Windows 4, 5 and 6?
-
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
Christopher Duncan wrote:
Man, you must have your phasers set on Literal.
:laugh: I usually do..
John
-
Deyan Georgiev wrote:
you don't use XP SP3
Yes I do.
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.
-
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.
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
-
Christopher Duncan wrote:
Man, you must have your phasers set on Literal.
:laugh: I usually do..
John
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
-
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
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.
-
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.
Mine is Windows XP Professional (OEM) with SP3.
-
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.
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
-
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
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.
-
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
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
-
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]
A check of our main servers running Server 2003 shows [Version 5.2.3790]. In case anyone is keeping track. ;P
-
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
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.
-
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
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.
-
A check of our main servers running Server 2003 shows [Version 5.2.3790]. In case anyone is keeping track. ;P
-
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.
Well, NT 3.1 should really be considered NT 1.0, but they already had "3.1" mindshare. Sigh. So really we have: NT 3.1 = 1.0 NT 4.0 = 2.0 2000 = 3.0 XP = 3.1 Vista = 4.0 7 = 4.1 There, I hope that clears things up.
He said, "Boy I'm just old and lonely, But thank you for your concern, Here's wishing you a Happy New Year." I wished him one back in return.
-
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
Right.
-
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
This[^] has a nice little chart that splains it.
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit It's against my relationship to have a religion. Me blog, You read
-
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.
NT 5.2 is Windows Server 2003, not XP. The thing called "Windows XP 64-bit edition" is actually a client version of Win2003.
-
-
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
From the release of NT3.51 all of the major numbers were tied to the NT kernel. (Before NT of course it was Windows, 1, 2, 3, 3.11) After 3.51 we have NT 4 (corresponded to Win 95) Windows 2000 NT 5 kernel XP/Server 2003 were NT 5.1 Vista/Server 2K8 were NT 6 Windows 7/Server 2K8 R2 officially NT 6.1 but named Win 7.
-
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
"Windows", which was DOS based, died with Windows 98. OS/2 was Windows 2.0 (as we now know Windows) NT 3.0 and NT 3.5.1 were Windows 3 NT 4.0 was Windows 4 XP was Windows 5 (NT 5) Vista was Windows 6 (NT 6) Windows 7 is internally Windows NT 6.1, as a convenience, so the rumor goes. So, really, we are all running OS/2's great-grandkids. My first experience with OS/2 was at IBM in Boca Raton running Plantworks on a 286 back in the mid-80's. It wasn't a pleasant experience. It took about 20 minutes to boot, particularly painful because it would crash constantly. Lots of coffee and smoke breaks. Not much got done. Thanks.