BetaArchive Logo
Navigation Home Database Screenshots Gallery Image Uploader Server Info FTP Servers Wiki Forum RSS Feed Rules Please Donate
UP: 14d, 10h, 17m | CPU: 12% | MEM: 5516MB of 11782MB used
{The community for beta collectors}

Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 50 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Tue Oct 14, 2008 7:15 pm 
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:19 am

Posts
276

Location
Denmark
I suspect that, in about six years time, a similar thread will be opened asking if anyone knows where Windows 1 to 6 are?


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Tue Oct 14, 2008 7:48 pm 
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Thu Feb 07, 2008 1:35 pm

Posts
571

Location
United Kingdom
Windows 7 Build 6574 had sorting options in explorer that looked VERY similar to WinFS!

Image

_________________
Image


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Tue Oct 14, 2008 8:05 pm 
FTP Access
Offline

Joined
Sun Sep 24, 2006 10:51 am

Posts
150

Location
Bucharest, CA

Favourite OS
Windows Vista SP1
To clear things up (I thought this was common knowledge here):

1)The DOS-shell/9x-combo line:

Version 1: 1.00-1.04
Version 2: 2.03, 2.1, 2.11 (the last 2 came in /286 and /386 flavors)
Version 3: 3.0, 3.1, WfW 3.1, WfW 3.11, 3.11, 3.2 Simpl. Chinese
*now DOS 7.x/8.x gets bundled with Windows*
Version 4: 95, 95A (4.0, DOS 7), 95B, 95C (4.0, DOS 7.1), 98, 98SE (4.1, DOS 7.1 SE), Me (4.9, DOS 8.0)

2)Now the advanced OS line:

Early efforts: MS-DOS 4.0 Multitasking Edition (also named eDOS, see this for details)
Version 1: OS/2 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3
*now there is a split between IBM and Microsoft, so development starts on OS/2 2.0 by IBM and OS/2 3.0 by Microsoft, however Microsoft secretly develops NT and dumps OS/2*
*the first version of NT is marketed as "Windows NT Version 3.1" because:
I. They needed to emphasize that it wasn't OS/2 and it was Windows-compatible (sort of)
II. It used existing OS/2 3.0 code - hence "3"
III. IBM was planning to launch OS/2 2.0 and 3>2
IV. Because of compatibility with Win 3.1, it had to be marketed with the same version number
V. A ".1" release led to confidence in the product.*
Version 3: Win NT 3.1, 3.5, 3.51
Version 4: Win NT 4
Version 5: 2000 (NT 5), Neptune/Odyssey (NT 5.01), XP (NT 5.1), XP 64-bit, S2k3 (NT 5.2)
Version 6: Longhorn (NT 6, based on XP), Vista (NT 6, based on S2k3 SP1), S2k7 (NT 6.1 - not sure)
Version 7: 7 (NT 6.1 in th alphas, will change to NT 7 in the final release)

This was the history of Windows version numbers.


Top  Profile  YIM
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Tue Oct 14, 2008 8:16 pm 
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Feb 24, 2007 4:14 pm

Posts
6612

Location
United Kingdom

Favourite OS
Server 2012 R2
Xammer wrote:
S2k7 (NT 6.1 - not sure)
Version 7: 7 (NT 6.1 in th alphas, will change to NT 7 in the final release)

Server 2008 was always NT 6.0
And as for Windows 7, there's still no confirmation or hint that they'll change to NT 7.0 in the final release.
I'm of the opinion it's more a marketing thing. Making it sound like a major release over Vista will help MS sell it. No one (in the general Public) likes Vista for some reason.

_________________
BuildFeed - the ultimate collaborative NT build list - Windows Longhorn - a look at a defining Microsoft project


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2008 4:00 pm 
Donator
Offline

Joined
Wed Jul 16, 2008 7:04 pm

Posts
101
According to the lastest Vistablog post, the final version will indeed be 6.1. Seems like from a perception POV, all the ".0" releases (5.0/6.0) seem to be disliked, while all of the ".1" releases do OK.

http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windo ... why-7.aspx


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2008 7:53 pm 
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sun Jan 27, 2008 8:09 pm

Posts
3935

Favourite OS
OS X 10.8
Xammer wrote:
To clear things up (I thought this was common knowledge here):

1)The DOS-shell/9x-combo line:

Version 1: 1.00-1.04
Version 2: 2.03, 2.1, 2.11 (the last 2 came in /286 and /386 flavors)
Version 3: 3.0, 3.1, WfW 3.1, WfW 3.11, 3.11, 3.2 Simpl. Chinese
*now DOS 7.x/8.x gets bundled with Windows*
Version 4: 95, 95A (4.0, DOS 7), 95B, 95C (4.0, DOS 7.1), 98, 98SE (4.1, DOS 7.1 SE), Me (4.9, DOS 8.0)

2)Now the advanced OS line:

Early efforts: MS-DOS 4.0 Multitasking Edition (also named eDOS, see this for details)
Version 1: OS/2 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3
*now there is a split between IBM and Microsoft, so development starts on OS/2 2.0 by IBM and OS/2 3.0 by Microsoft, however Microsoft secretly develops NT and dumps OS/2*
*the first version of NT is marketed as "Windows NT Version 3.1" because:
I. They needed to emphasize that it wasn't OS/2 and it was Windows-compatible (sort of)
II. It used existing OS/2 3.0 code - hence "3"
III. IBM was planning to launch OS/2 2.0 and 3>2
IV. Because of compatibility with Win 3.1, it had to be marketed with the same version number
V. A ".1" release led to confidence in the product.*
Version 3: Win NT 3.1, 3.5, 3.51
Version 4: Win NT 4
Version 5: 2000 (NT 5), Neptune/Odyssey (NT 5.01), XP (NT 5.1), XP 64-bit, S2k3 (NT 5.2)
Version 6: Longhorn (NT 6, based on XP), Vista (NT 6, based on S2k3 SP1), S2k7 (NT 6.1 - not sure)
Version 7: 7 (NT 6.1 in th alphas, will change to NT 7 in the final release)

This was the history of Windows version numbers.
Close, but not quite. Longhorn alpha builds were also built upon Windows Server 2003, and not Windows XP like many seem to think. The 4xxx Longhorn Alpha builds were based upon a build Windows Server 2003, while the 5xxx builds were based upon a late pre-release build of Windows Server 2003 SP1 (the exact build escapes me, although it was very close to final). Also it's been confirmed from numerous sources that Windows 7 will retain the 6.1 kernel number, even after it's gone RTM.


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2008 10:10 pm 
Donator
Offline

Joined
Fri Dec 29, 2006 6:40 am

Posts
1513
No, Longhorn is build upon XPSP1 and so is Windows Server 2003.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2008 10:33 pm 
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sun Jan 27, 2008 8:09 pm

Posts
3935

Favourite OS
OS X 10.8
Quote:
No, 3xxx and 4xxx builds were based on Server 2003 RC1. And I'm betting that Vienna builds will be based on Vista RC1.

Quote from Grabberslasher, who is a very trusted, reliable source, and knows exactly what he's talking about.


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Thu Oct 16, 2008 9:54 am 
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Mon Feb 12, 2007 12:50 pm

Posts
982

Favourite OS
First Edition UNIX
missingno wrote:
It isn't the seventh release of Windows >_>

At the least... nineth release.
Windows 1, 2, 3, 95, 98, ME, 2000, XP, Vista

Or if you were to count versions and editions of Windows...
Code:
1.0, 1.01, 1.02, 1.03, 1.04
2.0, 2.10, 2.11
3.0, 3.1, Workgroups 3.1, 3.11
NT 3.1, 3.5, 3.51
95, 95 SP1, OSR 2, OSR 2.1, OSR 2.5
NT 4.0, SP1-6
98 FE, SE
ME
XP SP1-3, Home, Pro, Tablet, x64, Media Center, Pro/Home N
Server 2003 Standard/Enterprise/Datacenter/Web/SBS/Storage Server
Home Server
Server 2008 Web/Standard/Enterprise/Datacenter/Storage/SBS/Essentials/Itanium
Vista Starter/Home Basic/Premium/Business/Enterprise/Ultimate


And I'm sure I missed 1-2 of them but, still. It's not the "seventh" release of Windows.

7th major update:
Windows 1.x
Windows 2.x
Windows 3.x
Windows 4.x (9x)
Windows 5.x (NT-based: 2000, XP, 2003)
Windows 6.x (NT-based: Vista, 2008)
Windows 7!

_________________
Have a day.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Thu Oct 16, 2008 11:22 am 
marktuson wrote:
missingno wrote:
It isn't the seventh release of Windows >_>

At the least... nineth release.
Windows 1, 2, 3, 95, 98, ME, 2000, XP, Vista

Or if you were to count versions and editions of Windows...
Code:
1.0, 1.01, 1.02, 1.03, 1.04
2.0, 2.10, 2.11
3.0, 3.1, Workgroups 3.1, 3.11
NT 3.1, 3.5, 3.51
95, 95 SP1, OSR 2, OSR 2.1, OSR 2.5
NT 4.0, SP1-6
98 FE, SE
ME
XP SP1-3, Home, Pro, Tablet, x64, Media Center, Pro/Home N
Server 2003 Standard/Enterprise/Datacenter/Web/SBS/Storage Server
Home Server
Server 2008 Web/Standard/Enterprise/Datacenter/Storage/SBS/Essentials/Itanium
Vista Starter/Home Basic/Premium/Business/Enterprise/Ultimate


And I'm sure I missed 1-2 of them but, still. It's not the "seventh" release of Windows.

7th major update:
Windows 1.x
Windows 2.x
Windows 3.x
Windows 4.x (9x)
Windows 5.x (NT-based: 2000, XP, 2003)
Windows 6.x (NT-based: Vista, 2008)
Windows 7!


i often see that we know more about the history of windows than a lot of microsoft workers (even programmers) which is funny i think :P

heres how i see it:

Windows 1.x
Windows 2.x
Windows 3.x
Windows fW 3.x
Windows 3.x
Windows 95
Windows NT 4
Windows 98
Windows 2000
Windows ME
Windows XP
Windows 2003
Windows Vista
Windows 2008

so 14 "big windows'ses", whatever, is the name really that important?


Top
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Thu Oct 16, 2008 1:28 pm 
Staff
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Apr 11, 2007 2:11 pm

Posts
2607

Location
Germany, Earth

Favourite OS
Windows 10
I wouldn't count XP/2003 and Vista/2008 as separate major versions, since those are only the counterparts of each other.
Windows 3.x and WfW 3.x are also quite similar if you ask me.
Also Windows ME isn't a major version in my opinion, it's more something like a Win98 third edition.....

But to be honest, I think such a discussion is quite senseless, because it doesn't matter why and how Microsoft names their
products - the main thing as that Windows 7 has to be good :P

_________________
MS vNext: Windows 10 ESD Database - Windows 10 Build Labs - Windows 10 Update Archive - Office 2016 Version Tracker - Office Downloader


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Thu Oct 16, 2008 4:07 pm 
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Thu Feb 07, 2008 1:35 pm

Posts
571

Location
United Kingdom
So I think then that when Windows 7 goes RTM, it may have a version number of 7500 or something similar and SP1 for Windows 7 will make it 7501. Does anyone else think it maybe something like that?

_________________
Image


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Thu Oct 16, 2008 5:59 pm 
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Mon Feb 12, 2007 12:50 pm

Posts
982

Favourite OS
First Edition UNIX
Namronia wrote:
i often see that we know more about the history of windows than a lot of microsoft workers (even programmers) which is funny i think :P

heres how i see it:

Windows 1.x
Windows 2.x
Windows 3.x
Windows fW 3.x
Windows 3.x
Windows 95
Windows NT 4
Windows 98
Windows 2000
Windows ME
Windows XP
Windows 2003
Windows Vista
Windows 2008

so 14 "big windows'ses", whatever, is the name really that important?


Windows 1.01
Windows 2.03
Windows 2.1x (386)
Windows 3.0
Windows 3.0 MME
Windows 3.1
Windows for Workgroups 3.x
Windows NT 3.1
Windows 95
Windows NT 4.00
Windows me
Windows 2000
Windows XP
Windows 2003
Windows Vista
Windows 2008
Windows 7

I get version 17 if I count every major sub-release as well, including NT :P.
Anyway, meh. It's their numbering scheme. I rather like the idea of ditching version numbers and using build numbers instead (I can see it now: "I'm really looking forward to Windows 15000 coming out..." - "Oh, really? Hell, I remember when Windows 271 was the latest*")

* No, that is not a real NT build number, as far as I am aware.

_________________
Have a day.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Thu Oct 16, 2008 7:53 pm 
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Aug 27, 2008 12:52 am

Posts
890

Location
United States

Favourite OS
Windows Server 2008 Standard
squidward_ wrote:
So I think then that when Windows 7 goes RTM, it may have a version number of 7500 or something similar and SP1 for Windows 7 will make it 7501. Does anyone else think it maybe something like that?

Why 7500? Why not 7777?


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Thu Oct 16, 2008 10:04 pm 
FTP Access
Offline

Joined
Tue Jun 26, 2007 12:13 am

Posts
229

Favourite OS
Windows 7 SP1
I find the name curious (isn't Windows 7 going to have the 6.1 kernel or something like that?) but I guess "7" is far more marketable than "6.1".

I wish they would go for an abstract name like they did with XP and Vista, but the quality of the OS will matter most.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Fri Oct 17, 2008 1:46 am 
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Aug 27, 2008 12:52 am

Posts
890

Location
United States

Favourite OS
Windows Server 2008 Standard
I think they should go with an abstract name, but what would it be? That's a very difficult question.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Fri Oct 17, 2008 5:07 am 
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Mon Sep 03, 2007 2:47 am

Posts
606

Location
$HOME
XX55XX wrote:
I find the name curious (isn't Windows 7 going to have the 6.1 kernel or something like that?) but I guess "7" is far more marketable than "6.1".

I wish they would go for an abstract name like they did with XP and Vista, but the quality of the OS will matter most.

Hey!
I think that MS is trying to keep things simple. They want an innovative OS, and well, since I saw the codename I hoped the name stayed. "Windows 7" on the bootscreen just looks so good. hah, it's kind of stylizh, and it also will show progress.
Many who don't know the version numbers will ask, Why Seven? and so on. People will know their computers better.
greetings!


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Fri Oct 17, 2008 8:37 am 
Donator
Offline

Joined
Wed Aug 22, 2007 8:42 am

Posts
173

Location
Manchester, UK

Favourite OS
AmigaOS3.9
MS trying to keep things simple???????

If they were, they'ld continue from NT4 with NT 5 (2000), NT 5.1 (XP) NT6 (Vista) instead of pouring out all those other names.

Like Apple, they still call their OS by version... it was 10.3 Tiger, so you wouldn't be confused if someone said either just 10.3 or just Tiger... you'ld know instantly which one.

Well, that's my take on it ;)


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Fri Oct 17, 2008 11:22 am 
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Mon Feb 12, 2007 12:50 pm

Posts
982

Favourite OS
First Edition UNIX
XX55XX wrote:
I find the name curious (isn't Windows 7 going to have the 6.1 kernel or something like that?) but I guess "7" is far more marketable than "6.1".

I wish they would go for an abstract name like they did with XP and Vista, but the quality of the OS will matter most.


It's version 6.1 in the most recent screenshots, but will be 7 when it comes to release. All '6.1' illustrates is how no software is new - it's always something that's been build on something earlier.

_________________
Have a day.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Fri Oct 17, 2008 11:38 am 
Donator
Offline

Joined
Mon Dec 31, 2007 4:09 am

Posts
368

Location
Sweden
I don't get this obsession over major vs. minor numbers. As far as the end user is concerned it couldn't matter less. The average Joe cares about two things, features and compatibility. Features being everything from "new stuff i can do" to "wow, it looks purty" and compatibility as far as: "the stuff i have, will it work?".

It's not like major features aren't exactly tied to versions anyway, just look at XP SP2 for instance.

Personally I'd much rather have a tried and trusted kernel and codebase, complete rewrites have a habit of causing more problems than they fix. And by the looks of it 7 will have plenty of features I'd like to see like Castle and less builtin apps regardless of kernel version.

And last but not least, stop thinking of version numbers in terms of released products and start looking at them as generations. If you look at it from that perspective the 7 moniker makes perfect sense. Although the merging of server and client os:es makes it a little trickier to wrap your head around. :)


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Fri Oct 17, 2008 1:40 pm 
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Mon Sep 03, 2007 2:47 am

Posts
606

Location
$HOME
ddew wrote:
I don't get this obsession over major vs. minor numbers. As far as the end user is concerned it couldn't matter less. The average Joe cares about two things, features and compatibility. Features being everything from "new stuff i can do" to "wow, it looks purty" and compatibility as far as: "the stuff i have, will it work?".

It's not like major features aren't exactly tied to versions anyway, just look at XP SP2 for instance.

Personally I'd much rather have a tried and trusted kernel and codebase, complete rewrites have a habit of causing more problems than they fix. And by the looks of it 7 will have plenty of features I'd like to see like Castle and less builtin apps regardless of kernel version.

And last but not least, stop thinking of version numbers in terms of released products and start looking at them as generations. If you look at it from that perspective the 7 moniker makes perfect sense. Although the merging of server and client os:es makes it a little trickier to wrap your head around. :)

I totally agree with you. If windows would have an important interface change, i wouldn't care the kerne being the same.hehe.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Fri Oct 17, 2008 8:37 pm 
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sun Jan 27, 2008 8:09 pm

Posts
3935

Favourite OS
OS X 10.8
marktuson wrote:
XX55XX wrote:
I find the name curious (isn't Windows 7 going to have the 6.1 kernel or something like that?) but I guess "7" is far more marketable than "6.1".

I wish they would go for an abstract name like they did with XP and Vista, but the quality of the OS will matter most.


It's version 6.1 in the most recent screenshots, but will be 7 when it comes to release. All '6.1' illustrates is how no software is new - it's always something that's been build on something earlier.
Actually, Windows 7 will be retaining it's 6.1 kernel number when it hits RTM.


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Tue Nov 04, 2008 10:12 pm 
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sat Oct 18, 2008 6:17 pm

Posts
1093

Location
UK

Favourite OS
Ubuntu
:? This is just getting stupid!

Anyway I think that its just a number (7) and thats it. End of Story!
I dont care where the number came from I just want to wait till it comes out.


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Tue Nov 04, 2008 10:35 pm 
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Tue Aug 12, 2008 7:37 pm

Posts
2381

Location
United States
the way i view the way windows labels go is servers are just specialized versions of the main ones so they shouldn't count as full versions, you don't count media center or 64 bit bu8ilds as an entire new release either. so logically this would be labeled 7 (in my labeling way)

of course i don't really care about the name or version number rather what features come with it.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Tue Nov 11, 2008 7:12 pm 
agree with hogsy.. actually, i kinda like 'Windows 7'.. it sounds like something elegant and sophisticated..

i definitely will want windows 7 when it comes out..


Top
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 50 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2




Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

All views expressed in these forums are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the BetaArchive site owner.

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group

Copyright © 2006-2019

 

Sitemap | XML | RSS