[aklug] Re: aklug Digest V8 #8

From: Kurt Brendgard <brendgard@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon Jan 12 2009 - 19:56:47 AKST

> I distinctly remember Windows 3.0, 3.1, and 3.11. None of
> them were
> "Windows NT". So I disagree with "NT"
> being "3.1". Windows 3.1 was a
> window manager for DOS. NT was a seperate OS entirely. I
> remember an
> "NT and an "NT 4.0", but that second one may
> have been about the time
> of Win95 or Win98. I don't recall.
>
> Love how MS plays the number game with "code
> versions" not matching
> release versions.
>
> I confess Windows 2000 and XP were very closely identical,
> so a minor
> version change between them is appropriate.
>
> By my count, NT was "4", so if 2000/XP is
> "5" then the anomoly being
> ignored is the 95/98/Me branch.
>

Actually, the first version of NT was labled as NT 3.1, not NT 1.0. Windows 3.1 was the latest and greatest at the time so MS decided to lable it as though it was the same version number. Then came 3.5, 3.51, and 4.0 in the NT line. 2000 was labled as NT 5.0, not Windows 5.0. 9.x/ME referred to itself at Windows 4.x. With the release of XP, MS officialy married the 2 lines and it was labled as 5.1. The NT line and Windows line lables referred to 2 separate code bases up till that point in time though. Now they "refer to the same thing" but till XP they did not. Now, Windows is all based on NT code, with some 9.x worked in. This has caused some confusion in the past.

      
---------
To unsubscribe, send email to <aklug-request@aklug.org>
with 'unsubscribe' in the message body.
Received on Mon Jan 12 19:56:57 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jan 12 2009 - 19:56:57 AKST