somewhat unstable OS with lower requisites (particularly about RAM) where most software somehow ran (including games)
or:
2) a more stable, paid (costing if I recall correctly more than the equivalent of 2-300 US$ of today) OS needing double the RAM (think of 128 vs. 64 MB), definitely slower, where they could not run many games
for some reasons many chose #1, and BSOD's (on the 9x/Me) were so common that it was perceived by many (that had not any occasion to experience the stability of NT and of 2000) as a "normal state of things".
I wasn’t aware that XP was meant to be an upgrade for 98/ME (home users) as well as for 2000 (business users). Talk about posing off both set of customers at the same time.
I personally didn’t mind ME and liked XP, but then it was as a student who didn’t do anything serious with computers so it doesn’t count much.
The Win9x/ME (please read as DOS based) series of OS was intended for home users.
The NT/2K was intended for business users.
Only as an example most games at the time would not have run on NT/2K, and Win9x/Me was essentially single-user only.
For some reasons with XP the good MS guys decided to force down the throat of pro/business users (that were very, very, very happy about Windows 2000) the bells and whistles and graphics they didn't ask for and force down the throat of home users (that were very, very happy about Windows 98, not so much about ME [0]) the complexities of the NT, user access, permissions, NTFS, and other things that at the time made no sense whatever.
Basically they (the MS guys) unified the two branches into one and the result was (of course) a compromise.
[0] I know it is hard to say this, but ME, beside some quirks that there was no time to fix, was not as bad as it has been depicted, as a matter of fact the "best" bastard retro system you can make today is a Windows 98 with selected components of ME integrated/backported or a ME with some features of 98SE brought back, the failure of ME (not entirely unlike the later Vista one) was greatly induced (IMHO) by two factors, underpowered hardware and issues with drivers, both - if you want - essentially the responsibility of OEM's.