No, Vista's software version reports as 5.2x, but Vista is treated as version 6.x for marketing reasons.
why is it windows 7?
- Thread starter ThunderAeroI
- Start date
No, Vista's software version reports as 5.2x, but Vista is treated as version 6.x for marketing reasons.
Because at the time it was considered better to add the necessary business features and keep the consumer line as-is for backwards compatibility. Come XP, maintaining the fragile and broken consumer codebase became too much of a hassle, so they migrated consumers to the NT kernel. And there was much rejoicing.
Vista is 6.0. Server 2003 (and XP 64-bit) are 5.2.
Windows 7 is the 7th generation since the operating system and Graphic interface were combined for the desktop.
We've had
Windows 1
Windows 2
Windows 3 (3 major releases 3.1. 3.1 for Workgroups and 3.11 WfWG)
Then in 1995 we saw the "end" of the Dos operating system with windows loaded over the top and the graphic environment become the OS.
1) Windows 95 (4 major sub releases)
2) Windows 98 (2 versions - 98 and 98 Second Edition).
3) Windows ME (short lived fortuantely - a real dog)
4) Windows 2000 Professional
5) Windows XP (also saw the release of 64bit windows for the Desktop and the second version of XP64 back ported Server 2003 features)
6) Windows Vista
7) Windows 7
Server side we're also 7th Generation but the OS and Graphical interface were combined from the get go
Windows NT 3.1 (out at the same time as Windows 3.1)
Windows NT 3.5
Windows NT 4 (revamp of the Interface borrowing fromw Windows 98, end of Alpha, Mips and RISC support)
Windows Server 2000 (introduction of active directory, demise of the PDC model)
Windows Server 2003 (introduction of 64bit, R2 release consdered more a sevice pack update than full release).
Windows Server 2008
Windows Server 2008 R2 (significant changes so considered a seperate release, marks the demise of 32bit server operating system from Microsoft).
We've had
Windows 1
Windows 2
Windows 3 (3 major releases 3.1. 3.1 for Workgroups and 3.11 WfWG)
Then in 1995 we saw the "end" of the Dos operating system with windows loaded over the top and the graphic environment become the OS.
1) Windows 95 (4 major sub releases)
2) Windows 98 (2 versions - 98 and 98 Second Edition).
3) Windows ME (short lived fortuantely - a real dog)
4) Windows 2000 Professional
5) Windows XP (also saw the release of 64bit windows for the Desktop and the second version of XP64 back ported Server 2003 features)
6) Windows Vista
7) Windows 7
Server side we're also 7th Generation but the OS and Graphical interface were combined from the get go
Windows NT 3.1 (out at the same time as Windows 3.1)
Windows NT 3.5
Windows NT 4 (revamp of the Interface borrowing fromw Windows 98, end of Alpha, Mips and RISC support)
Windows Server 2000 (introduction of active directory, demise of the PDC model)
Windows Server 2003 (introduction of 64bit, R2 release consdered more a sevice pack update than full release).
Windows Server 2008
Windows Server 2008 R2 (significant changes so considered a seperate release, marks the demise of 32bit server operating system from Microsoft).
We need the forward slapping smiley, so I could post that.
Instead I will just say, "DOH!".
Hang on, let me just check something...
Nope Win7 hasn't deleted all my user files yet.
Now that's a smart way of looking at it, but I think ME came out after 2000.
Hang on, let me just check something...
Nope Win7 hasn't deleted all my user files yet.
Now that's a smart way of looking at it, but I think ME came out after 2000.
Well bugger me - you're right
According to Wiki, Win2K came out Feb '00 and ME came out in Sept '00I thought came out in 1999 (which given Microsoft's naming at the time would of fitted with "Millenium") but I'll use the excuse I only have the misfortunate of having to deal with it once.
Nevertheless, swapping W2K and ME doesn't in anyway impact the essential nature of your post, Marc.
It's a mistake I made once before when talking about Windows and had it pointed out to me. I made the assumption that 2000 was rushed out shortly after ME in order to cover up that ME ever existed, but it turns out that MS made a mistake by releasing a fast and stable OS so they quickly rushed out ME in order to prove that they were still as crap as ever.Well bugger me - you're right
I thought came out in 1999 (which given Microsoft's naming at the time would of fitted with "Millenium") but I'll use the excuse I only have the misfortunate of having to deal with it once.
I also only used ME once, on my cousin's computer, and he lorded it over me that he had ME while my family was still using 98. I think I won in the end.
It's a mistake I made once before when talking about Windows and had it pointed out to me. I made the assumption that 2000 was rushed out shortly after ME in order to cover up that ME ever existed, but it turns out that MS made a mistake by releasing a fast and stable OS so they quickly rushed out ME in order to prove that they were still as crap as ever.Well bugger me - you're right
I thought came out in 1999 (which given Microsoft's naming at the time would of fitted with "Millenium") but I'll use the excuse I only have the misfortunate of having to deal with it once.
I also only used ME once, on my cousin's computer, and he lorded it over me that he had ME while my family was still using 98. I think I won in the end.
I think the whole issue with 2000/Me was that MS had intended for 2000 to replace the 9x line. But they had a hell of a time with compatibility issues and general acceptance of the upgrade in general. I love 2000, but it is kind of a red-headed stepchild in the Windows family. It's basically got the GUI of 98 with the stability of NT, without the feature creep and bloat that would later birth XP. So, they put out Me to satisfy the desktop users, only it was a raging piece of shit. The handful of times I used it, I couldn't believe MS thought it was adequate in any way. I mean, even for Microsoft, it was a horrible pile of junk.
As for the question of why there's an NT kernel at all... the 9x line sucks. Hard. It had a lot of limitations, not the least of them being that it was built on top of DOS. It could only ever adequately use half of your installed RAM, thanks to its brain-damaged memory (mis)management model. Really, it's a wonder they managed to make it work as well as it did. Windows 98SE is pretty solid--for a version of Windows built on freakin' MS-DOS. The main point of NT was to make a cross-platform OS with no legacy constraints, so that it could run on servers and business-class workstations.
To this day, I still believe the only reason MS ever produced a good operating system is because of Dave Cutler. VMS lives!
For the most part, you're probably right. ME had exactly one redeeming feature: System Restore.
yes but according to the wiki entry that even that didn't work properly with a bug that resulted in it not finding the files if recovery backup was made after Sept 8th 2001 which was evenutally fixed by a patch.
The version is what Microsoft says it is at the moment. (wth apoligies to Orwell).
Well unless people open the cmd prompt how many are people are going to see the version number in there?
You mean other people don't pin the command prompt to the taskbar?
other people don't even know what the commmand prompt is
It's a mistake I made once before when talking about Windows and had it pointed out to me. I made the assumption that 2000 was rushed out shortly after ME in order to cover up that ME ever existed, but it turns out that MS made a mistake by releasing a fast and stable OS so they quickly rushed out ME in order to prove that they were still as crap as ever.Well bugger me - you're right
I thought came out in 1999 (which given Microsoft's naming at the time would of fitted with "Millenium") but I'll use the excuse I only have the misfortunate of having to deal with it once.
I also only used ME once, on my cousin's computer, and he lorded it over me that he had ME while my family was still using 98. I think I won in the end.
ME is loads of fun to play with in "Virtual PC".
I love trying to get it to crash and being satisfied that it takes so little time to get a result.
Similar threads
