Looks like Windows 7 is actually Windows version 6.1?  What the heck?



-- 
Joe
With great power comes great responsibility.

jmarton;1939109 Wrote: 
> Looks like Windows 7 is actually Windows version 6.1?  What the heck?
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Joe
> With great power comes great responsibility.

Yup, someone could probably sue MS for false marketing :)

Thomas


-- 
http://thsundel.blogspot.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
thsundel's Profile: http://forums.novell.com/member.php?userid=128
View this thread: http://forums.novell.com/showthread.php?t=403131

On 2/26/10 9:56 AM, Joseph Marton wrote:
> Looks like Windows 7 is actually Windows version 6.1?  What the heck?
>
>
>

It's the seventh release I believe.

Let's see.

Windows 1
Windows 2
Windows 3
Windows NT*
Windows 95
Windows 98
Windows ME
Windows 2000
Windows XP
Windows 2003*
Windows Vista
Windows 2008*
Windows 7


* For Servers

If my math is correct they are considering it the seventh release of 
windows since windows 3.  It's a theory anyway.

It's a type in the version field.
It's supposed to read 6+1 not 6.1 ;>

On 2/26/2010 11:26 AM, thsundel wrote:
>
> jmarton;1939109 Wrote:
>> Looks like Windows 7 is actually Windows version 6.1?  What the heck?
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Joe
>> With great power comes great responsibility.
>
> Yup, someone could probably sue MS for false marketing :)
>
> Thomas
>
>

On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 16:30:01 +0000, Matthew Good wrote:

> It's the seventh release I believe.

So then it should be version 7!

Another dumb one... the next version of Office will be Office 14 even 
though the current version is Office 12.  Guess M$ is superstitious.



-- 
Joe
With great power comes great responsibility.

On 2/26/10 10:36 AM, Joseph Marton wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 16:30:01 +0000, Matthew Good wrote:
>
>> It's the seventh release I believe.
>
> So then it should be version 7!
>
> Another dumb one... the next version of Office will be Office 14 even
> though the current version is Office 12.  Guess M$ is superstitious.
>
>
>

Well Java 6 is version 1.6 I think.  What is Netware 6 version number?

Think of it this way. It's just a minor upgrade from Vista. :P

Matthew,

> Well Java 6 is version 1.6 I think. What is Netware 6 version number?

NetWare 6.0 is Version 5.60, NetWare 6.5 is 5.70

H.

Yep, its like Vista, only finished and polished.


Matthew Good wrote:
> Well Java 6 is version 1.6 I think.  What is Netware 6 version number?
> 
> Think of it this way. It's just a minor upgrade from Vista. :P

On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 17:04:12 +0000, Haitch wrote:

> NetWare 6.0 is Version 5.60, NetWare 6.5 is 5.70

Yeah that's messed up, too.



-- 
Joe
With great power comes great responsibility.

On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 16:58:16 +0000, Matthew Good wrote:

> Well Java 6 is version 1.6 I think. 

That's why I still call it Java 1.6.  I don't know why they went from 1.4 
to "Java 5" to "Java 6" even though the version numbers are 1.4, 1.5, and 
1.6.

Silly developers.



-- 
Joe
With great power comes great responsibility.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Ironic, since microsoft touts they took OUT the bloat in seven....

Good luck.





On 02/26/2010 10:27 AM, unsigned wrote:
> Yep, its like Vista, only finished and polished.
> 
> 
> Matthew Good wrote:
>> Well Java 6 is version 1.6 I think.  What is Netware 6 version number?
>>
>> Think of it this way. It's just a minor upgrade from Vista. :P
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
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=tpJ1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On 26/02/2010 17:27, unsigned wrote:

> Yep, its like Vista, only finished and polished.

But only polished a little since it went from version 6.0 to 6.1 ... ;-)
-- 
Simon
Novell Knowledge Partner (NKP)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you work with Novell technologies at a university, college or school?
If so, your campus could benefit from joining the Novell Technology
Transfer Partners (TTP) group.  See www.novell.com/ttp for more details.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

its a compatability thing so certain versions of software could detect vista 
or above ... they checked for 6.x and would require patching if they had to 
check for 7 and above


"Joseph Marton" <jmarton@no-mx.forums.novell.com> wrote in message 
news:qaShn.5163$yE3.4735@kovat.provo.novell.com...
> Looks like Windows 7 is actually Windows version 6.1?  What the heck?
>
>
>
> -- 
> Joe
> With great power comes great responsibility. 

Joseph Marton wrote:

> Looks like Windows 7 is actually Windows version 6.1?  What the heck?

Windows 1 was called 3
Windows 2 was called 4
Windows 3 was called 2003

What's your beef?

-- 
brain

On 2/26/10 11:31 AM, Joseph Marton wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 16:58:16 +0000, Matthew Good wrote:
>
>> Well Java 6 is version 1.6 I think.
>
> That's why I still call it Java 1.6.  I don't know why they went from 1.4
> to "Java 5" to "Java 6" even though the version numbers are 1.4, 1.5, and
> 1.6.
>
> Silly developers.
>
>
>

As I recall they claimed they made enough changes in it to warrant the 
naming.  From what I've read version 7 of java will have significant 
changes as well.  The only java developer I know thinks it will be a 
very good version language wise.

On 2/26/2010 11:26 AM, thsundel wrote:
> 
> jmarton;1939109 Wrote: 
>> Looks like Windows 7 is actually Windows version 6.1?  What the heck?
>>
>>
That sounds like the way NetWare 6.5 isn't really NetWare 6.5 -- it's
actually NetWare 5.70.08 or some such.

> Looks like Windows 7 is actually Windows version 6.1?  What the heck?

That's nothing my 120GB disk is really 111.18 GB

On 2/26/10 1:12 PM, GofBorg wrote:
>> Looks like Windows 7 is actually Windows version 6.1?  What the heck?
>
> That's nothing my 120GB disk is really 111.18 GB
>

Well since the drive manufacturer can't know what the drive will be used 
for they go by actual disk density which is exactly 120GB.  computers 
work on the 8bit byte which is 111.18GB.  (something like that anyway)

Joseph Marton wrote:
> Looks like Windows 7 is actually Windows version 6.1?  What the heck?

Yep, NT version 6.1 has the marketing name Windows 7.  It's a bit daft,
but I suspect it's because there were mainly incremental changes to the
kernel yet they needed to shift the Vista stigma.

-- 
Regards,
Ben A L Jemmett.
http://flatpack.microwavepizza.co.uk/

Matthew Good wrote:
> On 2/26/10 11:31 AM, Joseph Marton wrote:
> > That's why I still call it Java 1.6.  I don't know why they went
> > from 1.4 to "Java 5" to "Java 6" even though the version numbers
> > are 1.4, 1.5, and 1.6.
> > 
> > Silly developers.
> 
> As I recall they claimed they made enough changes in it to warrant
> the naming.

There were definitely huge changes to the language between 1.4 and 1.5;
boxing and generics being the ones that spring to mind, as well as some
foreach syntactical sugar.  Dunno about 1.5 and 1.6, but I suppose once
you've got to "Java 5" you can't go to "Java 1.6".

However, Sun have history for this -- Solaris 2.6 (SunOS 5.6?) was
followed by Solaris 7 (SunOS 5.7), Solaris 8 is SunOS 5.8, etc.; here
Solaris refers to the environment as a whole and SunOS to the core
system/kernel (see also Windows vs. NT).

-- 
Regards,
Ben A L Jemmett.
http://flatpack.microwavepizza.co.uk/

DougB;1939214 Wrote: 
> 
> That sounds like the way NetWare 6.5 isn't really NetWare 6.5 -- it's
> actually NetWare 5.70.08 or some such.

But that's OK, since Novell did it.

--  Bob


-- 
Bob Mahar -- Novell Knowledge Partner 
Do you do what you do at a .EDU?  http://novell.com/ttp
"Programming is like teaching a jellyfish to build a house."
http://twitter.com/BobMahar http://vimeo.com/boborama
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob-O-Rama's Profile: http://forums.novell.com/member.php?userid=5269
View this thread: http://forums.novell.com/showthread.php?t=403131

A name.  A name.  What is in a name.  A rose by any other name would 
still smell as sweet. :P

Matthew Good;1939312 Wrote: 
> A name.  A name.  What is in a name.  A rose by any other name would
> still smell as sweet. :P

Psychologists would disagree.   The name sets up an expectation, and
the mind makes sure its expectations are met. 

This is a testable theory:  Convince a local florist to sell roses a
"poopblossoms."

-- Bob


-- 
Bob Mahar -- Novell Knowledge Partner 
Do you do what you do at a .EDU?  http://novell.com/ttp
"Programming is like teaching a jellyfish to build a house."
http://twitter.com/BobMahar http://vimeo.com/boborama
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob-O-Rama's Profile: http://forums.novell.com/member.php?userid=5269
View this thread: http://forums.novell.com/showthread.php?t=403131

On 2/27/10 11:26 PM, Bob-O-Rama wrote:
>
> Matthew Good;1939312 Wrote:
>> A name.  A name.  What is in a name.  A rose by any other name would
>> still smell as sweet. :P
>
> Psychologists would disagree.   The name sets up an expectation, and
> the mind makes sure its expectations are met.
>
> This is a testable theory:  Convince a local florist to sell roses a
> "poopblossoms."
>
> -- Bob
>
>


What would be even more interesting is have a florist take some roses to 
a customer and have them inspect them and smell them.  Have the florist 
then take flowers to the back and put them in another vase. Bring them 
back out and tell the customer they are different kind of rose or flower 
and have the customer do the same thing again.  Then ask them which they 
like better. :P

brain wrote:

> Windows 1 was called 3

Nah, there was a windows 1.0 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_1.0)
and a windows 2.0 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_2.0)

Matthew Good wrote:

> > That's nothing my 120GB disk is really 111.18 GB
> > 
> 
> Well since the drive manufacturer can't know what the drive will be
> used for they go by actual disk density which is exactly 120GB.
> computers work on the 8bit byte which is 111.18GB.  (something like
> that anyway)

It is 120 Gigabytes (10^9), but that's only 111.75 GibiBytes (2^30).
The other .57 is taken up by the grue.

> It is 120 Gigabytes (10^9), but that's only 111.75 GibiBytes (2^30).
> The other .57 is taken up by the grue.

It was a jest, I read a story of a guy suing over the missing Gigabytes. :-)

GofBorg wrote:

> It was a jest, I read a story of a guy suing over the missing
> Gigabytes. :-)

did he win? Cause even though I know better, I'd like in on that class
action! ;-)

Windows 95 wasn't the 95th version of Windows...