PDA

View Full Version : Windows 7

mullf
11-01-2009, 07:22 PM
So how come it's called "Windows 7", but when I open a command window, it says "Microsoft Windows [Version 6.1.7600]"? I feel cheated!
Thesandlord
11-01-2009, 08:08 PM
Windows 1,2,3, 95,98,ME,2000,XP,Vista,7

So is it Windows 9 really?

But if you add the server versions and NT versions, its like windows 12!!!

12 / 2 = 6!

MAGIC!!!!

Funny note, I had a computer with DOS when I was three, and then my mom started a internet business and we got NT Workstations, then Windows 2000, then i got my own XP machine, then a Vista machine. Now getting a Windows 7 laptop for college (FINNALY)
mullf
11-01-2009, 08:58 PM
95 was Windows 4, 98 and ME was 4.something and 4.something else, XP was 5, Vista was 6, and I assumed that 7 was 7, but instead it is 6.1. They could at least call it 7 instead of letting us know we are spending big bucks for a .1 upgrade.
Texrat
11-01-2009, 10:19 PM
2000 and ME were simultaneous releases, business vs... er... pleasure.
tokuro
11-01-2009, 11:01 PM
you all got it wrong :-p

After NT4, there was windows 2000 which was NT 5. Windows XP is after Windows 2000 (NT5). Vista is after XP (6). then we now have win7. However, winver shows 6.1 where as vista is 6.0. in deep down, Win 7 is very nicely done well refined viata :-) (thus 6.1).
verumgero
11-01-2009, 11:35 PM
So how come it's called "Windows 7", but when I open a command window, it says "Microsoft Windows [Version 6.1.7600]"? I feel cheated!

Well mine says Version 6.1.7100. That's probably because I am still using that free RC version . . . might have to do something about that one of these days.
mrojas
11-01-2009, 11:56 PM
you all got it wrong :-p

After NT4, there was windows 2000 which was NT 5. Windows XP is after Windows 2000 (NT5). Vista is after XP (6). then we now have win7. However, winver shows 6.1 where as vista is 6.0. in deep down, Win 7 is very nicely done well refined viata :-) (thus 6.1).

If my memory serves me well, Windows 2000 was 5.0 and Windows XP 5.1.
Thesandlord
11-02-2009, 01:37 AM
@jay

I guess Windows 2000 should be removed, because it is a business OS, so HA! Its Windows 9!!!!

But, if you count Windows 3.1 as the first usable windows OS, then I guess it is Windows 7...

Is the numbering have to do with the kernel? I heard that Vista and 7 share basically the same kernel, compared to say NT4 vs XP or XP vs 7
Fargus
11-02-2009, 02:04 AM
Windows that sat ontop of DOS is irrelevant, the current versions are all built on top of the Windows NT (Nice try?) editions. NT 3.5 being the last version that was POSIX compliant IMHO. NT4 next, then 2000 (NT 5), Windows XP as a basic interface revision & Windows 2003, Vista and Windows 2008, Now Windows 7 (the iPhone makeover).
The_Solutor
11-02-2009, 02:19 AM
It is just a compatiblity hack.

Switching from 5.x to 6.0 caused so many problems with vista...
arachnist
11-02-2009, 03:04 AM
95 and 98 were 4.0; NT4 was, well, NT4; ME was 4.1; 2000 was NT5.0; XP was NT5.1; 2003 was NT5.2; Vista was NT6.0 at the release, with SP1 it got the kernel of 2008; 2008 was NT6.1; 7 is NT6.1 (they claim it's internally NT7, but they kept 6 in the reported version number for compatibility).

So... they should name it Wintendo 10 ;)
chemist
11-02-2009, 05:08 AM
2000 and ME were simultaneous releases, business vs... er... pleasure.

have you guys ever heard of the "ballmer-peak"?
http://xkcd.com/323/
tokuro
11-02-2009, 02:32 PM
If my memory serves me well, Windows 2000 was 5.0 and Windows XP 5.1.

good catch. yes, XP is 5.1 in version (winver).
Bundyo
11-04-2009, 04:47 PM
http://windowsitpro.com/article/articleid/13461/what-does-nt-stand-for.html
penguinbait
11-04-2009, 04:53 PM
Windows 3.11 good
Windows 95 bad
windows 98 good
windows ME bad
Windows XP good
Windows Vista bad
Windows 7 good

See there is a pattern, you know windows 8 is gonna be crap!!