Active Topics

 


Reply
Thread Tools
Posts: 25 | Thanked: 12 times | Joined on Mar 2008 @ Warsaw, Poland
#11
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's Avatar
Administrator | Posts: 1,036 | Thanked: 2,019 times | Joined on Sep 2009 @ Germany
#12
Originally Posted by Texrat View Post
2000 and ME were simultaneous releases, business vs... er... pleasure.
have you guys ever heard of the "ballmer-peak"?
http://xkcd.com/323/
 
Posts: 44 | Thanked: 4 times | Joined on Oct 2009 @ WA, USA
#13
Originally Posted by mrojas View Post
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's Avatar
Posts: 4,708 | Thanked: 4,649 times | Joined on Oct 2007 @ Bulgaria
#14
http://windowsitpro.com/article/arti...stand-for.html
__________________
Technically, there are three determinate states the cat could be in: Alive, Dead, and Bloody Furious.
 
penguinbait's Avatar
Posts: 3,096 | Thanked: 1,525 times | Joined on Jan 2006 @ Michigan, USA
#15
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!!
__________________
To all my Maemo friends. I will no longer be monitoring any of my threads here on a regular basis. I am no longer supporting anything I did under maemo at maemo.org. If you need some help with something you can reach me at tablethacker.com or www.facebook.com/penguinbait. I have disabled my PM's here, and removed myself from Council email and Community mailing list. There has been some fun times, see you around.
 
Reply


 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:17.