📎 AI Summary:
The thread discusses the naming history and upcoming release of Windows 7, with contributors noting the chronological progression of Windows OS versions and their numbering conventions. The original poster, Mike, reports Microsoft's official announcement of Windows 7, while others speculate on the numbering sequence and share personal experiences with earlier Windows versions. Overall, the discussion reflects a mix of informational updates, historical nostalgia, and casual opinions on the significance of the OS naming choices.
The thread discusses the naming history and upcoming release of Windows 7, with contributors noting the chronological progression of Windows OS versions and their numbering conventions. The original poster, Mike, reports Microsoft's official announcement of Windows 7, while others speculate on the numbering sequence and share personal experiences with earlier Windows versions. Overall, the discussion reflects a mix of informational updates, historical nostalgia, and casual opinions on the significance of the OS naming choices.
Celestra
Former Moderator
Windows 7
As I understand, the naming goes in order.....
Windows 1 (What was 1 anyway? A punch card) ?
Windows 2
Windows 3
Windows NT 4.0 is 4
Windows XP is 5
(How does Windows 2000 fit in? Isn't between 5 and 6 ? Why don't they call it Windows 8) ?
Windows Vista is 6
Windows 7
As I understand, the naming goes in order.....
Windows 1 (What was 1 anyway? A punch card) ?
Windows 2
Windows 3
Windows NT 4.0 is 4
Windows XP is 5
(How does Windows 2000 fit in? Isn't between 5 and 6 ? Why don't they call it Windows 8) ?
Windows Vista is 6
Windows 7
Last edited by a moderator:
liljangofett
Extraordinary Member
I agree with vikas.sm. it really makes no difference what they call it as long as they deliver something good
Well, there are a few views around as to how it got to "7". This is mine!
1. 3.1
2. 3.5, 3.51 (minor update)
3. 4.0
4. 5.0 (2000)
5. 5.1 (XP)/5.2 (Server 03) <- group them together, one client, one server version, just numbered differently
6. 6.0 (Vista)
7. 7.0 (7)
Hey take it easy on us old uns, Celestra. I was a "1" user. But before that, I don't know why they were left out of the numbering system, there was Windows version1, and two versions of Windows 2. There was also a 2.1 computer specific release, for the 286 and 386.Then quickly came Windows 3.0, a bit of a "millenium" release. I used them all and up until 3.1 was seriously considering changing to a Mac.
1. 3.1
2. 3.5, 3.51 (minor update)
3. 4.0
4. 5.0 (2000)
5. 5.1 (XP)/5.2 (Server 03) <- group them together, one client, one server version, just numbered differently
6. 6.0 (Vista)
7. 7.0 (7)
Hey take it easy on us old uns, Celestra. I was a "1" user. But before that, I don't know why they were left out of the numbering system, there was Windows version1, and two versions of Windows 2. There was also a 2.1 computer specific release, for the 286 and 386.Then quickly came Windows 3.0, a bit of a "millenium" release. I used them all and up until 3.1 was seriously considering changing to a Mac.
liljangofett
Extraordinary Member
i'm obviously fairly young then because the first windows release i remember using was Windows 3.11 for Workgroups. and before that I had an Amstrad CPC-464. Oh the glory days are behind us!
Yes. My first was a ZX80, built from a kit. Next came the Commodore. I then experimented for a very brief time with an Apple A and moved on, before the PC came out, to a Sinclair 128. Must admit though, whilst at the time Bill gates was a very interesting and exciting youngster, we were all happy bashing MSdos or even digital research dos (cp/m). Windows was something to look at and play with but hopeless to use.
