Active Topics
-
Firefox with Leste (5)
to Maemo 7 / Leste by teroyk - 3 days, 1 hr ago -
Handbook (2)
to Maemo 7 / Leste by teroyk - 4 days ago - more...
|
2009-11-02
, 01:08
|
|
Posts: 1,213 |
Thanked: 356 times |
Joined on Jan 2008
@ California and Virginia
|
#2
|
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)
Last edited by Thesandlord; 2009-11-02 at 06:40.
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)
__________________
----------------------------------------------------
www.ezschool.com - The best online educational experience.
----------------------------------------------------
www.ezschool.com - The best online educational experience.
Last edited by Thesandlord; 2009-11-02 at 06:40.
 |
|
2009-11-02
, 01:58
|
|
Posts: 610 |
Thanked: 391 times |
Joined on Feb 2006
@ DC, USA
|
#3
|
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.
__________________
Nokia 770 Internet Tablet = best device ever made
Deuteronomy 13:6-10; 2 Kings 2:23-24; Judges 19:22-29
Nokia 770 Internet Tablet = best device ever made
Deuteronomy 13:6-10; 2 Kings 2:23-24; Judges 19:22-29
 |
|
2009-11-02
, 03:19
|
|
Posts: 11,700 |
Thanked: 10,045 times |
Joined on Jun 2006
@ North Texas, USA
|
#4
|
2000 and ME were simultaneous releases, business vs... er... pleasure.
__________________
Nokia Developer Champion
Different <> Wrong | Listen - Judgment = Progress | People + Trust = Success
My personal site: http://texrat.net
Nokia Developer Champion
Different <> Wrong | Listen - Judgment = Progress | People + Trust = Success
My personal site: http://texrat.net
|
|
2009-11-02
, 04:01
|
|
Posts: 44 |
Thanked: 4 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
@ WA, USA
|
#5
|
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).
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).
 |
|
2009-11-02
, 04:35
|
|
Posts: 221 |
Thanked: 43 times |
Joined on Oct 2007
@ Sendai, Japan
|
#6
|
Originally Posted by mullf
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.
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!
 |
|
2009-11-02
, 04:56
|
|
Posts: 733 |
Thanked: 991 times |
Joined on Dec 2008
|
#7
|
Originally Posted by tokuro
If my memory serves me well, Windows 2000 was 5.0 and Windows XP 5.1.
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).
|
|
2009-11-02
, 06:37
|
|
Posts: 1,213 |
Thanked: 356 times |
Joined on Jan 2008
@ California and Virginia
|
#8
|
@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
Last edited by Thesandlord; 2009-11-02 at 06:41.
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
__________________
----------------------------------------------------
www.ezschool.com - The best online educational experience.
----------------------------------------------------
www.ezschool.com - The best online educational experience.
Last edited by Thesandlord; 2009-11-02 at 06:41.
 |
|
2009-11-02
, 07:04
|
|
Posts: 1,217 |
Thanked: 446 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
@ Bedfordshire, UK
|
#9
|
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).
 |
|
2009-11-02
, 07:19
|
|
Posts: 142 |
Thanked: 49 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
@ Italy
|
#10
|
It is just a compatiblity hack.
Switching from 5.x to 6.0 caused so many problems with vista...
Switching from 5.x to 6.0 caused so many problems with vista...
Nokia 770 Internet Tablet = best device ever made
Deuteronomy 13:6-10; 2 Kings 2:23-24; Judges 19:22-29
Last edited by mullf; 2009-11-02 at 00:29.