Microsoft begins talking about Windows 7

**Platypus** · May 28th, 2008, 04:56 AM

http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/wi...windows-7.aspx

**NooNoo** · May 28th, 2008, 07:24 AM

Begins talking about the fact that they are not talking....?

**Platypus** · May 28th, 2008, 07:46 AM

Got to start somewhere I guess...

Just noticed this:

http://my.break.com/Content/view.aspx?ContentID=509679

**NooNoo** · May 28th, 2008, 08:59 AM

it's on the same blog as you first posted!

**Platypus** · May 28th, 2008, 09:17 AM

A consequence of multi-threading with out-of-order execution...

**Guts3d** · May 29th, 2008, 03:54 AM

Windows 7? Not only can't Windows get the time right, but they cannot count either!

Windows 3.0, 3.1, etc.

Microsoft Bob

Windows 95

Windows 98

Windows N.T.

Windows M.E.

Windows 2000

Windows XP

Windows Vista

And that doesn't include server products, either!

**NooNoo** · May 29th, 2008, 04:05 AM

hmmm perhaps they are thinking borg?

**Guts3d** · May 29th, 2008, 07:39 AM

Heh heh, it took me a minute to get that... Good one!

**BOB IROC** · May 29th, 2008, 07:54 AM

Originally Posted by Guts3d

Windows 7? Not only can't Windows get the time right, but they cannot count either!

Windows 3.0, 3.1, etc.

Microsoft Bob

Windows 95

Windows 98

Windows N.T.

Windows M.E.

Windows 2000

Windows XP

Windows Vista

And that doesn't include server products, either!

I am sure they are in denial about MS Bob and WinBlows ME so they didn't count those.

I am thinking that Windows 7 has something to do with the kernel level maybe. Windows 2000 and XP have the same kernel level as does 98/Me I believe.

**houseisland** · May 30th, 2008, 09:33 PM

Originally Posted by Guts3d

Windows 7? Not only can't Windows get the time right, but they cannot count either!

Windows 3.0, 3.1, etc.

Microsoft Bob

Windows 95

Windows 98

Windows N.T.

Windows M.E.

Windows 2000

Windows XP

Windows Vista

And that doesn't include server products, either!

Here are ones that I know of. I haven't seen them all, though.

Windows 1.0

Windows 2.0

Windows/286

Windows/386

Windows 3.0

Windows 3.1

Windows 3.1 1

Windows 95

Windows 95 B

Windows 95 C

Windows NT 3.1

Windows NT 3.5

Windows NT 3.51

Windows NT 4.0

Windows 98

Windows 98 SE

Windows CE

Windows 2000

Windows ME

Windows XP

Windows 2003

Windows 2003 R2

Windows Vista

Wikipedia lists a few more or less depending on how you count:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Windows

____________________________________________

It is my pure and virtuous heart that
gives me the strength of ten!

**slgrieb** · May 30th, 2008, 10:39 PM

Yeah, the nomenclature is weird. Let's see. Uhm, all current Windows versions are actually based on Windows NT, so the Windows 1.0 through 9x versions don't count as real Windows 'cause they ran on top of DOS (no matter how MS waffled on 9x, they did, so there).

Therefore, Windows 2000 was really NT 5.0. Don't believe me? The current version of Windows Defender will install and run just fine on W2K, if you edit the MSI file so that the StartConditions line doesn't look for a version greater than NT 5.0. Therefore, XP , based on logical sequence as well as evidence in at least one MS Windows Installer file, is NT 6.0.

So, that means that Vista is Windows 7 and Windows 7 is... well... Not here yet? A Vista service pack? Yet another confusing MS marketing scheme predisposed to failure and confusion? Fine. If it doesn't make sense, don't blame me. The mods edit my posts behind my back and here's a video you might like, and I wish the aliens would stop abducting me.

**Platypus** · May 30th, 2008, 11:50 PM

Originally Posted by BOB IROC

I am thinking that Windows 7 has something to do with the kernel level maybe. Windows 2000 and XP have the same kernel level as does 98/Me I believe.

It is kernel version level, but 2000/XP and 9x/ME are different codestreams, and have a different kernel level.

To find a version level of a running Windows, run winver.

Win 9x/ME is Windows 4, following on from Windows 3.

2000/XP follow the NT codebase, and are Windows NT 5, following on from NT 4. Windows 2000 is NT 5.0, XP is NT 5.1, Server 2003 & XP64 are NT 5.2

Vista is NT 6.0

**slgrieb** · May 31st, 2008, 06:05 PM

Right, but joking aside, if Win 7 is essentially a face-lifted Vista with same driver architecture , etc. as MS claims, I don't see how it rates a full version number. Shouldn't this be maybe Windows 6.5 instead? Maybe Windows 6 and a Quarter.

**Platypus** · June 1st, 2008, 02:00 AM

Originally Posted by Platypus

It is kernel version level, but 2000/XP and 9x/ME are different codestreams, and have a different kernel level.

Bob, think I may have misunderstood your post as saying "Windows 2000 and XP have the same kernel level as 98/Me". Re-reading, I now understand your meaning as "2000/XP have the same kernel level as each other" and also "98/Me have the same kernel level as each other", which of course is quite correct.

Originally Posted by slgrieb

if Win 7 is essentially a face-lifted Vista with same driver architecture , etc. as MS claims, I don't see how it rates a full version number. Shouldn't this be maybe Windows 6.5 instead?

I'm inclined to agree, as Win2000 & XP didn't rate a version number advancement. Guess we'll have to wait & see what actually happens - after all, Vista got massively reworked part way through and didn't end up being what MS originally thought it was going to be.

**Guts3d** · June 1st, 2008, 05:19 AM

...after all, Vista got massively reworked part way through and didn't end up being what MS originally thought it was going to be.

Slow??? ( Sorry, couldn't resist! )