Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Code Project
  1. Home
  2. The Lounge
  3. Windows 4, 5 and 6?

Windows 4, 5 and 6?

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved The Lounge
announcementcomsalesquestioncareer
66 Posts 47 Posters 0 Views 1 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • P PIEBALDconsult

    From my WinXP system:

    C:\>ver

    Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]

    From my wife's Vista system:

    C:\>ver

    Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6002]

    S Offline
    S Offline
    Single Step Debugger
    wrote on last edited by
    #10

    Neat! Five. I also can see you don't use XP SP3.

    The narrow specialist in the broad sense of the word is a complete idiot in the narrow sense of the word. Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.

    P 1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • C Christopher Duncan

      So we now have Windows 7. That got me wondering what the previous numbers were. We all remember Windows 3.11 (either from actual use or from your history classes in school). But what about the others? I'm guessing Windows 95, 98 and ME are all lumped together into Windows 4. That would make XP Windows 5 and Vista Windows 6. Of course, that leaves a lot of forking questions about where NT fits into the numbering scheme, but I'm willing to give that a miss. Of course, if my guessing is correct, that would mean that Windows 95 was 4.0, 98 was 4.1 and ME was 4.2, for which we paid full boat "new version" prices. Say, it suddenly occurs to me that I have this all wrong. Maybe it's Windows 95/98/ME as 4, all that NT stuff as 5, XP as 6 and Vista as version 7. That would mean Windows 7 is really just Windows 7.1, which makes much more sense. Of course, we'll still be paying the full "new version" pricing for the dot release. But then, that precedent was already set in the Windows 9x stuff, so I guess it's okay. Now my head is spinning. Is it too early to have a drink?

      Christopher Duncan www.PracticalUSA.com Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes Copywriting Services

      C Offline
      C Offline
      Christopher Duncan
      wrote on last edited by
      #11

      Man, you must have your phasers set on Literal. Like I really give a rat's rear end about MS version numbers... :rolleyes:

      Christopher Duncan www.PracticalUSA.com Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes Copywriting Services

      P J 2 Replies Last reply
      0
      • S Single Step Debugger

        Neat! Five. I also can see you don't use XP SP3.

        The narrow specialist in the broad sense of the word is a complete idiot in the narrow sense of the word. Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.

        P Offline
        P Offline
        PIEBALDconsult
        wrote on last edited by
        #12

        Deyan Georgiev wrote:

        you don't use XP SP3

        Yes I do.

        S 1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • C Christopher Duncan

          Man, you must have your phasers set on Literal. Like I really give a rat's rear end about MS version numbers... :rolleyes:

          Christopher Duncan www.PracticalUSA.com Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes Copywriting Services

          P Offline
          P Offline
          PIEBALDconsult
          wrote on last edited by
          #13

          Then use a joke icon.

          L 1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • P PIEBALDconsult

            Then use a joke icon.

            L Offline
            L Offline
            Lost User
            wrote on last edited by
            #14

            There was a time, before the advent of the joke icon, when it was left up to the sense of the reader to decide whether an OP was joking or not. Must be a lost talent; the icons have led us one step further down the road to complete mindlessness, and I hold the hamsters responsible. I leave it to you, gentle reader, to decide if I'm being ironic. ;)

            L u n a t i c F r i n g e

            P S 2 Replies Last reply
            0
            • J Joe Simes

              Christopher Duncan wrote:

              Now my head is spinning. Is it too early to have a drink?

              Never too early! Cheers! :beer:

              C Offline
              C Offline
              Christopher Duncan
              wrote on last edited by
              #15

              Oi! :-D

              Christopher Duncan www.PracticalUSA.com Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes Copywriting Services

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • L Lost User

                There was a time, before the advent of the joke icon, when it was left up to the sense of the reader to decide whether an OP was joking or not. Must be a lost talent; the icons have led us one step further down the road to complete mindlessness, and I hold the hamsters responsible. I leave it to you, gentle reader, to decide if I'm being ironic. ;)

                L u n a t i c F r i n g e

                P Offline
                P Offline
                PIEBALDconsult
                wrote on last edited by
                #16

                LunaticFringe wrote:

                decide if I'm being ironic

                Not from what I can tell, and I always err on the side of taking the person seriously. Plus it's always possible that some other reader will seriously be interested in the subject. Add to that that the OP had no humor in it.

                C 1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • C Christopher Duncan

                  Man, you must have your phasers set on Literal. Like I really give a rat's rear end about MS version numbers... :rolleyes:

                  Christopher Duncan www.PracticalUSA.com Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes Copywriting Services

                  J Offline
                  J Offline
                  John M Drescher
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #17

                  Christopher Duncan wrote:

                  Man, you must have your phasers set on Literal.

                  :laugh: I usually do..

                  John

                  C 1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • P PIEBALDconsult

                    Deyan Georgiev wrote:

                    you don't use XP SP3

                    Yes I do.

                    S Offline
                    S Offline
                    Single Step Debugger
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #18

                    My workstation XP shows: Microsoft Windows [Version 5.2.3790], hence my/obviously wrong/ conclusion that you are running SP2.

                    The narrow specialist in the broad sense of the word is a complete idiot in the narrow sense of the word. Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.

                    P D 2 Replies Last reply
                    0
                    • P PIEBALDconsult

                      LunaticFringe wrote:

                      decide if I'm being ironic

                      Not from what I can tell, and I always err on the side of taking the person seriously. Plus it's always possible that some other reader will seriously be interested in the subject. Add to that that the OP had no humor in it.

                      C Offline
                      C Offline
                      Christopher Duncan
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #19

                      PIEBALDconsult wrote:

                      Add to that that the OP had no humor in it.

                      Really? :-D Of course, that leaves a lot of forking questions about where NT fits...

                      Christopher Duncan www.PracticalUSA.com Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes Copywriting Services

                      P 1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • J John M Drescher

                        Christopher Duncan wrote:

                        Man, you must have your phasers set on Literal.

                        :laugh: I usually do..

                        John

                        C Offline
                        C Offline
                        Christopher Duncan
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #20

                        I prefer Vaporize, but surprisingly I don't get invited back to the same party twice... :)

                        Christopher Duncan www.PracticalUSA.com Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes Copywriting Services

                        J 1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • L Lost User

                          There was a time, before the advent of the joke icon, when it was left up to the sense of the reader to decide whether an OP was joking or not. Must be a lost talent; the icons have led us one step further down the road to complete mindlessness, and I hold the hamsters responsible. I leave it to you, gentle reader, to decide if I'm being ironic. ;)

                          L u n a t i c F r i n g e

                          S Offline
                          S Offline
                          Single Step Debugger
                          wrote on last edited by
                          #21

                          LunaticFringe wrote:

                          I leave it to you, gentle reader, to decide if I'm being ironic.

                          So you think I’m stupid, do you?

                          The narrow specialist in the broad sense of the word is a complete idiot in the narrow sense of the word. Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.

                          T 1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • S Single Step Debugger

                            My workstation XP shows: Microsoft Windows [Version 5.2.3790], hence my/obviously wrong/ conclusion that you are running SP2.

                            The narrow specialist in the broad sense of the word is a complete idiot in the narrow sense of the word. Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.

                            P Offline
                            P Offline
                            PIEBALDconsult
                            wrote on last edited by
                            #22

                            Mine is Windows XP Professional (OEM) with SP3.

                            1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • S Single Step Debugger

                              LunaticFringe wrote:

                              I leave it to you, gentle reader, to decide if I'm being ironic.

                              So you think I’m stupid, do you?

                              The narrow specialist in the broad sense of the word is a complete idiot in the narrow sense of the word. Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.

                              T Offline
                              T Offline
                              Todd Smith
                              wrote on last edited by
                              #23

                              Deyan Georgiev wrote:

                              LunaticFringe wrote: I leave it to you, gentle reader, to decide if I'm being ironic. So you think I’m stupid, do you?

                              Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. - Albert Einstein

                              Todd Smith

                              S 1 Reply Last reply
                              0
                              • C Christopher Duncan

                                So we now have Windows 7. That got me wondering what the previous numbers were. We all remember Windows 3.11 (either from actual use or from your history classes in school). But what about the others? I'm guessing Windows 95, 98 and ME are all lumped together into Windows 4. That would make XP Windows 5 and Vista Windows 6. Of course, that leaves a lot of forking questions about where NT fits into the numbering scheme, but I'm willing to give that a miss. Of course, if my guessing is correct, that would mean that Windows 95 was 4.0, 98 was 4.1 and ME was 4.2, for which we paid full boat "new version" prices. Say, it suddenly occurs to me that I have this all wrong. Maybe it's Windows 95/98/ME as 4, all that NT stuff as 5, XP as 6 and Vista as version 7. That would mean Windows 7 is really just Windows 7.1, which makes much more sense. Of course, we'll still be paying the full "new version" pricing for the dot release. But then, that precedent was already set in the Windows 9x stuff, so I guess it's okay. Now my head is spinning. Is it too early to have a drink?

                                Christopher Duncan www.PracticalUSA.com Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes Copywriting Services

                                D Offline
                                D Offline
                                Dave Parker
                                wrote on last edited by
                                #24

                                Win 2000 was NT 5 Win XP was NT 5.1 Win Vista was NT 6.0 and Win 7 is NT 6.1 bloody marketing.... Before 2000 well there was an NT 4 but guess you could also consider 95/98/ME as 4 as they came after 3.1, so I dunno.

                                Q 1 Reply Last reply
                                0
                                • C Christopher Duncan

                                  I prefer Vaporize, but surprisingly I don't get invited back to the same party twice... :)

                                  Christopher Duncan www.PracticalUSA.com Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes Copywriting Services

                                  J Offline
                                  J Offline
                                  Jim Crafton
                                  wrote on last edited by
                                  #25

                                  Yeah, but at least you get the job done! Mission Accomplished indeed!

                                  ¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF! Personal 3D projects Just Say No to Web 2 Point Blow

                                  1 Reply Last reply
                                  0
                                  • P PIEBALDconsult

                                    From my WinXP system:

                                    C:\>ver

                                    Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]

                                    From my wife's Vista system:

                                    C:\>ver

                                    Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6002]

                                    G Offline
                                    G Offline
                                    Gregory Gadow
                                    wrote on last edited by
                                    #26

                                    A check of our main servers running Server 2003 shows [Version 5.2.3790]. In case anyone is keeping track. ;P

                                    V 1 Reply Last reply
                                    0
                                    • C Christopher Duncan

                                      So we now have Windows 7. That got me wondering what the previous numbers were. We all remember Windows 3.11 (either from actual use or from your history classes in school). But what about the others? I'm guessing Windows 95, 98 and ME are all lumped together into Windows 4. That would make XP Windows 5 and Vista Windows 6. Of course, that leaves a lot of forking questions about where NT fits into the numbering scheme, but I'm willing to give that a miss. Of course, if my guessing is correct, that would mean that Windows 95 was 4.0, 98 was 4.1 and ME was 4.2, for which we paid full boat "new version" prices. Say, it suddenly occurs to me that I have this all wrong. Maybe it's Windows 95/98/ME as 4, all that NT stuff as 5, XP as 6 and Vista as version 7. That would mean Windows 7 is really just Windows 7.1, which makes much more sense. Of course, we'll still be paying the full "new version" pricing for the dot release. But then, that precedent was already set in the Windows 9x stuff, so I guess it's okay. Now my head is spinning. Is it too early to have a drink?

                                      Christopher Duncan www.PracticalUSA.com Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes Copywriting Services

                                      G Offline
                                      G Offline
                                      Gregory Gadow
                                      wrote on last edited by
                                      #27

                                      A friend of mine at Microsoft (he works in the XBox division, but has other friends in OS dev) says that the original plan was to follow Vista with Vista 2009. That was scrapped when Marketing realized that anything named "Microsoft Vista" would likely mean financial ruin for the company.

                                      1 Reply Last reply
                                      0
                                      • T Todd Smith

                                        Deyan Georgiev wrote:

                                        LunaticFringe wrote: I leave it to you, gentle reader, to decide if I'm being ironic. So you think I’m stupid, do you?

                                        Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. - Albert Einstein

                                        Todd Smith

                                        S Offline
                                        S Offline
                                        Single Step Debugger
                                        wrote on last edited by
                                        #28

                                        I have no idea what you’re talking about, but I guess you are trying to insult me.

                                        The narrow specialist in the broad sense of the word is a complete idiot in the narrow sense of the word. Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.

                                        1 Reply Last reply
                                        0
                                        • G Gregory Gadow

                                          A check of our main servers running Server 2003 shows [Version 5.2.3790]. In case anyone is keeping track. ;P

                                          V Offline
                                          V Offline
                                          Vark111
                                          wrote on last edited by
                                          #29

                                          Well if we're gonna bark up this tree... 2008 R2 is 6.1.7600

                                          L 1 Reply Last reply
                                          0
                                          Reply
                                          • Reply as topic
                                          Log in to reply
                                          • Oldest to Newest
                                          • Newest to Oldest
                                          • Most Votes


                                          • Login

                                          • Don't have an account? Register

                                          • Login or register to search.
                                          • First post
                                            Last post
                                          0
                                          • Categories
                                          • Recent
                                          • Tags
                                          • Popular
                                          • World
                                          • Users
                                          • Groups