Windows 4, 5 and 6?
-
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.
-
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.
I think you got it right - the most important bit is "Kernel." Windows 9x didn't come into the versioning scheme - considering they were all essentially the same (basically just explorer.exe tweaks ;P ) that makes sense. On top of that; that line was abandoned when XP came out so the versions are not important. The versioning for Win7/2008 is a compatibility hack. They are a new version because they are based on MinWin component model - but Microsoft decided to leave the 'internal' version the same for developers who don't know how to use the '&&' operator. So the last line should read: Windows 7/Server 2K8 R2 officially NT 7.0 (and probably 7.1, respectfully) but left at 6.1 for compatibility. Otherwise, spot on!
He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes. He who does not ask a question remains a fool forever. [Chineese Proverb] Jonathan C Dickinson (C# Software Engineer)
-
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
Yep, this is the right one. One can't put the DOS based versions into a line with the NT based version. One can only understand the way how microsoft counts when you have in mind that there were two technically different strains of windows (the original NT wasn't even developed on X86 computers) and that "Windows 7" is just a name, not a version number. Good luck for the new year to everyone! Stefan P.S.: Nice signature...
-
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
-
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
have you ever watch the "System Information" on windows 7??? It says: OS Name: Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate Version: 6.1.7600 Build 7600 ..... So, as I guess "Windows 7" is the NAME of windows 7, not the version number! because the version is still 6! :doh:
-------------- Vahid Rassouli
-
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 3 Family : NT3.51 (as well as the Windows 3.x family) Windows 4 Family : NT4 (and the 95/98/Me family) Windows 5 Family : Windows 2000 (NT5) and our beloved Windows XP (NT5.1) Windows 6 Family : Vista... Need we say more, beyond pointing out what it says if you STUTTER it? (6-6-6) And lets face it, Vista stuttered a lot! Windows 7 Family : FINALLY we're back to the Logical, Numerical Versioning we lost with NT4 (despite the build indicator '6.1') Ah SH|T, now I see a bunch of ppl's answered before me... Stupid forum thing!
-
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
Versions[^] There are some details similar to your discussion there. I think you have a bead on the real reason for the musical chairs with the Windows Versions "Make sure each release can be charged for as a new product and not an update". If you need an algorithm to identify versions in your logic then they are there in an almost logical pattern. Some overlap.
"Coding for fun and profit ... mostly fun"
-
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
-
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
Hi Christopher Duncan, You missed out on following official versions of Windows; 1. Windows NT 3.51 2. Windows 2000 (i.e. Windows 5) You also didn't consider the Build Nos. for the Major & Minor Versions of Windows. e.g. Windows Vista is Windows 6 with Build 6002. Regards, Chandrashekhar Korde
-
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]
From my Windows 7 (not really seven after that) system.
C:\>ver
Microsoft Windows [versão 6.1.7600]
-
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
According to the Windows 7 Registry (HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion), the release version of Windows 7 is actually Version 6.1
David Veeneman www.veeneman.com
-
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 4 ========= Windows 9.x -- but honestly, this doesn't really count Windows NT 4.0 Windows 5 ========= Windows 2000 Windows XP Windows 2003 -- not sure. Windows 6 ========= Vista Windows 2008 Windows 95, 98 and Me were all based on the Win95 code which was a mixture of 16-bit and 32-bit code using the architecture orginally developed for Win 3.x. The virtual device driver architecture for Win 9x was the same as for Windows 3.x. Windows NT 4.0 of course was the follow-on from Windows NT 3.x. Windows 2000 was, IMHO, an "Internet patch" to get Microsoft from their "Novell Killer" Windows NT 4.0 platform to their "Netscape Killer" Windows. Device driver architecture is more or less the same for WinNT-based computers (changes of course over the versions but essentially the same). Windows XP was the firs truly client-friendly Windows NT-based OS. Windows 2003 was the first truly Internet-based server. Vista, IMHO, is a good OS but had a lot of problems at first which caused much bad press, etc. Windows 2008 just a more advanced version of 2003. I've not used Windows 7 yet but my son loves it.
-
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
Version 3 = Windows 3.1, Windows NT 3.0, Windows NT 3.5 Version 4 = Windows NT 4.0, Windows 95/98/98SE/Me Version 5 = Windows 2000, XP, 2003 Version 6 = Windows Vista, Windows 7, Windows 2008 Windows Vista was version 6.0 and Windows 7 is actually version 6.1 So there is no 7.0 yet.
-
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
===Normal Windows=== Windows 1.x = 1 Windows 2.x = 2 Windows 3.x = 3 Windows 95,98 & ME = 4 ===Windows NT Starts at 3=== Windows NT 3.x = NT 3 Windows NT 4 = NT 4 Windows 2000 = NT 5.0 Windows XP = NT 5.1 Windows server 2003/XP 64Bit = NT 5.2 Windows Vista = NT 6.0 Windows 7 = NT 6.1
-
So is Windows 7; when you open a command prompt you see: Microsoft Windows [Version 6.1.7600] Copyright (c) 2009 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
-
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.
lmao - only microsoft *rolls eyes*
-
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
I was puzzled by the version numbers as well, here is the full explanation from the Windows Blog: http://windowsteamblog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2008/10/14/why-7.aspx[^] Still seems bizarre to me that they used the internal code version as 6.1 and yet called it 7. Travis
-
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 my system
> vers
Mac OS X 10.6.2 ... but with exception, as noted below:
Well, we all know that Apple stole the GUI from Xerox.
Further, Microsoft entered a perpetual license use for
the Mac GUI with Apple and copied the GUI.In the late 80s Xerox tried to sue Apple for stealing the OS,
and in the early 90s Apple also tried to sue Microsoft for
the same [stealing the GUI]. The same judge threw both lawsuits out.In the early 2000s Apple came out with Mac OS X.
This was soon followed by Microsoft tossing out Windows XP.
There was speculation [and minor confusion ] as to
what the "X" in OS X meant, and XP in Windows XP meant.Apple tossed out that "X" qualifies UNIX-based for the OS,
similar to HP/UX, AIX, etc.The official Microsoft answer is it stands for eXPerience.
More than a few detractors have labeled it as meaning
eXtra Pricey, eXPensive, and eXtra Profitable.**I wholly disagree. As a 10-year Apple veteran and
3-year Microsoft veteran, I found out the truth from
inside each of the hallowed halls.The "X" in Mac OS X stands for "Xerox".
Microsoft, being a bit more truthful behind the scenes,
noted XP, for "Xerox Plagiarized".** Ref 'nuff said. :-D :-D bRYgUY MacSpudster
ASPX ~ Apple Simply Performs eXcellently
-
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
' Get and expose OS major and minor version numbers. ' Windows 95 = 4.0 ' Windows 98 = 4.1 ' Windows Millennium Edition = 4.9 ' Windows 2000 = 5.0 ' Windows XP = 5.1 ' Windows server 2003 and R2 = 5.2 ' Windows Vista = 6.0 ' Windows Server 2008 = 6.0 ' Windows 7 = 6.1 ' Windows server 2008 R2 = 6.1 Public ReadOnly OSMajorVersion As Integer = Environment.OSVersion.Version.Major Public ReadOnly OSMinorVersion As Integer = Environment.OSVersion.Version.MinorThis is code that I use in my apps for determining what OS the app is running on. Hope it helps answer your question.