Comments on: Is it windows 7 or Windows 6 http://rootadmin.co.uk/2009/06/08/windows-7-windows-6/ The Blog of Liam Somerville Tue, 24 Nov 2009 22:37:21 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: YaManicKill http://rootadmin.co.uk/2009/06/08/windows-7-windows-6/comment-page-1/#comment-14 YaManicKill Fri, 12 Jun 2009 20:07:50 +0000 http://rootadmin.co.uk/?p=107#comment-14 You forget you are talking about a proprietary operating system which you cannot find the code for that is written by a bunch of people that have constantly lied to us. I don't know how you can say they rewrote it, when noone knows. But anyways, thats not the point. The point is that it shouldn't be Windows 7 :P You forget you are talking about a proprietary operating system which you cannot find the code for that is written by a bunch of people that have constantly lied to us. I don’t know how you can say they rewrote it, when noone knows.

But anyways, thats not the point.

The point is that it shouldn’t be Windows 7 :P

]]> By: Rootadmin http://rootadmin.co.uk/2009/06/08/windows-7-windows-6/comment-page-1/#comment-13 Rootadmin Thu, 11 Jun 2009 13:05:13 +0000 http://rootadmin.co.uk/?p=107#comment-13 Sorry but NT and 2000 are not the same as 95 and 98 they totally rewrote the kernal for NT and 2000 is loosly based on NT. Thats why NT & 2000 were so stable! 95 and 98 were dos based. Sorry but NT and 2000 are not the same as 95 and 98 they totally rewrote the kernal for NT and 2000 is loosly based on NT. Thats why NT & 2000 were so stable! 95 and 98 were dos based.

]]> By: YaManicKill http://rootadmin.co.uk/2009/06/08/windows-7-windows-6/comment-page-1/#comment-12 YaManicKill Wed, 10 Jun 2009 12:35:32 +0000 http://rootadmin.co.uk/?p=107#comment-12 I didn't count 64-bit versions or Server versions. I'm not sure whether you can say you won't count NT versions, because 95, 98 and 2000 were all just versions of NT, so either you count all or count none. In that case it would be 1, 2, 3, NT, ME, XP, Vista. Which would still mean that it should be Windows 8. So, tbh, we can't find any decent way of saying that it shjould be Windows 7. I didn’t count 64-bit versions or Server versions. I’m not sure whether you can say you won’t count NT versions, because 95, 98 and 2000 were all just versions of NT, so either you count all or count none. In that case it would be 1, 2, 3, NT, ME, XP, Vista. Which would still mean that it should be Windows 8.

So, tbh, we can’t find any decent way of saying that it shjould be Windows 7.

]]> By: Rootadmin http://rootadmin.co.uk/2009/06/08/windows-7-windows-6/comment-page-1/#comment-11 Rootadmin Wed, 10 Jun 2009 07:19:48 +0000 http://rootadmin.co.uk/?p=107#comment-11 I dont know that i agree with version 20 becuase they are not all "full new versions" the core is the same. windows 1 windows 2 windows 3 windows nt windows 95 windows 98 windows 2000 windows me windows xp windows vista im not inclding home server as its based on server 2003, 64bit editions as they use the same kernal and is pretty much the same os. and im not including NT versions as its still NT, and im not including server editions in general because windows 7 is a clients os and cant be comapred against an server os. either way its still not 7 even if you argue 98 and me are just 95 with extra features like USB that came in 98 SE I dont know that i agree with version 20 becuase they are not all “full new versions” the core is the same.

windows 1
windows 2
windows 3
windows nt
windows 95
windows 98
windows 2000
windows me
windows xp
windows vista

im not inclding home server as its based on server 2003, 64bit editions as they use the same kernal and is pretty much the same os. and im not including NT versions as its still NT, and im not including server editions in general because windows 7 is a clients os and cant be comapred against an server os.

either way its still not 7 even if you argue 98 and me are just 95 with extra features like USB that came in 98 SE

]]> By: YaManicKill http://rootadmin.co.uk/2009/06/08/windows-7-windows-6/comment-page-1/#comment-10 YaManicKill Tue, 09 Jun 2009 22:26:21 +0000 http://rootadmin.co.uk/?p=107#comment-10 Btw, nice new layout :) Btw, nice new layout :)

]]> By: YaManicKill http://rootadmin.co.uk/2009/06/08/windows-7-windows-6/comment-page-1/#comment-9 YaManicKill Tue, 09 Jun 2009 22:25:59 +0000 http://rootadmin.co.uk/?p=107#comment-9 Its technically Windows 20 :P but no, they have been numbering windows versions since the beginning like that. The wikipedia page gives a list of all of them. http://tinyurl.com/m4n2on So yeah, No idea why it is called windows 7. It should be windows 6 or windows 20. It is the 7th version since Windows 98...not that that actually means anything though... Its technically Windows 20 :P but no, they have been numbering windows versions since the beginning like that. The wikipedia page gives a list of all of them.

http://tinyurl.com/m4n2on

So yeah, No idea why it is called windows 7. It should be windows 6 or windows 20.

It is the 7th version since Windows 98…not that that actually means anything though…

]]>