Windows VISTA?????
-
In response to all of your replies, I guess it's general consensus that the nomenclature is sub-par. I liked 'XP', even when I first heard of it. I honestly think Longhorn should've been named Windows .NET 2006 since EVERYTHING is gonna be in .NET sooner or later whether we like it or not. What are your suggestions for alternate names?
r -€
Roman Nurik wrote: since EVERYTHING is gonna be in .NET sooner or later whether we like it or not. Naw, didn't you hear? .NET failed as a religion, so MS turned it into a new set of APIs. This year's fad is "blogs", or possibly "RSS".
You must be careful in the forest Broken glass and rusty nails If you're to bring back something for us I have bullets for sale...
-
Roman Nurik wrote: since EVERYTHING is gonna be in .NET sooner or later whether we like it or not. Naw, didn't you hear? .NET failed as a religion, so MS turned it into a new set of APIs. This year's fad is "blogs", or possibly "RSS".
You must be careful in the forest Broken glass and rusty nails If you're to bring back something for us I have bullets for sale...
true. maybe Microsoft will strike back by creating Microsoft Visual Blogger .NET 2006 Express Edition for Windows Vista, or some other ridiculously long name like that
r -€
-
true. maybe Microsoft will strike back by creating Microsoft Visual Blogger .NET 2006 Express Edition for Windows Vista, or some other ridiculously long name like that
r -€
-
true. maybe Microsoft will strike back by creating Microsoft Visual Blogger .NET 2006 Express Edition for Windows Vista, or some other ridiculously long name like that
r -€
-
"Vista" = View I see dead pixels Yes, even I am blogging now!
In Spanish too, and through place names it is pretty common in the US too.
Pandoras Gift #44: Hope. The one that keeps you on suffering.
aber.. "Wie gesagt, der Scheiss is' Therapie"
boost your code || Fold With Us! || sighist | doxygen -
In response to all of your replies, I guess it's general consensus that the nomenclature is sub-par. I liked 'XP', even when I first heard of it. I honestly think Longhorn should've been named Windows .NET 2006 since EVERYTHING is gonna be in .NET sooner or later whether we like it or not. What are your suggestions for alternate names?
r -€
I liked "NT" because it stood for "New Technology". Then Windows 2000 had the startup screen tagline: Based on NT Technology Which would expand to: Based on New Technology Technology nice. Barry Etter
-
I liked "NT" because it stood for "New Technology". Then Windows 2000 had the startup screen tagline: Based on NT Technology Which would expand to: Based on New Technology Technology nice. Barry Etter
I thought it stood for "no teats"... Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power Eric Hoffer All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke
-
Roman Nurik wrote: What kind of stupid name is that? The same sort of stupid name you see all over the place. Looking past my "Latitude", i see a "Panasonic", a "EuroPro", a "Satellite", and a "V-tech". None of those names have any meaning that is relevant to the product they are intended to identify, but somewhere, someone thought that was a good purpose for them anyway. After years of trying to do something marginally less arbitrary, Microsoft is giving in. Microsoft naming schemes for Windows:
- Version numbers (2.0, 3.0, 3.1, 3.11) An extension of the practice used by many software development groups to keep track of builds, version numbers give an inexact impression of where a particular product originated in relation to others in the same line.
- Release years (95, 98, 2000, 2003) Giving up on any attempt to convey revision information, this scheme merely gives you a timeline.
- Release code (ME, XP) Giving up any intrinsic value, this scheme provides nothing but a symbolic identifier for the product. In order to recognize that Windows XP is newer than Windows ME, a potential buyer must obtain additional information about the two releases.
- Release Name (Vista) Same disadvantages as a Release Code, but perhaps easier for buyers to distinguish and remember.
You must be careful in the forest Broken glass and rusty nails If you're to bring back something for us I have bullets for sale...
Hmmm, which product is Panasonic? Best regards, Paul. Jesus Christ is LOVE! Please tell somebody.
-
Basically the versions, not just for Windows but for all their products, started to go haywire once they went from numbers to years. Now they just flip back and forth between them and then sometimes go for a name, such as Vista - and then they still have Version 2002 whatever as a suffix! Kevin
The versions became meaningless when companies started allowing marketing to decide on the starting number. Companies started releasing the first version of their products as Version 3.0. Then for a while when it became popular for people to state that they never install "dot zero" software for companies to start with numbers like 2.1 or 3.1. Therefore, the whole naming scheme basically became worthless. Cheers, Tom Archer - Visual C++ MVP Archer Consulting Group "So look up ahead at times to come, despair is not for us. We have a world and more to see, while this remains behind." - James N. Rowe
-
Roman Nurik wrote: What kind of stupid name is that? The same sort of stupid name you see all over the place. Looking past my "Latitude", i see a "Panasonic", a "EuroPro", a "Satellite", and a "V-tech". None of those names have any meaning that is relevant to the product they are intended to identify, but somewhere, someone thought that was a good purpose for them anyway. After years of trying to do something marginally less arbitrary, Microsoft is giving in. Microsoft naming schemes for Windows:
- Version numbers (2.0, 3.0, 3.1, 3.11) An extension of the practice used by many software development groups to keep track of builds, version numbers give an inexact impression of where a particular product originated in relation to others in the same line.
- Release years (95, 98, 2000, 2003) Giving up on any attempt to convey revision information, this scheme merely gives you a timeline.
- Release code (ME, XP) Giving up any intrinsic value, this scheme provides nothing but a symbolic identifier for the product. In order to recognize that Windows XP is newer than Windows ME, a potential buyer must obtain additional information about the two releases.
- Release Name (Vista) Same disadvantages as a Release Code, but perhaps easier for buyers to distinguish and remember.
You must be careful in the forest Broken glass and rusty nails If you're to bring back something for us I have bullets for sale...
Shog9 wrote: The same sort of stupid name you see all over the place. Indeed! My automated meter reading devices are called "Turtles," presumably because they are so slow. We don't read electric meters anymore, we "talk to the turtles." It takes them 27.3 hours to send 48 bits of data. I can talk to a nuclear sub faster... [reaches for his bootlegged ham radio to order a pizza from a Trident near Iceland...] "...putting all your eggs in one basket along with your bowling ball and gym clothes only gets you scrambled eggs and an extra laundry day... " - Jeffry J. Brickley
-
Roman Nurik wrote: What kind of stupid name is that? The same sort of stupid name you see all over the place. Looking past my "Latitude", i see a "Panasonic", a "EuroPro", a "Satellite", and a "V-tech". None of those names have any meaning that is relevant to the product they are intended to identify, but somewhere, someone thought that was a good purpose for them anyway. After years of trying to do something marginally less arbitrary, Microsoft is giving in. Microsoft naming schemes for Windows:
- Version numbers (2.0, 3.0, 3.1, 3.11) An extension of the practice used by many software development groups to keep track of builds, version numbers give an inexact impression of where a particular product originated in relation to others in the same line.
- Release years (95, 98, 2000, 2003) Giving up on any attempt to convey revision information, this scheme merely gives you a timeline.
- Release code (ME, XP) Giving up any intrinsic value, this scheme provides nothing but a symbolic identifier for the product. In order to recognize that Windows XP is newer than Windows ME, a potential buyer must obtain additional information about the two releases.
- Release Name (Vista) Same disadvantages as a Release Code, but perhaps easier for buyers to distinguish and remember.
You must be careful in the forest Broken glass and rusty nails If you're to bring back something for us I have bullets for sale...
Shog9 wrote: 4. Release Name (Vista) Same disadvantages as a Release Code, but perhaps easier for buyers to distinguish and remember. Maybe 5 will be :- They'll give first-names to Windows versions. Maybe Dennis or Jonathan or even Ali.
-
Shog9 wrote: 4. Release Name (Vista) Same disadvantages as a Release Code, but perhaps easier for buyers to distinguish and remember. Maybe 5 will be :- They'll give first-names to Windows versions. Maybe Dennis or Jonathan or even Ali.
Nishant Sivakumar wrote: Maybe 5 will be :- They already tried that. Remember Bob?;) "...putting all your eggs in one basket along with your bowling ball and gym clothes only gets you scrambled eggs and an extra laundry day... " - Jeffry J. Brickley
-
What kind of stupid name is that? I mean, why not just Windows Longhorn, or Windows 2006. Very poetic and metaphoric.
r -€
Roman Nurik wrote: What kind of stupid name is that? An industry first, the naming of a service pack. Then you can charge the customer for it. What a concept! Roman Nurik wrote: I mean, why not just Windows Longhorn Prehapse Windows Shorthorn is more appropriate since all of the interesting features have been removed rendering it no more than WindowsXP SP3. Read the release propoganda for WindowsXP SP2. Did they change any of it for this upcoming service pack? When Chairman Gates first anounced the vision he had while observing the vista form his office windows there was at least some reasons for considering an upgrade to the new release. Now the only reason to scrap the eXPerience is that Micro$oft will probably announce shortly after the release of their new service pack disguised as a release that they will no longer support the eXPerience. Read coercion to up??_grade to SP3(I mean Vista). Roman Nurik wrote: , or Windows 2006. Because it may very well not be released in 2006! No hate mail please! If you find this offensive you should consider getting a hobby. Preferably something that gets you out of doors and away from the cause of your frustrations. JimmyRopes
-
The versions became meaningless when companies started allowing marketing to decide on the starting number. Companies started releasing the first version of their products as Version 3.0. Then for a while when it became popular for people to state that they never install "dot zero" software for companies to start with numbers like 2.1 or 3.1. Therefore, the whole naming scheme basically became worthless. Cheers, Tom Archer - Visual C++ MVP Archer Consulting Group "So look up ahead at times to come, despair is not for us. We have a world and more to see, while this remains behind." - James N. Rowe
Yes, but at least you knew clearly that a version with a higher number was later than a version with a lower number. With Windows things would have been clearer if they'd stuck with Windows 3.x and higher for the Win95 stream and Win NT 3.x and higher for the WinNT stream. Then when the unified system came out they would just call it Windows 5.x (or Win NT 5.x, as that's the core system). But as there would be no more separation they could just call it Windows 5.x, or perhaps just started at 6.0 for the combined system. Still, we all tend to know what's what regardless of the naming. Perhaps it's more confusing for the average consumer. But then they just buy a PC and take whatever happens to be installed on it. Kevin
-
In response to all of your replies, I guess it's general consensus that the nomenclature is sub-par. I liked 'XP', even when I first heard of it. I honestly think Longhorn should've been named Windows .NET 2006 since EVERYTHING is gonna be in .NET sooner or later whether we like it or not. What are your suggestions for alternate names?
r -€
Yes, but in fact they've now dropped .NET from the product name for Visual Studio and the individual languages. It's just called Visual Studio 2005. So Windows 2006 is what they should call it. Kevin
-
Roman Nurik wrote: since EVERYTHING is gonna be in .NET sooner or later whether we like it or not. I really hope that doesn't turn out to be true My articles www.stillwaterexpress.com BlackDice
You hope in vain. Kevin
-
Roman Nurik wrote: What kind of stupid name is that? An industry first, the naming of a service pack. Then you can charge the customer for it. What a concept! Roman Nurik wrote: I mean, why not just Windows Longhorn Prehapse Windows Shorthorn is more appropriate since all of the interesting features have been removed rendering it no more than WindowsXP SP3. Read the release propoganda for WindowsXP SP2. Did they change any of it for this upcoming service pack? When Chairman Gates first anounced the vision he had while observing the vista form his office windows there was at least some reasons for considering an upgrade to the new release. Now the only reason to scrap the eXPerience is that Micro$oft will probably announce shortly after the release of their new service pack disguised as a release that they will no longer support the eXPerience. Read coercion to up??_grade to SP3(I mean Vista). Roman Nurik wrote: , or Windows 2006. Because it may very well not be released in 2006! No hate mail please! If you find this offensive you should consider getting a hobby. Preferably something that gets you out of doors and away from the cause of your frustrations. JimmyRopes
Well, people say that XP is just a service pack for Windows 2000. All of this stuff is a bit blurred anyway, because SPs were supposed to be pure bug fixes but have tended to get new features as well. Some time back MS said they were gonna return to the notion of SP's as pure bug fixes, but they seem to have ignored this. Anyway, it seems a little harsh to dismiss Windows Vista as just a SP, meaning nothing much more than bug fixes. There's a new API for a start. It looks like tey're transitioning to the managed WinFX as the primary API, with Win32 acting like Win16 and DOS do with respect to Win32 today. That is, they'll still be there but the innovation will be on top of WinFX. C++/CLI will become the systems language for WinFX, rather as unamanaged C/C++ is the systems language for Win32. Re: support, MS's support strategy is fairly clearly marked out. Generally products are expected to be supported for 10 years in some form. Kevin
-
What kind of stupid name is that? I mean, why not just Windows Longhorn, or Windows 2006. Very poetic and metaphoric.
r -€
Vacuous Insipid Soporific Torpid Appellation
Software Zen:
delete this; -
Yes, but at least you knew clearly that a version with a higher number was later than a version with a lower number. With Windows things would have been clearer if they'd stuck with Windows 3.x and higher for the Win95 stream and Win NT 3.x and higher for the WinNT stream. Then when the unified system came out they would just call it Windows 5.x (or Win NT 5.x, as that's the core system). But as there would be no more separation they could just call it Windows 5.x, or perhaps just started at 6.0 for the combined system. Still, we all tend to know what's what regardless of the naming. Perhaps it's more confusing for the average consumer. But then they just buy a PC and take whatever happens to be installed on it. Kevin
I agree. I think of all the naming conventions the simple use of sequential version numbers was by far the best. Cheers, Tom Archer - Visual C++ MVP Archer Consulting Group "So look up ahead at times to come, despair is not for us. We have a world and more to see, while this remains behind." - James N. Rowe
-
Well, people say that XP is just a service pack for Windows 2000. All of this stuff is a bit blurred anyway, because SPs were supposed to be pure bug fixes but have tended to get new features as well. Some time back MS said they were gonna return to the notion of SP's as pure bug fixes, but they seem to have ignored this. Anyway, it seems a little harsh to dismiss Windows Vista as just a SP, meaning nothing much more than bug fixes. There's a new API for a start. It looks like tey're transitioning to the managed WinFX as the primary API, with Win32 acting like Win16 and DOS do with respect to Win32 today. That is, they'll still be there but the innovation will be on top of WinFX. C++/CLI will become the systems language for WinFX, rather as unamanaged C/C++ is the systems language for Win32. Re: support, MS's support strategy is fairly clearly marked out. Generally products are expected to be supported for 10 years in some form. Kevin
Kevin McFarlane wrote: Well, people say that XP is just a service pack for Windows 2000. I agree and that is why some of my clients have resisted up??-grading to the eXPerience. They do not see the benefit, from their prospective, not Micro$ofts, in up??-grading. They say that they have an operating system, Win2000, that suits their operating system needs so what is the value added by up??-grading when there is no value added in the new Service Pack, err, I mean product release. I am hard pressed to give them a reason except that there are literally thousands of security exposures supposedly fixed in the eXPerience, if you install SP2 that is, and you close your eyes and wish for world peace, an end to poverty and trust, without testing, that automatic update will not cause your functioning software to stop operating properly. After all, Micro$oft doesn't regression test the updates so why should you? Kevin McFarlane wrote: All of this stuff is a bit blurred anyway, because SPs were supposed to be pure bug fixes but have tended to get new features as well. Just wait until you see WinVista SPn, where n is a positive integer, if you think that past service packs exhibited "feature creep". Does the name "Trustworthy Computing" ring a bell? Or, for that matter, any other propaganda that seems to so easily roll off Chairman Gates' tong. What do those professional security services vendors know anyway, you don't have to filter outgoing packets with your firewall. Trust us! Kevin McFarlane wrote: Some time back MS said they were gonna return to the notion of SP's as pure bug fixes, but they seem to have ignored this. Kind of like when they promise that they will make the next operating system more secure, "out of the box". Kevin McFarlane wrote: it seems a little harsh to dismiss Windows Vista as just a SP, meaning nothing much more than bug fixes As you said Micro$oft has a different interpretation of what a service pack should be. Now they have hit on a new idea, charge the customer to up??-grade to get what is usually provided as customer service by any, other than Micro$oft, software vendor. What a concept! Kevin McFarlane wrote: There's a new API for a start. It looks like tey're transitioning to the managed WinFX as the primary API, with Win32 acting like Win16 and DOS do with respect to Win32 today. Why should the custome