Leo was just rambling. When he said random I believe he meant the decision to use letters was random.. not the actual acronym.max wrote:
NT isn't just a random letters ...
savy?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
savy?
That's what I thought at first, but when you look into it, it does make a bit of sense.Kmarion wrote:
I'm not making this up. I've heard from some popular techies.. you've got to do some serious manipulations to make it work as "7".
If the first three are Windows 1, 2 and 3 then Windows 4 would be:
Windows 95 - version 4.00.950
Windows 98 - version 4.10.1998
Windows 98 SE (Second Edition) - version 4.10.2222
Windows Me (Millennium Edition) - version 4.90.3000
Windows 5:
Windows Server 2003
Windows XP 64-bit Edition 2003
Windows XP Professional x64 Edition
Windows Home Server
and Windows 6:
Windows Vista
Windows Server 2008
Windows Small Business Server 2008
As they always had named Windows 95 to ME version 4.x then it does sorta follow, but I know what you mean, it is kinda odd.
That is still a stretch.. this is all just illustrating my point though. Stupid marketing.Dauntless wrote:
That's what I thought at first, but when you look into it, it does make a bit of sense.Kmarion wrote:
I'm not making this up. I've heard from some popular techies.. you've got to do some serious manipulations to make it work as "7".
If the first three are Windows 1, 2 and 3 then Windows 4 would be:
Windows 95 - version 4.00.950
Windows 98 - version 4.10.1998
Windows 98 SE (Second Edition) - version 4.10.2222
Windows Me (Millennium Edition) - version 4.90.3000
Windows 5:
Windows Server 2003
Windows XP 64-bit Edition 2003
Windows XP Professional x64 Edition
Windows Home Server
and Windows 6:
Windows Vista
Windows Server 2008
Windows Small Business Server 2008
As they always had named Windows 95 to ME version 4.x then it does sorta follow, but I know what you mean, it is kinda odd.
Windows 7 to me is just Vista cleaned up. .. what vista should have been
Xbone Stormsurgezz
What would you have them call it then? D:
Vista Mk. 2 / SE
Last edited by max (2009-02-07 21:45:22)
once upon a midnight dreary, while i pron surfed, weak and weary, over many a strange and spurious site of ' hot xxx galore'. While i clicked my fav'rite bookmark, suddenly there came a warning, and my heart was filled with mourning, mourning for my dear amour, " 'Tis not possible!", i muttered, " give me back my free hardcore!"..... quoth the server, 404.
At this point I don't fkin know.. lol. How about "ooops sorry about vista". And rename XP "oops sorry about ME". How long was ME out anyways? A month?Dauntless wrote:
What would you have them call it then? D:
ps: I'm having an issue with 7. Will start a new thread to pick yous guise brains.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Yeah Windows ME was a massive crock of shit.Kmarion wrote:
How long was ME out anyways? A month?Dauntless wrote:
What would you have them call it then? D:
They even admited it on the windows website:
http://www.microsoft.com/nz/windows/pro … uture.mspx
(Dropdown "Why do you have to stop selling windows XP?")
"We understand that not everyone may agree with our decision—just as not everyone was happy to see Windows 95, Windows 98, or Windows ME retire (OK, perhaps not ME)."
lel
Last edited by Dauntless (2009-02-07 21:54:48)
Since they aren't offering a streamline version upgrade from xp they should really keep the price low. XP users $99 Vista $49. They'd sell 10'x the amount of copies.Dauntless wrote:
Yeah Windows ME was a massive crock of shit.Kmarion wrote:
How long was ME out anyways? A month?Dauntless wrote:
What would you have them call it then? D:
They even admited it on the windows website:
http://www.microsoft.com/nz/windows/pro … uture.mspx
(Dropdown "Why do you have to stop selling windows XP?")
"We understand that not everyone may agree with our decision—just as not everyone was happy to see Windows 95, Windows 98, or Windows ME retire (OK, perhaps not ME)."
lel
Xbone Stormsurgezz
you forgot windows 2000 but I see what your getting atKmarion wrote:
That is still a stretch.. this is all just illustrating my point though. Stupid marketing.Dauntless wrote:
That's what I thought at first, but when you look into it, it does make a bit of sense.Kmarion wrote:
I'm not making this up. I've heard from some popular techies.. you've got to do some serious manipulations to make it work as "7".
If the first three are Windows 1, 2 and 3 then Windows 4 would be:
Windows 95 - version 4.00.950
Windows 98 - version 4.10.1998
Windows 98 SE (Second Edition) - version 4.10.2222
Windows Me (Millennium Edition) - version 4.90.3000
Windows 5:
Windows Server 2003
Windows XP 64-bit Edition 2003
Windows XP Professional x64 Edition
Windows Home Server
and Windows 6:
Windows Vista
Windows Server 2008
Windows Small Business Server 2008
As they always had named Windows 95 to ME version 4.x then it does sorta follow, but I know what you mean, it is kinda odd.
Windows 7 to me is just Vista cleaned up. .. what vista should have been
Don't try to figure out why Win7 is Win7 - it simply doesn't make sense - even if you've remembered that there are actually three separate, but related, windows code-bases to consider.
It goes:
(or summat like that (I've probably missed some editions and some server versions))
It goes:
| 'home' | 'office' | 'server' | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.0: | Windows 1.0 | N/A | N/A | |
| 2.0: | Windows 2.0 | N/A | N/A | |
| 2.1x: | Windows 2.1x | N/A | N/A | |
| 3.0: | Windows 3.0 | N/A | N/A | |
| 3.1: | Windows 3.1x | Windows NT 3.1 | N/A | |
| 3.5: | N/A | Windows NT 3.5 | N/A | |
| 3.51: | N/A | Windows NT 3.51 | N/A | |
| 4.0: | Windows 95 | Windows NT 4.0 Workstation | Windows NT 4.0 Server | |
| 4.1: | Windows 98 / 98 SE | N/A | N/A | |
| 4.9: | Windows ME | N/A | N/A | |
| 5.0: | Windows 2000 Home | Windows 2000 Pro | Windows 2000 Server | |
| 5.1: | Windows XP Home | Windows XP Pro | N/A | |
| 5.2: | N/A | N/A | Windows Server 2003 | |
| 6.0: | Windows Vista (Home Basic / Home Premium / Ultimate) / Windows Home Server | Windows Vista (Business / Enterprise) | Windows Server 2008 | |
| 6.1: | Windows 7 (Home Basic / Home Premium / Ultimate) | Windows 7 (Business / Enterprise) | N/A | |
(or summat like that (I've probably missed some editions and some server versions))
Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2009-02-07 22:58:21)
NT
Do not forget my original point. We are talking about marketing fellas. That is the stupidest system I have ever seen. Virtually no consistency in brand recognition. Windows aside.
2000 and XP the same version? I just barfed. I guess at that point they wee already running away from "Millennium" ..lol
Do not forget my original point. We are talking about marketing fellas. That is the stupidest system I have ever seen. Virtually no consistency in brand recognition. Windows aside.
2000 and XP the same version? I just barfed. I guess at that point they wee already running away from "Millennium" ..lol
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Essentially, yes.Kmarion wrote:
2000 and XP the same version?
And NT.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Essentially, yes.Kmarion wrote:
2000 and XP the same version?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Essentially, yes.Kmarion wrote:
And NT.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Essentially, yes.Kmarion wrote:
2000 and XP the same version?
Everything post-Millennium is essentially NT.
Which are of course post Version 9x.
See the silliness? lol
See the silliness? lol
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Scorp your list has Windows Vista as 6.
But Windows 7 as 6.1
Any reason why it shouldn't be 7, why 6.1?
But Windows 7 as 6.1
Any reason why it shouldn't be 7, why 6.1?
Makes perfect sense to me...Kmarion wrote:
Which are of course post Version 9x.
See the silliness? lol
But I did land on my head as a child...
Read teh thread.TheAussieReaper wrote:
Scorp your list has Windows Vista as 6.
But Windows 7 as 6.1
Any reason why it shouldn't be 7, why 6.1?
It would appear the Windows 7 Beta reports its version as 6.1, so I'm calling it 6.1, for now.
Going backwards.. MS.. yea I guess it does make sense.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Makes perfect sense to me...Kmarion wrote:
Which are of course post Version 9x.
See the silliness? lol
But I did land on my head as a child...
Can we all agree that the windows type graphical interface was born from Macintosh?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Anyhoo, I reckon they should call it Windows TJ.
No.Kmarion wrote:
Can we all agree that the windows type graphical interface was born from Macintosh?
Spoiler (highlight to read):
Zerox P.A.R.C.
start>run>cmd> ver <enter>Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Read teh thread.TheAussieReaper wrote:
Scorp your list has Windows Vista as 6.
But Windows 7 as 6.1
Any reason why it shouldn't be 7, why 6.1?
It would appear the Windows 7 Beta reports its version as 6.1, so I'm calling it 6.1, for now.
In case someone wanted to see it for themselves.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Scorpion0x17 wrote:
No.Kmarion wrote:
Can we all agree that the windows type graphical interface was born from Macintosh?
Spoiler (highlight to read):
Zerox P.A.R.C.
But srsly
Xbone Stormsurgezz
????Kmarion wrote:
Scorpion0x17 wrote:
No.Kmarion wrote:
Can we all agree that the windows type graphical interface was born from Macintosh?
Spoiler (highlight to read):
Zerox P.A.R.C.
But srsly
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVtxEA7AEHg
Are you saying it wasn't PARC?
No, I'm talking realistically. The company that brought it to the masses. As in sub $75k. Although the apple lisa went for almost 10k .Scorpion0x17 wrote:
????Kmarion wrote:
Scorpion0x17 wrote:
No.
Spoiler (highlight to read):
Zerox P.A.R.C.
But srsly
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVtxEA7AEHg
Are you saying it wasn't PARC?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Lisa
I'll give it to you on technicality though.
Xbone Stormsurgezz