Why can't Microsoft count to 10?

Josh_Kablack · Post by **Josh_Kablack** » Tue Nov 03, 2009 11:11 pm

Some history:

Windows 1.0 was released in 1985
Windows 2.0 was released in 1988. There was also a 2.1
Windows 3.0 was released in 1990, there were also a number of 3.1x updates
Windows 95 was released in 1995.
Windows 98 was released in 1998, there was also a Win 98 SE
Windows ME was released in 2000.
Windows XP was released in late 2001. There were home and professional sub-editions and also a couple of big-deal service packs.
Windows Vista was released in late 2006/early 2007. It came in home, professional and ultimate flavors and also had at least one big-deal service pack

So, even if we ignore Windows NT, the big deal new version of the OS should be at least Windows #9 by my count. Instead it's merely Windows 7.

What gives?

And why should I trust a company that apparently cannot count to 10 to manage the memory on my computer?

Quantumboost · Post by **Quantumboost** » Tue Nov 03, 2009 11:21 pm

Josh_Kablack wrote:And why should I trust a company that apparently cannot count to 10 to manage the memory on my computer?

Wikipedia wrote:The name "Windows 7" references that it is the seventh client edition of the NT family of Windows operating systems (consisting of 4 major kernel versions).

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Tue Nov 03, 2009 11:23 pm

Some named releases might be considered minor release.

Windows 95 would probably be considered 4
Windows NT would probably be considered 5
Windows XP would probably be considered 6

All three of these versions had major changes at the kernal level.

Kobajagrande · Post by **Kobajagrande** » Tue Nov 03, 2009 11:28 pm

...and worst of all, what kind of a stupid number is vista?

Josh_Kablack · Post by **Josh_Kablack** » Tue Nov 03, 2009 11:30 pm

Interesting.

As is the google search which turns up that the internal code numbering is still 6.1.

But bear in mind that this is the company which called it the XBox 360 instead of the more honest Xbox 2, because they didn't want it to sound less advanced than the Playstation 3 - so I'm skeptical of that "seventh client edition of Win NT" explanation and wondering if perhaps it's an attempt to cash in on Elway or Rothlisburger

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Tue Nov 03, 2009 11:33 pm

Pre 95 were the same thing just patched up.
95~98 were the same just patched up
2000~ME well I don't know whether this really fits....maybe they are 2 not one same
NT same here...
XP
Vista
Windows 7

If you want to break them all down, the don't stick 3.0, 3.1, and 3.11 together than they are far beyond 10 iterations/release of the OS.

We can go even further and include the service packs and probably 100 different distinct versions of the OS....

By my count I see 7.

Just remember Windows 95 was the Apple OS from 1987.....

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Tue Nov 03, 2009 11:36 pm

3, 3.1, 3.11 were major releases which were incompatible to their programs, but yet were the same kernal.

95, 98 used almost the same kernal but a different client.

NT, 2K, and XP all used a similar kernal and the same installer.

ME used the kernal from 98 and the installer from Dog, or whatever that stupid offshoot was called.

So yeah, there's many versions. Should I be on my Apple XXVIII or my MacBook with OSX 10.6?

-Crissa

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Tue Nov 03, 2009 11:38 pm

It is funny how Apple keeps coming out with new OS(10) systems.....

I=1
V=5
X=10

OSX = OS 10

Quantumboost · Post by **Quantumboost** » Tue Nov 03, 2009 11:44 pm

Josh_Kablack wrote:But bear in mind that this is the company which called it the XBox 360 instead of the more honest Xbox 2, because they didn't want it to sound less advanced than the Playstation 3 - so I'm skeptical of that "seventh client edition of Win NT" explanation and wondering if perhaps it's an attempt to cash in on Elway or Rothlisburger

...isn't that what marketing departments do, like, all the time? Everywhere?

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Tue Nov 03, 2009 11:44 pm

They haven't changed how it looks or the major code since 10, just the extensions which are available. So on my OSX computer I can run pretty much everything I ran on 10. What's available and third party programs that link into the extensions might not work, however. And drivers for some things have changed, though I can run some drivers in Rosetta.

Yeah, between OSX and its sixth revision, they switched processors four times, including a major architecture change. And yet, I can still run those programs...

Funny, huh?

-Crissa

Heath Robinson · Post by **Heath Robinson** » Tue Nov 03, 2009 11:49 pm

The orignal kernel line dies at Windows ME. That line of product is as irrelevent as the number of MS-DOS releases. In fact, that line was basically MS-DOS with windowing and multiprocessing. The NT line is a completely different beast to that and you should consider it separate from the original line for the purposes of numbering.

Windows NT 3.1
Windows NT 3.5/3.51
Windows NT 4.0
Windows 2000
Windows XP
Windows Vista
Windows 7

Satisfactory?

Maj · Post by **Maj** » Tue Nov 03, 2009 11:52 pm

So it's 1, 2, 3, 95, 98, ME, NT, XP, Vista, 7?

Looks more to me like they can't count to 4.

TarkisFlux · Post by **TarkisFlux** » Tue Nov 03, 2009 11:57 pm

Josh_Kablack wrote:Interesting.

As is the google search which turns up that the internal code numbering is still 6.1.

They actually have an excuse for that one. The first is that some software will check your OS version, and instead of >= 6 they use ==6 (and don't care about revisions to the version so long as the integer doesn't change) and so it wouldn't work on a windows 7 machine because of that one tiny difference. So the version number is arguably a way to avoid software incompatibility issues, but that's kind of a stretch.

It still is likely the actual version number though, since Windows 7 is to windows Vista what Windows XP SP2 was to Windows XP (which is largely supported by the actual feature and core changes in the OS). But this way they get to put out a 'new' OS every few years in the same way that Apple gets to put out a new OS fairly regularly and they also get to distance themselves from the Vista branding which is largely associated with bloat (even for them), performance, and driver issues.

Josh_Kablack · Post by **Josh_Kablack** » Wed Nov 04, 2009 12:10 am

Maj wrote:So it's 1, 2, 3, 95, 98, ME, NT, XP, Vista, 7?

Looks more to me like they can't count to 4.

Yeah the segue from "version number" counting to "year of release" counting to "hopefully hip-sounding version names" made some sense as it happened.

This shift back to "version numbers" seems really odd to me.

ubernoob · Post by **ubernoob** » Wed Nov 04, 2009 12:18 am

It's really quite simple. Seven is a lucky number. Microsoft is hoping they get luckier than they did with Vista. Thus, Windows 7.

Josh_Kablack · Post by **Josh_Kablack** » Wed Nov 04, 2009 12:19 am

Microsoft is hoping they get luckier than they did with Vista.

Even for Microsoft, that's setting the bar low.

ubernoob · Post by **ubernoob** » Wed Nov 04, 2009 12:24 am

Josh_Kablack wrote:
Microsoft is hoping they get luckier than they did with Vista.
Even for Microsoft, that's setting the bar low.

I am not going to let you ruin my joke with little things like "reality" or "critical thinking."

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Wed Nov 04, 2009 12:52 am

Crissa wrote:They haven't changed how it looks or the major code since 10, just the extensions which are available. So on my OSX computer I can run pretty much everything I ran on 10. What's available and third party programs that link into the extensions might not work, however. And drivers for some things have changed, though I can run some drivers in Rosetta.

Yeah, between OSX and its sixth revision, they switched processors four times, including a major architecture change. And yet, I can still run those programs...

Funny, huh?

-Crissa

Yes that is funny, and something I did not know.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Wed Nov 04, 2009 12:55 am

Josh_Kablack wrote:
Maj wrote:So it's 1, 2, 3, 95, 98, ME, NT, XP, Vista, 7?

Looks more to me like they can't count to 4.

Yeah the segue from "version number" counting to "year of release" counting to "hopefully hip-sounding version names" made some sense as it happened.

This shift back to "version numbers" seems really odd to me.

Not really, when they are competing with another manufacturer that ha always used the numbered system, and find that a number is more recognizable and easier to understand in order which comes first and which is the newest.

Just once again Microsoft copying Apple....

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Wed Nov 04, 2009 1:00 am

I never really liked Macs until OSX, anyhow. I'm a bit wedded to being able to seriously dig under the hood and change things; and I really like being able to run seriously old programs.

When Windows 95 came out, I remember being told, "Gosh, this looks like your computer." I had been running Windows 3.1 and DOS with a boot bridge I made myself. They noted that the behavior of the windows and menus in 95 was like I had changed them to, and the my boot screen was similar to unwindowed video games having their own boot - because I'd coded boots for all my video games, and coded windowed shells for the ones which could plausibly share memory with windows. (Only game I know that still uses its own boot is EVE Online.)

-Crissa

Microsoft has always done this. For instance, they skipped DOS 4.0. I had a copy for awhile, it was hilarious how bad it was that they continued to sell DOS 3.22 until DOS 5 came out.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Wed Nov 04, 2009 1:29 am

Which version of DOS you want, or would like like a copy of every "disk" OS out there, including PC, TRS, IBM, Amiga, etc?

I have them on a CD for sentimental reasons. I got a 100 baud modem too if you can find a pulse dialing phone to use it with.

Heath Robinson · Post by **Heath Robinson** » Wed Nov 04, 2009 2:14 am

Maj wrote:So it's 1, 2, 3, 95, 98, ME, NT, XP, Vista, 7?

Looks more to me like they can't count to 4.

That timeline is incorrect. NT came before 95 (no, really).

1, 2, 2.1, 3, 3.1, NT 3.1, NT 3.5, NT 3.51 & 95, NT 4.0, 98, 2000 & ME, XP, Vista, 7

They can count to 4, but only for business customers.

RandomCasualty2 · Post by **RandomCasualty2** » Wed Nov 04, 2009 2:54 am

This whole thread just makes me wonder what windows version 1.0 was like.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Wed Nov 04, 2009 3:20 am

Kind of like the change from "copy con" in DOS, to "edlin", to "edit".

Nothing really fantastic. IIRC.

angelfromanotherpin · Post by **angelfromanotherpin** » Wed Nov 04, 2009 6:05 am

Could be worse, how long did it take Capcom to count to Street Fighter 3?

The Gaming Den

Why can't Microsoft count to 10?

Why can't Microsoft count to 10?

Re: Why can't Microsoft count to 10?