Windows 7 question

[Carbuff]

Well, I went ahead and did the install. Its all working fine with no problems. At first, for some reason the drive with all the backups and music did not show up. I had to go into disk management and assign it a drive letter. I dont know why it didnt do that automatically. Pretty scary moment there for a while thinking the drive had been wiped or something. All seems well so far. Im sure my daughter will have something to scream about though.

[Newc]

You missed Windows ME. :P

Going by version numbers we have:

1. Windows 1
2. Windows 2
3. Windows 3
4. Windows 3.1
5. Windows 3.11
6. Windows 95 (4)
7. Windows 98 (4.1)
8. Windows ME (4.2)
9. Windows 2000 (5)
10. Windows XP (5.1)
11. Windows Vista (6)
12. Windows 7 (6.1)

Either way, it's a counting fail

Of course there's also the NT versions, which would make Win7 #16

[Carbuff]

MicroSloth counting Fail:
1. Windows 3.1
2. Windows 95
3. Windows 98
4. Windows XP
5. Windows Vista
6. Windows 7

So win me was already pointed out but what about win98 se and win95b?

[cornstar70]

Is this true? Vista's idea of memory management was to use ALL of your memory in an effort to guess how you might use it and optimize around those guesses. FAIL

No dumbass I wasn't referring to Vista's memory management. Windows7 DOES have better memory management than vista. I have been able to successfully install W7 on machines below Microsofts hardware requirements. And guess what...it runs relatively good.

[Spivonious]

So win me was already pointed out but what about win98 se and win95b?

98 SE was still versioned 4.1; it was more like a service pack than a full release.

95 OSR1, 2, 2.1, and 2.5 where actually just service packs for Win95 and were never available at retail. All of them were versioned 4.0.

[hippietim]

You missed Windows ME. :P

Going by version numbers we have:

Windows 1
Windows 2
Windows 3
Windows 3.1
Windows 3.11
Windows 95 (4)
Windows 98 (4.1)
Windows ME (4.2)
Windows 2000 (5)
Windows XP (5.1)
Windows Vista (6)
Windows 7 (6.1)

Raise your hand if you know the *real* reason that the version numbers (in parens) are numbered like that?

BTW, you are missing a bunch.

Windows 1.02, 1.03, 2.1, Windows For Workgroups, Windows 32S, Windows NT 3.1, Windows NT 3.51, Windows NT 4, Windows Embedded, Windows Server 2008, etc.

And then the myriad of SKUs - Home, Pro, Enterprise Server, Domain Controller, etc.

And then the CPUs - 8086, 286, 386, P4, MIPS, Alpha, x64, etc.

[RacerX]

No dumbass

That's uncalled for.

[Spivonious]

Raise your hand if you know the *real* reason that the version numbers (in parens) are numbered like that?

BTW, you are missing a bunch.

Windows 1.02, 1.03, 2.1, Windows For Workgroups, Windows 32S, Windows NT 3.1, Windows NT 3.51, Windows NT 4, Windows Embedded, Windows Server 2008, etc.

And then the myriad of SKUs - Home, Pro, Enterprise Server, Domain Controller, etc.

And then the CPUs - 8086, 286, 386, P4, MIPS, Alpha, x64, etc.

Well, 3.11 is Windows for Workgroups, so I didn't miss that one

What's Windows 32S?

[hippietim]

Well, 3.11 is Windows for Workgroups, so I didn't miss that one

Actually there were seperate Windows 3.x and a WFW 3.x releases so you did miss that one. Also, WFW started with 3.1 :P

What's Windows 32S?

Win32s was a redistributable OS layer so that applications written for Windows NT could run on Win 3.1. It did not support the full Win32 API though. It was released as a bridge for developers to move to 32-bit development but still run on 16-bit Windows.

[Spivonious]

Heh, you have now fully earned your "I have no life" member status :P

Our first PC at home ran Windows 3.0, then upgraded to WFW 3.11, and then to Win95, so I'm not too familiar with the versions available at that time.

[cornstar70]

That's uncalled for.

Well, he should not be labeling someone as a fail when he obviously cannot read. If he would have read what I originally posted properly, he would have agreed with me, not call me a fail. So I think it was justified. Just my opinion.

[hippietim]

Heh, you have now fully earned your "I have no life" member status :P

Well, I have spent a lot more time with Windows than most folks

[toejam]

Well, he should not be labeling someone as a fail when he obviously cannot read. If he would have read what I originally posted properly, he would have agreed with me, not call me a fail. So I think it was justified. Just my opinion.

He wasn't calling YOU a fail. Try reading again what he posted.

[cornstar70]

I guess if you read it that way. Sounds like sarcasm to me....The way I read it, he is stating that I was assuming that Vista was more stable and better Mem management. If he meant it otherwise then I apologize. But, I sensed sarcasm...

[bombtek]

IMO absolutley NONE of the Windows versions were a fail. Just look into Bill Gates' personal monetary worth. If that constitutes a fail, count me in on that action!!