Why is Windows 7 numbered as "7"

All I can figure is this.

1. Win3.x
2. Win95
3. Win98
4. Win-ME
5. Win-XP
6. Vista
7. Win7

Is this correct?

wrote in message
...
All I can figure is this.

1. Win3.x
2. Win95
3. Win98
4. Win-ME
5. Win-XP
6. Vista
7. Win7

Is this correct?



The first version was Windows 1.0.

Windows Vista Team Blog
http://windowsteamblog.com/windows/a.../14/why-7.aspx
--
Bruce Hagen
MS-MVP Oct. 1, 2004 ~ Sept. 30, 2010
Imperial Beach, CA

Bruce gave you an excellent article for your explanation. Aside fro your list of
Windows versions you did forget Windows 2000 which fits into that list at number 4

--
Peter
Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
http://www.microsoft.com/protect


wrote in message
...
All I can figure is this.

1. Win3.x
2. Win95
3. Win98
4. Win-ME
5. Win-XP
6. Vista
7. Win7

Is this correct?

Bruce Hagen wrote:

The first version was Windows 1.0.

Windows Vista Team Blog
http://windowsteamblog.com/windows/a.../14/why-7.aspx

I still have a copy of Win 1.04 on floppy disks around here somewhere, which
came with my ps2/25. I never used it much, though, as I found MS-DOS more
functional.

Jon

Jan Gainche wrote:
Bruce gave you an excellent article for your explanation. Aside fro your
list of Windows versions you did forget Windows 2000 which fits into
that list at number 4

And Windows NT, of course. (It was before 95, right?)


wrote in message...
All I can figure is this.

1. Win3.x
2. Win95
3. Win98
4. Win-ME
5. Win-XP
6. Vista
7. Win7

Is this correct?

--
You'd be crazy to e-mail me with the crazy. But leave the div alone.
*
Whoever bans a book, shall be banished. Whoever burns a book, shall burn.

I think it's just marketing. Vista was NT 6, so
that's one possible reason. But 7 is NT 6.1.
I'm sure they'd call it Windows Garbage Truck if
they thought it would sell more copies.

1. Win3.x
[ NT 3.5 and 3.52 ]
2. Win95 Platform 1, v. 4
NT4 Platform 2, v. 4
3. Win98 Platform 1, v. 4.1
2000 Platform 2, v. 5
4. Win-ME Platform 1, v. 5
5. Win-XP Platform 2, v. 5.1 [NT]
6. Vista Platform 2, v. 6 [NT]
7. Win7 Platform 2, v. 6.1 [NT]

It's actually 2 different platforms, officially --
Windows and Windows NT. Windows ended with
ME.

I hear "Windows 8" is NT v. 6.2, which may
have more to do with backward compatibility
than anything else. But there is a certain amount
of sense to the numbers: Win98 was an update
to Win95. Thus 4.1. WinXP was an update to 2000,
so it's 5.1. Win7 is an update to Vista, so it's 6.1.
WinME is a bit of an anomally. It was a very minor
update to Win98, but it did have some core changes,
too. I don't know whether calling it v. 5 was actually
justified or not.

Woops. Correction. WinME was Platform 1, version 4.9.

| Bruce gave you an excellent article for your explanation.

Actually it's not so excellent. It's a rewrite of history
meant to play down the fact that [non-server] Windows
now only exists as a corporate workstation product, and
to diminish the role of Windows platform 1. (Non NT).
The linked article twists the facts around to make it sound
like there was only one version of Windows and "Win 9x
was #4". Win9x is a different kernel.

To confirm this, first there's the fact that NT4 is NT v. 4,
which the MS bloggers conveniently left out, despite the
fact it was probably the longest lived of all NT versions.

Also, see the API function GetVersionEx:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/libr...=vs.85%29.aspx

The dwPlatformID member returns 1 for Windows and 2
for Windows NT. That made a difference when NT 4 was
in use. The platform number was the way to distinguish
between Win9x and WinNT.

Never depend on Microsoft public relations for accurate
or truthful information.

.....I guess for completeness it should also be mentioned
that there are server versions that are separate from
the workstation versions. (NT5.2 and NT6.2)

On Sat, 19 Nov 2011 08:43:19 -0800, "Bruce Hagen"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
All I can figure is this.

1. Win3.x
2. Win95
3. Win98
4. Win-ME
5. Win-XP
6. Vista
7. Win7

Is this correct?



The first version was Windows 1.0.

Windows Vista Team Blog
http://windowsteamblog.com/windows/a.../14/why-7.aspx

You're right, I should have known that since I know there is a copy of
Windows 1.0 on some floppies around here. And how did I forgot
Win2000 (since I use it on one system). Must be alzheimers....

That blog explains it best I guess. As one person once said, Windows
2000 is NEWER than Windows 7 if you are going according to numbers, or
would it be Windows98 if you only use the first digit.....
Leave it to MS to make things senseless. It would have made more
sense to just stick with the year, which would have made it Windows
2010. (or was it released in 09, I cant recall)?

wrote in message ...
On Sat, 19 Nov 2011 08:43:19 -0800, "Bruce Hagen"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
All I can figure is this.

1. Win3.x
2. Win95
3. Win98
4. Win-ME
5. Win-XP
6. Vista
7. Win7

Is this correct?



The first version was Windows 1.0.

Windows Vista Team Blog
http://windowsteamblog.com/windows/a.../14/why-7.aspx

You're right, I should have known that since I know there is a copy of
Windows 1.0 on some floppies around here. And how did I forgot
Win2000 (since I use it on one system). Must be alzheimers....

That blog explains it best I guess. As one person once said, Windows
2000 is NEWER than Windows 7 if you are going according to numbers, or
would it be Windows98 if you only use the first digit.....
Leave it to MS to make things senseless. It would have made more
sense to just stick with the year, which would have made it Windows
2010. (or was it released in 09, I cant recall)?


Here's a nice "family tree":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wi...amily_Tree.svg

although it still doesn't answer your question (and neither can I).
--
SC Tom

wrote in
:

All I can figure is this.

1. Win3.x
2. Win95
3. Win98
4. Win-ME
5. Win-XP
6. Vista
7. Win7

Is this correct?

Lucky 7? Not lucky enough it seems, only days until 8. I can't
wait for 19.3, myself.

Leaving aside Win2003 (IIRC/whatever THAT was) and stuff which
no one ever used, but which - of course - WILL be mentioned by
others, you left out Win2000, which had a lot of fans.

7 is 6.1, while Vista was 6. Very confidence-inspiring, huh?

Microsoft are ****ed in the head. I suggest playing with number
puzzles that were created by non-psychotics.



--
What if a demon were to creep after you one night, in your
loneliest loneliness, and say, 'This life which you live must be
lived by you once again and innumerable times more; and every
pain and joy and thought and sigh must come again to you, all in
the same sequence. The eternal hourglass will again and again be
turned and you with it, dust of the dust!' Would you throw
yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse that demon? Or
would you answer, 'Never have I heard anything more divine'?
Friedrich Nietzsche

|
| 7 is 6.1, while Vista was 6. Very confidence-inspiring, huh?
|

And Windows 2000 came out in 1999. And the 64-bit system
folder on Win64 is called "System32", while the 32-bit folder
is called "SysWOW64". (Did you notice that the pointless phrase
"Windows on Windows 64" spells "wow"?. Pretty cool, huh?
Not since Millenium Edition spelled "Me" has there been such
a stunning display of literacy demonstrated by the Windows
"team".

"Mayayana" wrote in
:

|
| 7 is 6.1, while Vista was 6. Very confidence-inspiring,
| huh?
|

And Windows 2000 came out in 1999. And the 64-bit system
folder on Win64 is called "System32", while the 32-bit
folder is called "SysWOW64". (Did you notice that the
pointless phrase "Windows on Windows 64" spells "wow"?.
Pretty cool, huh?

I did notice something called wowexec and finally found out
what it is. They DO have a talent for coming up with moronic
names, like SAM and Soap, etc. I suppose they think it's cute.

Not since Millenium Edition spelled "Me"
has there been such a stunning display of literacy
demonstrated by the Windows "team".

Their stupidity and lack of objectivity regarding it is
astonishing, agreed, considering they are NOT idiots, just
evil and full of themselves.



--
What if a demon were to creep after you one night, in your
loneliest loneliness, and say, 'This life which you live must
be lived by you once again and innumerable times more; and
every pain and joy and thought and sigh must come again to
you, all in the same sequence. The eternal hourglass will
again and again be turned and you with it, dust of the dust!'
Would you throw yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse
that demon? Or would you answer, 'Never have I heard anything
more divine'?
Friedrich Nietzsche

"Mayayana" écrivait news:ja941p$1ah$1@dont-
email.me:

Woops. Correction. WinME was Platform 1, version 4.9.



It could have been Platform 1, v 5 because it was the first version of
Platform 1 that didn't look like it was running over DOS. For example when
you ran Scandisk or Defrag on ME, it didn't look like a DOS program.

Personnally, I think ME had the nicest user interface, it was all graphic
and was not cluttered with all kind of useless gadget like a dog when you
search a file or a couple extra dialog boxes when you unzip a file, it was
2 or 3 more steps in XP than ME to unzip a file.

To bad ME was so buggy and/or incompatible with not much older programs
(mainly games).

"Dominique" wrote in message .. .
"Mayayana" écrivait news:ja941p$1ah$1@dont-
email.me:

Woops. Correction. WinME was Platform 1, version 4.9.



It could have been Platform 1, v 5 because it was the first version of
Platform 1 that didn't look like it was running over DOS. For example when
you ran Scandisk or Defrag on ME, it didn't look like a DOS program.

Personnally, I think ME had the nicest user interface, it was all graphic
and was not cluttered with all kind of useless gadget like a dog when you
search a file or a couple extra dialog boxes when you unzip a file, it was
2 or 3 more steps in XP than ME to unzip a file.

To bad ME was so buggy and/or incompatible with not much older programs
(mainly games).


I've heard that ME was buggy and quirky, but I didn't find it to be that way at all. In fact, I liked it so much more
than XP when it first came out that I rolled back to ME twice before deciding to stick with XP (X-tra Painful). I
wouldn't go back to it now, but I liked it the best after using the various versions of Win95 and Win98.
--
SC Tom