Windows 7 To Be Named Windows 7

Sabrewulf165 said:
Oh, well, since you said so it must be true. Way to talk to the guy like he's a dog :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I've only used both forever, but WTF do I know?

And I'd imagine him as one of these cute little guys:

FinneganFrenchBulldog.jpg
 
Serpico said:
I've only used both forever, but WTF do I know?
Click to expand...

That assertion doesn't give you any more authority than you already had, which was none ;)

And for the record, I don't really care, I'm just busting your balls and getting on your case for talking down to people. You might find people more receptive to your arguments if you don't act like a jerk to them.
 
Sabrewulf165 said:
That assertion doesn't give you any more authority than you already had, which was none ;)

And for the record, I don't really care, I'm just busting your balls and getting on your case for talking down to people. You might find people more receptive to your arguments if you don't act like a jerk to them.
Click to expand...

He's made the same comments on numerous occasions. Believe me, you earn jerky treatment. :)
 
Serpico said:
IMO they should roll everything into one single release. No extra price gouging for features, just let it all be one price. I suspect that it would help Microsoft in one way since it would streamline their inventory.
Click to expand...

Yes, they should. It's all based and coded anyway. But they should give us the ability to add/remove stuff we want/don't want.
 
Serpico said:
IMO they should roll everything into one single release.
Click to expand...

With as much flak as they took for the various versions of Vista, I feel like a reduction to two or three versions is likely. Of course, if they continue to insist on providing both 32 and 64 bit versions, that automatically doubles the number of SKUs.
 
Sabrewulf165 said:
With as much flak as they took for the various versions of Vista, I feel like a reduction to two or three versions is likely. Of course, if they continue to insist on providing both 32 and 64 bit versions, that automatically doubles the number of SKUs.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. The Ultimate version came with both versions in the same box and all you had to do with the other versions was mail in for the 64 bit installation. They can continue to have the 32 and 64 bit versions be the same SKU. I would be very surprised if this didn't happen because it is already the same SKU, plus it is likely that the vast majority of CPUs working in 2010 (and not just the ones sold in new computers) will be 64 bit.
 
Yeah, I had a feeling they were going with Windows 7 for the release name. Cool name and it will probably be a slick OS. MS is usually good about listening to feedback after not so critically sucessful releases such as Vista.
 
I like it.

But what is the the gaming console going to be called? That is going to be interesting...
 
Yoshiyuki Blade said:
lol, i can't wait to hear some people ask, "What the... where's Windows 1 though 6?!"
Click to expand...

We had windows 1.X, 2.X, 3.X, 95, 98, ME, NT 3.X, NT 4.X, windows 2000, windows Xp, windows server 2003, windows XP X64 ( I include it because it really is a bit different than XP), windows vista, and windows server 2008.

My question is how the heck are we only up to 7. Even if you separate it into consumer and business and don't differentiate between 32 and 64 and the thousand flavors of vanilla for vista, we are up to 9 for consumer. For business, it's 7 already out if you count vista business, and 6 if you don't.
 
Someone else already covered it, but to sum it up:

Windows 1.x, 2.x, 3.x, NT (4), Windows 2k, XP, 2003 (XP 64 is 2003 for the most part), are all under version 5.x (same basic OS), Vista and 2008 are under 6.

Windows 95, 98, ME were a separate OS line that was killed. I think they ver as 4.x, but can't remember for sure.
 
raz-0 said:
We had windows 1.X, 2.X, 3.X, 95, 98, ME, NT 3.X, NT 4.X, windows 2000, windows Xp, windows server 2003, windows XP X64 ( I include it because it really is a bit different than XP), windows vista, and windows server 2008.

My question is how the heck are we only up to 7. Even if you separate it into consumer and business and don't differentiate between 32 and 64 and the thousand flavors of vanilla for vista, we are up to 9 for consumer. For business, it's 7 already out if you count vista business, and 6 if you don't.
Click to expand...
Kernel version.

1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0 (95)
4.1 (98)
4.1 (98SE)
4.9 (ME)
5.0 (2000)
5.1 (XP)
5.2 (2003)
6.0 (Vista)
6.0 (2008)
7.0


How freaking hard is this to understand? I hope people stop asking the same question a thousand times.
 
darkpaw said:
Windows 95, 98, ME were a separate OS line that was killed. I think they ver as 4.x, but can't remember for sure.
Click to expand...

Those were like 3.xxx, because 4.0 and up were NT technology
 
S-B said:
Kernel version.

1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0 (95)
4.1 (98)
4.1 (98SE)
4.9 (ME)
5.0 (2000)
5.1 (XP)
5.2 (2003)
6.0 (Vista)
6.0 (2008)
7.0


How freaking hard is this to understand? I hope people stop asking the same question a thousand times.
Click to expand...

This should be stickied, honestly.
 
Like the others on this site... I love it. All software should be named using numbers...
 
Sabrewulf165 said:
It's funny that everyone here thinks they can count version numbers better than the company THAT CREATED THE SOFTWARE.
Click to expand...

Well product brand names are all about marketing, so the way customers understand the version numbers is actually more important than some internal build numbers used by Microsoft.
 
S-B said:
Kernel version.

1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0 (95)
4.1 (98)
4.1 (98SE)
4.9 (ME)
5.0 (2000)
5.1 (XP)
5.2 (2003)
6.0 (Vista)
6.0 (2008)
7.0


How freaking hard is this to understand? I hope people stop asking the same question a thousand times.
Click to expand...

My XP-64 shows as 5.2...I guess cause its based on 2003...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top