Adios Vista! Windows 7 On The Horizon - Page 2

Isaac · 10-29-2008, 09:58 AM

No, this was Windows 97.
It could have only been a beta version, but I remember it.

Moonliner · 10-29-2008, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

There was never a Windows 97. Windows 98 was supposed to be out in 97. There may have been beta versions in 97, but those would have carried the code name "Memphis", not Windows 97.

There WAS an Office 97, that is often what causes people to think they've seen a Windows 97.

I know, I was trying to toss him a bone on that one but you had to call him out...

Moonliner · 10-29-2008, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

Well, if you only count the ones that most consumers are familiar with:

1. Windows 95
2. Windows 98
3. indows XP
4. Windows 2000
5. Windows 2003
6. Windows Vista.

7

I would also argue that "Most Consumers" haven't got a clue what Windows 2003 is either.

innerSpaceman · 10-29-2008, 10:07 AM

Yep, I am clearly in the "most consumers" category and I've never heard of Windows 2003.

(Oh, and I may be biased, but I've long ago learned if Isaac remembers it .... it happened.)

Morrigoon · 10-29-2008, 10:10 AM

I would argue that since Windows 2000 and Windows ME both came out, fancy that, around 2000, that they are counted as variations of the same release - even though one is VASTLY superior to the other

Moonliner · 10-29-2008, 10:12 AM

And all of this discussion only serves to support my argument. '7' was selected because it's a cool 'lucky' number.

Ghoulish Delight · 10-29-2008, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

(Oh, and I may be biased, but I've long ago learned if Isaac remembers it .... it happened.)

He's either misremembering for the first time in his life, or he saw some weird hacked version, because Microsoft never put out a version of Windows branded as Windows '97, even in beta.

Ghoulish Delight · 10-29-2008, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moonliner

I would also argue that "Most Consumers" haven't got a clue what Windows 2003 is either.

Alright, I'll pull 2K3 and concede ME.

Andrew · 10-29-2008, 10:45 AM

Windows versions (consumer name / product version):

Windows 1.0
Windows 2.0
Windows 3.0, 3.1, 3.11 (including Windows for Workgroups)
Windows NT 3.1, 3.51
Windows 95 / 4.0
Windows NT / 4.0
Windows 98 / 4.1
Windows ME / 4.2
Windows 2000 / 5.0
Windows XP / 5.1
Windows Server 2003 / 5.1
Windows Vista / 6.0
Windows Server 2008 / 6.0

The next product version is 7.0, but as GD said Windows 7 should really be Vista SP2 and thus 6.1 or 6.2.

Ghoulish Delight · 10-29-2008, 10:59 AM

*forehead slap* Wow, I can't believe I forgot about that versioning.

10-29-2008, 09:58 AM	#11
Isaac the one n only Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Anaheim Posts: 1,236	No, this was Windows 97. It could have only been a beta version, but I remember it. __________________
	Submit to Quotes

10-29-2008, 10:07 AM	#14
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	Yep, I am clearly in the "most consumers" category and I've never heard of Windows 2003. (Oh, and I may be biased, but I've long ago learned if Isaac remembers it .... it happened.)
	Submit to Quotes

10-29-2008, 10:10 AM	#15
Morrigoon I throw stones at houses Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Location: Location Posts: 9,534	I would argue that since Windows 2000 and Windows ME both came out, fancy that, around 2000, that they are counted as variations of the same release - even though one is VASTLY superior to the other __________________ http://bash.org/?top "It is useless for sheep to pass a resolution in favor of vegetarianism while wolves remain of a different opinion." -- William Randolph Inge
	Submit to Quotes

10-29-2008, 10:12 AM	#16
Moonliner 8/30/14 - Disneyland -10k or Bust. Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 9,022	And all of this discussion only serves to support my argument. '7' was selected because it's a cool 'lucky' number. __________________ - Taking it one step at a time.
	Submit to Quotes

10-29-2008, 10:45 AM	#19
Andrew Making Good Girls Go Bad Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Palo Alto, CA Posts: 734	Windows versions (consumer name / product version): Windows 1.0 Windows 2.0 Windows 3.0, 3.1, 3.11 (including Windows for Workgroups) Windows NT 3.1, 3.51 Windows 95 / 4.0 Windows NT / 4.0 Windows 98 / 4.1 Windows ME / 4.2 Windows 2000 / 5.0 Windows XP / 5.1 Windows Server 2003 / 5.1 Windows Vista / 6.0 Windows Server 2008 / 6.0 The next product version is 7.0, but as GD said Windows 7 should really be Vista SP2 and thus 6.1 or 6.2. __________________ -- Andrew Just Andrew. Do I contradict myself? Very well then, I contradict myself. (I am large, I contain multitudes.) -- Walt Whitman, "Song of Myself"
	Submit to Quotes

10-29-2008, 10:59 AM	#20
Ghoulish Delight I Floop the Pig Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Alternative Swankstyle Posts: 19,348	forehead slap Wow, I can't believe I forgot about that versioning. __________________ 'He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.' -TJ
	Submit to Quotes