PDA

View Full Version : Whats up with pre-95 Windows?



t0p
August 17th, 2009, 01:16 PM
Taking Windows 7 as a starting point, lets count backwards:

Windows 7 --- Windows 7

Windows 6 --- Vista

Windows 5 --- XP

Windows 4 --- 2000

Windows 3 --- ME

Windows 2 --- 98

Windows 1 --- 95

So how come they started at 95? What happened to 3.1 - widely considered the first usable version of Windows - never mind the earlier iterations? What is so special about 95?

optimisme
August 17th, 2009, 01:22 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_95

"Windows 95 was intended to integrate Microsoft's formerly separate MS-DOS and Windows products and includes an enhanced version of DOS, often referred to as MS-DOS 7.0. It features significant improvements over its predecessor, Windows 3.1, most visibly in the graphical user interface (GUI). There were also major changes made at lower levels of the operating system."

Bachstelze
August 17th, 2009, 01:23 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_Windows_7#Naming

benj1
August 17th, 2009, 01:37 PM
maybe theyre wiping ME and vista from the history books and classing 98 as 95.1

Screwdriver0815
August 17th, 2009, 01:43 PM
Windows Me = Windows 98

XP = Windows 2000.1

Windows 7 = Vista.1

so we have

Windows 7 = Windows Vista/ 7

Windows 6 = Windows 2000/ XP

Windows 5 = Windows 98/Me

Windows 4 = Windows 95

Windows 3 = Windows 3.1

Windows 2 = Windows 2.x

Windows 1 = Windows 1

works... ;) :D :lolflag:

schauerlich
August 17th, 2009, 01:46 PM
Windows Me = Windows 98

XP = Windows 2000.1

Windows 7 = Vista.1

so we have

Windows 7 = Windows 7

Windows 6 = Windows Vista

Windows 5 = Windows 2000/XP

Windows 4 = Windows 95/98/ME

Windows 3 = Windows 3.1

Windows 2 = Windows 2.x

Windows 1 = Windows 1

Fixed it for you, mostly. Windows 7 is technically Windows 6.1 (6.0 being Vista).

Screwdriver0815
August 17th, 2009, 01:50 PM
Fixed it for you, mostly. Windows 7 is technically Windows 6.1 (6.0 being Vista).

mhhmm... I do not 100% agree with you, because I think, the technical differences between 95 and 98 are more significant as between Vista and 7

but anyway: the number scheme works - thats the main thing :D

Bachstelze
August 17th, 2009, 01:53 PM
mhhmm... I do not 100% agree with you, because I think, the technical differences between 95 and 98 are more significant as between Vista and 7

Read the link I posted above. I think Microsoft knows better than you how their products work.

Post Monkeh
August 17th, 2009, 01:53 PM
mhhmm... I do not 100% agree with you, because I think, the technical differences between 95 and 98 are more significant as between Vista and 7

but anyway: the number scheme works - thats the main thing :D

microsoft themselves classify 95/98 as one "version", and 2000/xp.

schauerlich
August 17th, 2009, 01:53 PM
mhhmm... I do not 100% agree with you, because I think, the technical differences between 95 and 98 are more significant as between Vista and 7

but anyway: the number scheme works - thats the main thing :D

It's unfortunate that you disagree with me, seeing as I'm right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_Windows_7#Naming

Screwdriver0815
August 17th, 2009, 01:57 PM
It's unfortunate that you disagree with me, seeing as I'm right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_Windows_7#Naming

didn't read the link... so sorry to all of you.

Post Monkeh
August 17th, 2009, 02:00 PM
i thought 98se was pretty good, but then i never tried any alternatives at the time

MikeTheC
August 17th, 2009, 02:02 PM
Meh, I don't give a toss about Microsoft, their products *or* their naming conventions.

Grenage
August 17th, 2009, 02:02 PM
Win 95 was 4.
Win 98 was 4.1.
Win 2000 was 5
Win XP was 6.
Vista was 6.1.


Meh, I don't give a toss about Microsoft, their products *or* their naming conventions.

Then why post?

cascade9
August 17th, 2009, 02:42 PM
Windows Me = Windows 98

Close, but ME = win98 with 912 extra mistakes (or, if you want to take ME as being win9x-2000, its got 1912 extra mistakes)

LOL, people sem to have forgotten that your talking 2 different 'steams' on Windows here- 9x and NT (yes, thats an over simplification when your talking pre-95)

9x/DOS-
Win 1, 2, 3.x- pretty much just front-ends for DOS (pretty much the same of for 9x)
Win95- Windows4
Win98- Windows4.1
Win98SE- Windows4.1
WinME- Windows4.9

NT-
NT3.1- given that name to fit in with win3.1 which was current when NT3.1 was released.
NT3.5- hey, lets just forget that previous naming scheme (maybe somebody wanted NT95)
NT4.0-
NT5.0- Win2000
NT5.1- WinXP
NT6.0- Vista
NT6.1- Win7 (confusing, no?)

Grenage
August 17th, 2009, 02:47 PM
Most of the confusion comes from marketed version vs release version.

benj1
August 17th, 2009, 02:50 PM
I think Microsoft knows better than you how their products work.

are you sure about that ?


Close, but ME = win98 with 912 extra mistakes (or, if you want to take ME as being win9x-2000, its got 1912 extra mistakes)

wouldn't it be 902/1902 ???

MikeTheC
August 17th, 2009, 03:06 PM
Then why post?
For the same reason you keep on posting: this is a message board! Or is there some other excuse I need to have of which I am not presently aware?

For that matter, why should you post?

geekygirl
August 17th, 2009, 03:08 PM
For the same reason you keep on posting: this is a message board! Or is there some other excuse I need to have of which I am not presently aware?

For that matter, why should you post?

kapow...whack...take that you devilish fiend :p

cascade9
August 17th, 2009, 03:12 PM
are you sure about that ?

wouldn't it be 902/1902 ???

Umm, yeah, I'm sure, theres always 1-5% wiggle room LOL

Seriously, dont trust my math skillz (or my speeling skills for that matter)


For the same reason you keep on posting: this is a message board! Or is there some other excuse I need to have of which I am not presently aware?

For that matter, why should you post?

Isnt this a contest to see who can embarrass themselves more? I'm winning with my stupid 12midnight maths + dyslexia so far :P

Grenage
August 17th, 2009, 03:28 PM
For that matter, why should you post?

Because I was contributing to the thread? If everyone posted "not interested" in threads they didn't care about, you wouldn't find that silly?

MikeTheC
August 17th, 2009, 03:34 PM
Because I was contributing to the thread? If everyone posted "not interested" in threads they didn't care about, you wouldn't find that silly?

On the one hand, yes. On the other hand, it sure might put a halt to all the repetitious junk threads folk keep posting on here. And on the other other hand, yes. A bit.

dragos240
August 17th, 2009, 03:36 PM
95 had a better interface.

dmizer
August 17th, 2009, 03:40 PM
This has gone off topic and turned into a flame war. The correct answer (http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=7800280&postcount=3) has already been posted.

Thread closed.