Re: OT: Isn't it Windows 9? - Microsoft Windows

This is a discussion on Re: OT: Isn't it Windows 9? - Microsoft Windows ; In article , Batman wrote: > > Why is Microsoft referring to the replacement for Vista as Windows 7? > > > > Windows 1.0-Windows 3.5 > > Windows NT > > Windows 95 > > Windows 98 > > ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Re: OT: Isn't it Windows 9?

  1. Re: OT: Isn't it Windows 9?

    In article
    ,
    Batman wrote:

    > > Why is Microsoft referring to the replacement for Vista as Windows 7?
    > >
    > > Windows 1.0-Windows 3.5
    > > Windows NT
    > > Windows 95
    > > Windows 98
    > > Windows 2000
    > > Windows Me
    > > Windows XP
    > > Windows Vista
    > >
    > > That's eight previous releases. Besides not being able to design
    > > an OS, can't they count?

    >
    > Why not just call it Windows 2009 if it comes out in 2009, and label
    > the updates by the month or week they come out. Sheesh....why can't
    > people be more logical? I guess XP, Vista, Longhorn, Whistler and
    > others are supposed to have some sort of marketing pull with the
    > public. I like numbers. Numbers are objective, logical, reliable
    > and consistent.


    Why does anyone care; it's Windows, not Mac OS.

    (Followups set to appropriate newsgroups.)

    --
    Save America; vote for Obama

  2. Re: OT: Isn't it Windows 9?

    It is actually the 7th NT release
    Windows nt3.1
    Windows nt3.5
    Windows nt4
    Windows 2k (aka nt5)
    Windows XP (aka nt5.1)
    Windows Vista (aka nt6)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT

+ Reply to Thread