Windows 8 should be 9X-Based

Discuss Windows Vista/Server 2008 to Windows 10.
Corpse
User avatar
Posts: 342
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:37 am
Location: Adelaide, South Australia, Australia

Re: Windows 8 should be 9X-Based

Post by Corpse »

awergh wrote:
---DOS-Based & 9X-Based Windows' Version---
|Windows 1.0 -> Windows 2.0 -> Windows 3.0 |
| Windows 2.1 Windows 3.1|
|Windows 95 -> Windows 98 -> Windows ME |
Did you mean to format it like that, it doesn't seem quite right
Windows 1.0x -> Windows 2.x -> Windows 3.0 -> Windows 3.1\3.11, WFW 3.1\3.11
Windows 95\A\B\C -> Windows 98 -> Windows 98SE -> Windows ME
I can not believe how you formatted that, early Windows NT Versions looked like Windows 2.0, 2.1, 3.0 & 3.1 but it doesn't mean they belong in 9X-Based or DOS-Based OS's.

---DOS-Based & 9X-Based Windows' Versions---
Windows 1.0 -> 2.0 -> 2.1 -> 3.0 -> 3.1
Windows 95 -> 98 -> Millennium Edition

That's a bit better.

Rob Jansen
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 5271
Joined: Sat May 12, 2007 1:05 pm
Location: The Collection Book
Contact:

Re: Windows 8 should be 9X-Based

Post by Rob Jansen »

Corpse, where do you see NT in the line that awergh posted?
If you think that 3.1/3.11, wfw 3.1/3.11 is windows NT, please do some reading before you blow out in all madness that you see NT where there is not NT.
Early versions of NT (eg NT 3.1 / NT 3.5 / NT 3.51 / NT 4.0) have NT infront of the buildnumber, since windows 2000 not anymore (in beta they did).

awergh is right, and you forgot those in you're list (wfw 3.1/3.11, 95 a/b/c, 98 se)

Corpse
User avatar
Posts: 342
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:37 am
Location: Adelaide, South Australia, Australia

Re: Windows 8 should be 9X-Based

Post by Corpse »

Rob Jansen wrote:Corpse, where do you see NT in the line that awergh posted?
If you think that 3.1/3.11, wfw 3.1/3.11 is windows NT, please do some reading before you blow out in all madness that you see NT where there is not NT.
Early versions of NT (eg NT 3.1 / NT 3.5 / NT 3.51 / NT 4.0) have NT infront of the buildnumber, since windows 2000 not anymore (in beta they did).

awergh is right, and you forgot those in you're list (wfw 3.1/3.11, 95 a/b/c, 98 se)
Why won't you do some?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... y_Tree.svg

9X-Based Windows isn't DOS!

awergh
Posts: 173
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 6:31 am
Location: Australia

Re: Windows 8 should be 9X-Based

Post by awergh »

I don't get the impression that 9x is DOS from that svg if that iss what you're referring to,
the only thing I wonder about is whether 7 was actually based off of Server 2008 and not Vista, not that they are that different

Corpse
User avatar
Posts: 342
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:37 am
Location: Adelaide, South Australia, Australia

Re: Windows 8 should be 9X-Based

Post by Corpse »

awergh wrote:I don't get the impression that 9x is DOS from that svg if that iss what you're referring to,
the only thing I wonder about is whether 7 was actually based off of Server 2008 and not Vista, not that they are that different
NT Windows is not very different to the 9X ones, pretty much the same. Not much has changed since Windows 95, except for useless features & effects (which most people do not need). Windows 7's nothing like Vista (just the similar GUI & features), probably based on Server 2008.

Two Images, the first one is Windows 1.0 the second is Windows 95:

Image
Image

See the difference? You may, but you might just say "It looks exactly the same! 9X is DOS!".

hounsell

Re: Windows 8 should be 9X-Based

Post by hounsell »

Firstly, Vista isn't like Server 08, it *is* Server 08, they are the same builds, just different SKUs. Same goes for 7 and Server 08 R2.

7 is very much like Vista, only someone who never really gave Vista a fair try would say otherwise. 7 is nothing more than a refinement of the concept that was Vista.
Corpse wrote:NT Windows is not very different to the 9X ones, pretty much the same.
Are you joking? The two are incomparable. The fact that one is largely compatible with the other hides the fact they are two completely different OSes. NT is a Multi-user, Portable, Scalable, More Modular OS. 9x is a much more simplistic beast.

Corpse
User avatar
Posts: 342
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:37 am
Location: Adelaide, South Australia, Australia

Re: Windows 8 should be 9X-Based

Post by Corpse »

hounsell wrote:Firstly, Vista isn't like Server 08, it *is* Server 08, they are the same builds, just different SKUs. Same goes for 7 and Server 08 R2.

7 is very much like Vista, only someone who never really gave Vista a fair try would say otherwise. 7 is nothing more than a refinement of the concept that was Vista.
Corpse wrote:NT Windows is not very different to the 9X ones, pretty much the same.
Are you joking? The two are incomparable. The fact that one is largely compatible with the other hides the fact they are two completely different OSes. NT is a Multi-user, Portable, Scalable, More Modular OS. 9x is a much more simplistic beast.
Why don't you go buy Windows 95 & install it alongside with Windows 7, it's not that different. Yes, 9X is a lot simpler, which makes it easier.

Leapo
Posts: 38
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 9:22 pm

Re: Windows 8 should be 9X-Based

Post by Leapo »

Corpse wrote:Why don't you go buy Windows 95 & install it alongside with Windows 7, it's not that different. Yes, 9X is a lot simpler, which makes it easier.
You're confusing how the OS looks with how it's written. Just because there are a lot of usability similarities DOES NOT mean the two operating systems are written the same.

There's a massive difference between Windows 95 and Windows 7. End of story.

Rob Jansen
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 5271
Joined: Sat May 12, 2007 1:05 pm
Location: The Collection Book
Contact:

Re: Windows 8 should be 9X-Based

Post by Rob Jansen »

Just [censored].

Listen Corpse.
WE (betaarchive members) are trying to help you understand things.
If you do not want to hear the right thing, and think that you are right, then just DO NOT REPLY with comments that let you look like an n00b.
If you don't believe me, fine, I am not offended, we are just trying to help, then you say its not true, well then just find all things for you're self and stop posting [censored] questions where we gave you the answer a previous time.

I know the answer to most you're questions, but since you do not want to hear them, or just saying that they are wrong, well, you can whistle you're answers goodbye, I will not answer any questions/comments/posts/topics from you.
People like you are ruing the community by BASHING you're views onto other members and acting like an 12 year old, please go to school, learn something and then comeback when you think you can learn something from us.

I suggest now to all mods/admins that this topic should be locked, it is getting out of hand and this topic served it purpose:

The next Windows will not and future windows will NEVER be 9x based.

Andy
User avatar
Administrator
Posts: 12818
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 11:47 am
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

Re: Windows 8 should be 9X-Based

Post by Andy »

Right lets get this straight Corpse. You might have some interesting ideas, but when you have over a dozen people telling you that you're wrong, don't you think you should listen to them? Stop trying to be right about everything. You're only bringing the flaming onto yourself, and you wonder why you get angry? Remember you're on your last warning before a permanent ban, so getting into arguments is not going to go in your favour. So just stop it, and listen to those who have a lot more knowledge than you do.

Locked.

Locked