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
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.
-
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
Unless one is in a hurry to keep up with the Jones's or should I say, Lemmings, it doesn't matter what you call Windows "7". Truth be known, it's just a Windows Vista bug fix anyway. Yes, I do have the Evaluation copy, and I see no fantastic improvement-anywhere. Instead, it's just another Microsoft hype. No wonder the company is losing market share. Maybe they should rethink their hiring and "contracting" practices to recruit more creative and less "copycat" employees... It's funny. As a programmer since the mid-80's, I've seen the hardware improve, and the software has donned a great deal of bells and whistles, but most people, myself included, prefer more reliable performance and speed. I remember when I had a Amiga, for example, in 1983, and I cold get up and running with a Motorola 68000 processor in less than 30 seconds. If you put Window 3.0 or Windows 3.11 on a machine today (6-8MB OSs), you could do the same probably, and still run an older version of Word, Excel, etc. Newer is not necessarily better. I keep my old software, hardware, and still use it. There is practically nothing you can't do with it. You can even make it look new with Siverlight-like simulation; and, with present-day memory and storage solutions, it runs much faster. "Where there is a will, there is a way..." As for Windows 7, I'm not going to run out and throw away $200-400 for it... after all, "the fool and his/her money are soon parted..."
-
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
No, you're wrong in counting Win9x/ME as Windows 4.0 Actually, Win9x/ME are one single category operating systems, and Windows NT forms another category of operating systems from Microsoft. Win 7 is counted as the 7th number of operating system in WinNT line of Microsoft operating systems. Windows NT 3.1, Windows NT 3.5, WIndows NT 3.51, Windows NT 4.0, and its sucessor is Windows 2000 whose NT kernel version number is 5.0 (Windows 5.0 ). Next is Windows XP whose kernel version number is 5.1 (Windows 5.1) and 5.2 is Windows 2003 and WinXP x64-Bit editions. The sucessor(?) of XP, Longhorn or Vista is kernel version number 6.0 (Windows 6.0) and, Windows 7 is NT kernel version number 6.1 (The kernel versions of Server counterparts of both Vista and 7 are same as their non-server class equivalents). but Microsoft gave the operating system name as Windows 7. I think, Windows 7 cannot be considered as a Major Upgrade over Windows Vista, but it is a Major Improvement over Windows Vista( NT6.0 to NT6.1 ). I personally hate Windows Vista only because of its poor performance, and compatibility problems. Featurewise its a major upgrade to Windows XP. Thumbs up to Steven Sinofsky for a neat piece of software art :) -Jithin PG
"I studied but never topped. But the toppers of world's topmost universities are now my employees" - Bill Gates.
-
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 is all from memory. I think its accurate. The interesting part is Windows 7 is actually Ver 6.1.7.
Windows NT 3.5 = Ver 3.5 (NT Kernel) Windows NT 4.0 = Ver 4.0 (NT Kernel) Windows 95 = Ver 4.0 (x86 Kernel) Windows 98 = Ver 4.1 (x86 Kernel) Windows ME = Ver 4.1? (x86 Kernel) Windows 2000 = Ver 5.0 (NT Kernel) Windows XP = Ver 5.1 (NT Kernel) Windows Ser 2003 = Ver 5.1 (NT Kernel) Windows Vista = Ver 6.0.6 (NT Kernel) Windows Server 2008 = Ver 6.0.? (NT Kernel) Windows 7 = Ver 6.1.7 (NT Kernel) Windows Server 2008 R2 = Ver 6.1.? (NT Kernel) -
So Windows 7 really is just a Vista SP. :-D
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
If you want to see witch version is your Windows version, just select Start->Run and type winver. This will tell you wich version is your Windows Operating System
-
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]
My Windows 7 reads:
Microsoft Windows [Version 6.1.7600]
So unfortunately doesn't quite work. If Vista read 7.0 and Win 7 read 7.1, then it would have worked quite nicely.
-
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
Wikipedia help us! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Windows#Timeline_of_releases[^] That said, it is worth remarking that Windows 7 is actually Windows 6.1. Oh, Microsoft...