how is this Windows #7?

[SteveZim1017]

am I the only one who is slow on the upkeep here (believe me, its happened before!) but I remember Being on windows 3.1 then...

win 95
win 98
win 2000
win ME
win NT
win XP
win Vista

how is this 7?

 

[L33tsauce_Marty]

ME doesn't count...kind of...meh.

 

[Gxas]

Windows 7 is great. But hell, its no 98.

 

[Sassafrass]

What is NT? and 2000?

 

[Finnboghi]

95/98/2000 are technically updates on the same system (4), as is ME/NT (4.1), XP was it's own system, which was instead updated through service packs (5), Vista was also it's own system (6), and thus 7.

 

[thiosk]

What is NT? and 2000?

Well, you would have been 8 or so. I seem to remember Windows 2000 was a precursor to XP-- it solved the problems with ME (really, the only firm example of a y2k disaster I'm aware of). No one used ME, but I enjoyed 2000. But it was NT that was REALLY solid, that was billed as a networking version or something. Windows NT computers seem indistinguishable in many ways from XP.

 

[Tombrend]

3 = 3.1, the first Windows OS, prior to this the MS OSes were MS DOS versions 0-3
4= 95 and 98
5= NT, ME, XP
6= Vista
7= Windows 7

 

[Rathy]

NT(aka Windows New Technology) isn't really counted in the Windows numbers, just the basis of anything 2000 and on, so this would be 7.

And so far, I love it. It does drivers well(It can download any of them off the internet, not just a small select few windows branded now), and runs better than XP did for me. I do have a few complaints, notably the large 1 touch shutdown button, with the tiny arrow next to it for other shutdown options. I've also had a few weird problems with the display that I fixed, and my headset driver keeps uninstalling itself. Overall, I like it though.

 

[SteveZim1017]

95/98/2000 are technically updates on the same system (4), as is ME/NT (4.1), XP was it's own system, which was instead updated through service packs (5), Vista was also it's own system (6), and thus 7.

I was guessing that 98 and 2000 were somehow being counted in 95, but I find it pretty impressive that they stuck ME and NT in there as well. Way to go microsoft, get people to pay for apparently service packs to Win 95 multiple times!

 

[Megacherv]

What is NT? and 2000?

Well, you would have been 8 or so. I seem to remember Windows 2000 was a precursor to XP-- it solved the problems with ME (really, the only firm example of a y2k disaster I'm aware of). No one used ME, but I enjoyed 2000. But it was NT that was REALLY solid, that was billed as a networking version or something. Windows NT computers seem indistinguishable in many ways from XP.

2000 was released before ME, as a home-based equivalent. ME was the first home OS based on NT. 2000 was aimed fror businesses, and I'd used ME loads and never used 2000.

 

[Martymer]

95/98/2000 are technically updates on the same system (4), as is ME/NT (4.1), XP was it's own system, which was instead updated through service packs (5), Vista was also it's own system (6), and thus 7.

I was guessing that 98 and 2000 were somehow being counted in 95, but I find it pretty impressive that they stuck ME and NT in there as well. Way to go microsoft, get people to pay for apparently service packs to Win 95 multiple times!

Yeah, they ripped us off as always. Now we're expected to pay for Windows 7, which -- though I understand it's good -- is not much more than a glorified bugfix.

And 2000 was based on NT, not 95.

 

[Bluntknife]

Windows 7 was supposed to be the 7th version on a Windows kernel

But that idea got scraped, but they just kept the name

 

[sln333]

So how is it? That's the original question. I'm holding out on a laptop until I know more about it.

 

[Uncompetative]

OK, so it goes:

MS-DOS
|
Windows 1.0
|
Windows 2.0
|
Windows 3.0/3.1

At this point, Windows for Workgroups 3.11 is released, which is the last 16-bit OS in what will become the NT line.

Continuing on in the 16/32-bit Windows versions:

Windows 95
|
Windows 98
|
Windows Me

The 16/32-bit line of Windows dies out after Windows Me; this is to be treated separately from NT, which branched off on its own. This is the line which Windows XP, Vista and 7 are contained in.

Windows NT 4.0
|
Windows 2000 (NT 5.0)
|
Windows XP (NT 5.1)
|
Windows Vista (NT 6.0)
|
Windows 7 (NT 6.1)

The Windows 7 designation comes from being on the NT line rather than the 16/32-bit line.

Don't forget...

 

[Arach]

3 = 3.1, the first Windows OS, prior to this the MS OSes were MS DOS versions 0-3
4= 95 and 98
5= NT, ME, XP
6= Vista
7= Windows 7

Umm, no. I'm actually quite surprised that many people, some even here, don't know anything about NT or Win2k. XP was around for a long time, but more experienced users ought to know more.

Win9x OSes are: 95, 98, ME
NT based OSes are: NT, 2k, XP, Vista, Win7

Basically NT made Windowses a lot more stable and usable in corporate needs. Win2k made it more usable elsewhere too while XP was supposed to open NT to home markets completely. Windows ME is probably the most useless Windows ever as it was released after Win2k and thus didn't have any use then.

Having used all of them more or less, I'd say Win2k was probably the best one after a couple of service packs. Vista is a good second as it brings Windows in many aspects to another level. Too bad people don't want change.

 

[Claymorez]

how is windows 7!!!!! - we don't care about the operating systems or what their classified as!

 

[j0z]

how is windows 7!!!!! - we don't care about the operating systems or what their classified as!

Jeeze man, numerous people have told you:

3 = 3.1, the first Windows OS, prior to this the MS OSes were MS DOS versions 0-3
4= 95 and 98
5= NT, ME, XP
6= Vista
7= Windows 7

Win 9x was counted as one (v4), Win 3.1 was counted as one (v3), the MS-DOS was counted as 2 (1-2), and so on.