Because all versions before 3.0, or actually 3.1 were commercially unfit.
Sort of experiments, computers were weak and I do rememeber suffering even
in Windows3.1 with endless GPF errors, let alone Windows 1.0!!

Because all versions before 3.0, or actually 3.1 were commercially unfit.
Sort of experiments, computers were weak and I do rememeber suffering even
in Windows3.1 with endless GPF errors, let alone Windows 1.0!!

the first version of Windows regular, not NT was also 3.1

Nonsense.
ALl Windows were OS's

Either you trying to be funny or pretending to know what you DON'T.

A Hexadecimal for 10 is letter "A":
Please know the subject before you post assumptions.

Kinda like you Stan - Unfit



"STAN STARINSKI" <Chyna@stealsUSJobsPatentsSoftwareMusicVideo> wrote in
message news:ezeuoE5UKHA.1092@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Because all versions before 3.0, or actually 3.1 were commercially unfit.
> Sort of experiments, computers were weak and I do rememeber suffering even
> in Windows3.1 with endless GPF errors, let alone Windows 1.0!![/color]

Kinda like you Stan - Unfit with mental problems

"STAN STARINSKI" <Chyna@stealsUSJobsPatentsSoftwareMusicVideo> wrote in
message news:uWqamE5UKHA.4484@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Because all versions before 3.0, or actually 3.1 were commercially unfit.
> Sort of experiments, computers were weak and I do rememeber suffering even
> in Windows3.1 with endless GPF errors, let alone Windows 1.0!![/color]

And All Stan's are Asses


"STAN STARINSKI" <Chyna@stealsUSJobsPatentsSoftwareMusicVideo> wrote in
message news:unCCMF5UKHA.4704@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Nonsense.
> ALl Windows were OS's[/color]

Wrong family.

WinNT (vers. 1-3)
WinNT4/Win2K (vers.4)
WinXP (ver.5)
WinVista (ver. 6)

Wins 3.x, 95, 98, and ME were part the now-dead 9x line built on MS's
orginal DOS. Win7 is from the WinNT line.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
[url]http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/[/url]
Windows help - [url]www.rickrogers.org[/url]

"Charles Lavin" <x@x.x> wrote in message
news:OEU3DQ2UKHA.1792@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Hi --
>
> The only Windows 7 ng I can find is an Italian one, so I guess I'll post
> this here ... :)
>
> I'm sure I'm not the first one to wonder about this, but I can't find an
> answer anywhere. Maybe someone here can enlighten me:
>
> Why is the new Windows OS named Windows 7? It's not the seventh version of
> the Windows desktop family:
>
> Windows 3
> Windows 95 = Windows 4
> Windows 98 = Windows 5
> Windows Me = Windows 6 (or maybe 5.5, or maybe 0 ... but still ...)
> Windows 2000 desktop = Windows 7
> Windows XP = Windows 8
> Windows Vista = Windows 9 (or maybe another 0 ... but still ...)
>
> That would make Windows 7 the 10th desktop version of Windows.
>
> Even eliminating Windows Me and Windows Vista from the list would make
> Windows 7 the 8th desktop version of Windows ...
>
> So what's the reason for this name?
>
>
>[/color]

"Jim" <j.n@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:Ory#PD3UKHA.1372@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> It is the seventh version of Windows NT.
> Windows 1, 2, 3, 95, 98, and ME are not based on Windows NT. Hence,
> whatever their internal name may be, they don't count.
>
> NT 1, 2, 3, and 4 were never available to the general public for use on a
> PC.
> Windows NT5 was called Windows 2000
> Windows NT5.1 was called Windows XP
> Windows NT6 is called Windows Vista
> Windows NT7 is called Windows 7.[/color]

Err no. Winver in my 7 Home Premium tells me it's build 6.1.......

"STAN STARINSKI" <Chyna@stealsUSJobsPatentsSoftwareMusicVideo> wrote in
message news:unCCMF5UKHA.4704@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Nonsense.
> ALl Windows were OS's[/color]

Nope. The early versions were a GUI on TOP of DOS.....

"Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
news:ks02e5h7qa847uigmqnrr7oo8o5je1ucbm@4ax.com...[color=blue]
> On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 20:49:14 -0400, "Charles Lavin" <x@x.x> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> That makes sense ... since Windows 98 and earlier are technically not
>> operating systems.[/color]
>
>
> A statement many people make, but one with which I thoroughly
> disagree.
>
> They *are* operating systems. Read here, for example:
> [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_operating_systems#Microsoft[/url][/color]

I disagree both with Wikipedia and your good self.
How can a GUI that exists on TOP OF, or as a front end of, the actual OS be
called an "OS"?
The Windows 3.x and 9.x were a GUI ON TOP OF the DOS operating system. It
was DOS that actually ran the machine, not the Windows front end....

Just like the Gnome and KDE desktops are GUIs on TOP of the Linux Kernel.
The Desktops are not the operating system.

"Rick Rogers" <rick@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:eMTaIr8UKHA.4780@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Wrong family.
>
> WinNT (vers. 1-3)
> WinNT4/Win2K (vers.4)
> WinXP (ver.5)
> WinVista (ver. 6)[/color]

And according to my Winver, I now have Build 6.1.......Windows 7 HP.....

There is nothing quite like being consistently inconsistent.


Jim
"Gordon" <gordonbparker******.com> wrote in message
news:uhKQai%23UKHA.2932@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
>
> "Rick Rogers" <rick@mvps.org> wrote in message
> news:eMTaIr8UKHA.4780@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>> Wrong family.
>>
>> WinNT (vers. 1-3)
>> WinNT4/Win2K (vers.4)
>> WinXP (ver.5)
>> WinVista (ver. 6)[/color]
>
> And according to my Winver, I now have Build 6.1.......Windows 7 HP.....[/color]

OK it's a matter of terminology.
GUI running atop of a previously command-driven OS is still an OS when
complete DOS+GUI system is considered.

Early Windows were not using protected modes already available in x86
uProcessors of that era, which I remember using with own hands (and true
multithreading was only reality for highend server processors) but since DOS
is an OS, a GUI shell for it together with DOS is an OS.

Whatever... it's 2009, lets get over history, except it brings sweet
memories of a squirrel who visited my windows during long winter nights I
was doing college work on thgat computer that was as slow as molasses so
while it was taking a 15-minute break to complete some application startup,
I'd feed that squirrel - a great time killer.