What will MS call the NEXT Windows?

C

casey.o

Windows 95 and 98 have always been referred to as Windows9. Since the
next number they need to use is "9", that will cause some confusion.
But we went from 1.x to 2.x to 3.x. Then they switched to using the
years, as in Windows 95, 98, ME, 2000. Then came XP (What does XP mean
anyhow?) Then Vista (Where did the name Vista come from?). Then they
started to use numbers. Windows 7 and 8 (what ever happened to 4 5 or
6?). So, I can only guess that they will either skip to Windows 10, or
come up with some other strange name like "XP" or "Vista".

MS has never been consistent. In fact ME meant Millenium Edition, but
the year 2000 was the Millenium, so those two versions clashed.
 
H

Hot-Text

| (e-mail address removed) wrote:
| > Windows 95 and 98 have always been referred to as Windows9.
| Really? I've NEVER heard them refered that way.

He referred too
Windows 9x

No *8 it's
Windows 8.1

I here The Next will Windows 9
And they have Start Work on a 10 too
Who knows it maybe call 10 Dot two
When it come out

Unclear
Windows 10 is due in 2015
 
R

Rich

Hot-Text said:
| (e-mail address removed) wrote:
| > Windows 95 and 98 have always been referred to as Windows9.
| Really? I've NEVER heard them refered that way.

He referred too
Windows 9x

No *8 it's
Windows 8.1

I here The Next will Windows 9
And they have Start Work on a 10 too
Who knows it maybe call 10 Dot two
When it come out

Unclear
Windows 10 is due in 2015

It is less than a year until 2015. Did you mean Windows 9 is due in 2015 or
that they are skipping Windows 9 completely due to confusion with "Windows9"
or Windows9x"?
 
B

Bruce Hagen

Windows 95 and 98 have always been referred to as Windows9. Since the
next number they need to use is "9", that will cause some confusion.
But we went from 1.x to 2.x to 3.x. Then they switched to using the
years, as in Windows 95, 98, ME, 2000. Then came XP (What does XP mean
anyhow?) Then Vista (Where did the name Vista come from?). Then they
started to use numbers. Windows 7 and 8 (what ever happened to 4 5 or
6?). So, I can only guess that they will either skip to Windows 10, or
come up with some other strange name like "XP" or "Vista".

MS has never been consistent. In fact ME meant Millenium Edition, but
the year 2000 was the Millenium, so those two versions clashed.



Windows 95 and 98 were never referred to as Windows 9. Windows 98 is
referred to as 9X as there were two releases. Windows 98 and Windows 98SE,
(Second Edition).
 
K

Ken Blake, MVP

Windows 95 and 98 have always been referred to as Windows9.


No, that was never the case. They were sometimes referred to as 9X,
where the X represented either 5 or 8.

Since the
next number they need to use is "9", that will cause some confusion.

No.



But we went from 1.x to 2.x to 3.x. Then they switched to using the
years, as in Windows 95, 98, ME, 2000. Then came XP (What does XP mean
anyhow?)

eXPerience,


Then Vista (Where did the name Vista come from?).


I have no idea.

Then they
started to use numbers. Windows 7 and 8 (what ever happened to 4 5 or
6?).



Note that all recent Windows versions have two names--the internal
Microsoft name (or version number) and the marketing name. So,

Windows 95 is version 4
Windows 98 is version 4.1
Windows Me is version 4.9
Windows 2000 is version 5
Windows XP is version 5.1
Windows Vista is version 6.0
Windows 7 is version 6.1
Windows 8 is version 6.2


So, I can only guess that they will either skip to Windows 10, or


*Highly* unlikely. They will either call it Windows 9 or...

come up with some other strange name like "XP" or "Vista".


....yes, they might do something like that. But its version number will
almost certainly be either 6.3 or 7.
 
H

Hot-Text

| | > | > | (e-mail address removed) wrote:
| > | > Windows 95 and 98 have always been referred to as Windows9.
| > | Really? I've NEVER heard them refered that way.
| > He referred too
| > Windows 9x
| > No *8 it's
| > Windows 8.1
| > I here The Next will Windows 9
| > And they have Start Work on a 10 too
| > Who knows it maybe call 10 Dot two
| > When it come out
| > Unclear
| > Windows 10 is due in 2015
| It is less than a year until 2015. Did you mean Windows 9 is due in 2015
or
| that they are skipping Windows 9 completely due to confusion with
"Windows9"
| or Windows9x"?


Windows 8.1 is 9
Windows 10 is due in 2015
 
S

Stan Weiss

Ken,
What version was "NT"?

Stan


Ken Blake said:
No, that was never the case. They were sometimes referred to as 9X,
where the X represented either 5 or 8.


I have no idea.


Note that all recent Windows versions have two names--the internal
Microsoft name (or version number) and the marketing name. So,

Windows 95 is version 4
Windows 98 is version 4.1
Windows Me is version 4.9
Windows 2000 is version 5
Windows XP is version 5.1
Windows Vista is version 6.0
Windows 7 is version 6.1
Windows 8 is version 6.2


*Highly* unlikely. They will either call it Windows 9 or...


...yes, they might do something like that. But its version number will
almost certainly be either 6.3 or 7.
 
B

Bruce Hagen

Bill in Co said:
I always thought Windows 95 and Windows 98 were referred to as Win9x.


I can't find anything written in stone. I guess it's what the person that
says 9x wants it to be.
 
K

Ken Blake, MVP

Ken,
What version was "NT"?


The version numbers below for 2000, XP, Vista, 7, and 8 are all NT
versions. For example, Windows 7 is NT 6.1, NT versions preceding
2000 had the same number for marketing and version number. So

NT 3.00 was version NT 3.0
NT 3.10 was version NT 3.10
NT 4.0 was version NT 4.0

Similarly, non-NT versions before 95 had the same number for marketing
and version number. So, for example, Windows 3.0 was version 3.0.

Windows 95 was the version to get a marketing name differing from its
version number
 
J

J. P. Gilliver (John)

In message <[email protected]>,
Windows 95 and 98 have always been referred to as Windows9. Since the
next number they need to use is "9", that will cause some confusion.

No - 9x, never 9.
But we went from 1.x to 2.x to 3.x. Then they switched to using the
years, as in Windows 95, 98, ME, 2000. Then came XP (What does XP mean
anyhow?) Then Vista (Where did the name Vista come from?). Then they
started to use numbers. Windows 7 and 8 (what ever happened to 4 5 or
6?). So, I can only guess that they will either skip to Windows 10, or
come up with some other strange name like "XP" or "Vista".

MS has never been consistent. In fact ME meant Millenium Edition, but
the year 2000 was the Millenium, so those two versions clashed.
Me (I think Microsoft always wanted the e to be lower case) was the last
in the 9x series in the way it worked underneath, though its user
interface - and a _few_ things about how it worked - came from the NT
series. 2000 was part of the NT series. They "came together" in XP,
though XP had more of NT in its ancestry than 9x under the hood, but had
a lot of the user interface from 9x. The first really widely-used NT was
3.51, which still _looked_ a lot like 3.x; NT 4 looked a lot like 9x.
 
J

J. P. Gilliver (John)

In message <[email protected]>, "Ken Blake,
MVP said:
Note that all recent Windows versions have two names--the internal
Microsoft name (or version number) and the marketing name. So,

Windows 95 is version 4
Windows 98 is version 4.1
Windows Me is version 4.9
Windows 2000 is version 5
Windows XP is version 5.1
Windows Vista is version 6.0
Windows 7 is version 6.1
Windows 8 is version 6.2
[]
Although those are probably correct, they aren't really a progression:
95/98/Me are the end of a series, with NT3.51/NT4/2000/XP more or a
progression in _how they worked_ - though from NT4 on that branch
started to _look like_ the 9x series.

A lot is to do with the underlying disc format, though XP (and possibly
Vista?) _can_ run on FATxx.
 
C

casey.o

In message <[email protected]>, "Ken Blake,
MVP said:
Note that all recent Windows versions have two names--the internal
Microsoft name (or version number) and the marketing name. So,

Windows 95 is version 4
Windows 98 is version 4.1
Windows Me is version 4.9
Windows 2000 is version 5
Windows XP is version 5.1
Windows Vista is version 6.0
Windows 7 is version 6.1
Windows 8 is version 6.2
[]
Although those are probably correct, they aren't really a progression:
95/98/Me are the end of a series, with NT3.51/NT4/2000/XP more or a
progression in _how they worked_ - though from NT4 on that branch
started to _look like_ the 9x series.

A lot is to do with the underlying disc format, though XP (and possibly
Vista?) _can_ run on FATxx.

Are you saying Anything after XP or possibly Vista cant use the Fat32
format? I have never owned any of them, so I dont know.

Also, I had thought that Windows 7 was considered to be the 7th in the
windows series???? Meaning that Vista is the 6th and Windows 7 is the
7th..... I dont know how Windows 7 can be 6.1????

I can see Win95, 98, 98SE and ME being the 4th, since they were similar.

and Win2000 and XP being the 5th since they were similar

So if Vista was the 6th, then the numbers would progress as they are
labeled in Windows 7 and 8 (and 8.1).

I'm not saying I have any proof of this, it's just what I thought????
 
K

Ken Springer

In message <[email protected]>, "Ken Blake,
MVP said:
Note that all recent Windows versions have two names--the internal
Microsoft name (or version number) and the marketing name. So,

Windows 95 is version 4
Windows 98 is version 4.1
Windows Me is version 4.9
Windows 2000 is version 5
Windows XP is version 5.1
Windows Vista is version 6.0
Windows 7 is version 6.1
Windows 8 is version 6.2
[]
Although those are probably correct, they aren't really a progression:
95/98/Me are the end of a series, with NT3.51/NT4/2000/XP more or a
progression in _how they worked_ - though from NT4 on that branch
started to _look like_ the 9x series.

A lot is to do with the underlying disc format, though XP (and possibly
Vista?) _can_ run on FATxx.

Are you saying Anything after XP or possibly Vista cant use the Fat32
format? I have never owned any of them, so I dont know.

Also, I had thought that Windows 7 was considered to be the 7th in the
windows series???? Meaning that Vista is the 6th and Windows 7 is the
7th..... I dont know how Windows 7 can be 6.1????

I can see Win95, 98, 98SE and ME being the 4th, since they were similar.

and Win2000 and XP being the 5th since they were similar

So if Vista was the 6th, then the numbers would progress as they are
labeled in Windows 7 and 8 (and 8.1).

I'm not saying I have any proof of this, it's just what I thought????

The naming convention, Windows 95, Windows 98, ET. AL. is just
marketing, IMO, and have nothing to do with the version number of the
operating system. On thing Ken Blake didn't mention is there was a
Windows 95 SR2 package. SR meaning Service Release, IIRC. That's when
MS switched from the FAT16 to FAT32 file system. I remember the dire
warning back then, that if you chose to switch, there was no going back.
<G> I would think there would have been a nominal change in the
version number, but I don't know that for sure.

I keep it simple in my head... When the version number does a whole
number increase, it's a major rewrite, possible a complete rewrite, of
the OS. Any decimal numbers are just small changes and enhancements,
and today a lot of eye candy is involved. So, underneath the eye candy,
95, 98, and ME are similar, 2000 and XP are similar, and Vista, 7, and 8
are similar. You can easily see this in that many of the dialogue boxes
for each group can be identical, they are just moved around like the
"deck chairs on the Titanic. There is some carry over from XP to later
versions.

My XP Pro computer is actually version 5.1.2600 Service Pack 3 Build
2600. If you want to know how to find out what yours is, follow the
following steps:

1. Open the Start Menu.
2. XP gives you a choice to 2 styles of Start Menu, the XP rounded
style, or a "Classic:
Style". Do you see a "Run..." option? If Yes, go to Step 8. If
not, continue to step 3.
3. Right click on the Start Menu button, and select Properties.
4. Click on the Start Menu tab.
5. You have a choice of using the XP Start Menu, or an older Classic
Start Menu. One
of those options will be selected. Click the Customize button
next to the selected
option. If the XP Start Menu is selected, in the window that
opens click on the
Advanced tab. Scroll down the list until you find "Run command"
and click the box
next to it until you have a check mark. If you have a Classic
Start Menu, click the box
next to "Display Run" until it is checked.
6. Click OK until you are back on the desktop.
7. Open the Start Menu.
8. Click on the Run icon.
9. In the Run dialogue box that opens, type in "MSINFO32", no quotation
marks, and
click on OK or press Return.

In a few seconds, you'll get a System Information window with more
information than you may ever want to know. The first 2 lines on the
right side will be the name of your operating system and the version number.

If you want to know more of the version numbers...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Microsoft_Windows_versions

FWIW, MS did the same kind of thing with MS Office. Remember back when
it was Word 6? IIRC, that was version 6 of MS Word. But the name of
the suite was Office 4.3 Professional, if you had the top of the line
package. Fast forward to XP, and the companion MS Office product line
is MS Office 2003. Same silly marketing, as the actual version number
of all the included software is version 11.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/821549 If you happen to have one of the
MS Office packages installed, you can find the same information in the
System Information window.

Are we confused yet? LOL



--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 25.0
Thunderbird 24.3.0
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"
 
K

Ken Blake, MVP

In message <[email protected]>, "Ken Blake,
MVP said:
Note that all recent Windows versions have two names--the internal
Microsoft name (or version number) and the marketing name. So,

Windows 95 is version 4
Windows 98 is version 4.1
Windows Me is version 4.9
Windows 2000 is version 5
Windows XP is version 5.1
Windows Vista is version 6.0
Windows 7 is version 6.1
Windows 8 is version 6.2
[]
Although those are probably correct, they aren't really a progression:
95/98/Me are the end of a series, with NT3.51/NT4/2000/XP more or a
progression in _how they worked_ - though from NT4 on that branch
started to _look like_ the 9x series.

A lot is to do with the underlying disc format, though XP (and possibly
Vista?) _can_ run on FATxx.

Are you saying Anything after XP or possibly Vista cant use the Fat32
format?


No, that is *not* the case.

I have never owned any of them, so I dont know.

Also, I had thought that Windows 7 was considered to be the 7th in the
windows series????


No. If you just look at major versions, there are 1, 2, 3, 95, 98, Me,
2000, XP, Vista, 7. That makes Windows 7 the tenth. Also look at the
minor versions (like 3.1) and it's even greater than tenth.

Meaning that Vista is the 6th and Windows 7 is the
7th..... I dont know how Windows 7 can be 6.1????


Microsoft numbers things the way it wants to. A new version can be a
whole number greater than the previous one, or it can be a tenth of a
number greater. Or it can be anything else it wants it to be.
 
M

Mayayana

| >>Windows 95 is version 4
| >>Windows 98 is version 4.1
| >>Windows Me is version 4.9
| >>Windows 2000 is version 5
| >>Windows XP is version 5.1
| >>Windows Vista is version 6.0
| >>Windows 7 is version 6.1
| >>Windows 8 is version 6.2
|

They're actually numbered by platform as well.
Win9x are platform 1. Win NT is platform 2. They're
numbered separately.

This is only my guess, but I assume that Win7
was named that way for the "lucky 7" connotation
and that since it came after 6.0, MS thought that
was defensible. It may have also had something to
do with backward compatibility. People write code
to check versions and some older code might get
stumped to find it's running on v. 7. So publicly it's
Windows 7 but for programmers it's 6.1. None of it
really means all that much. Win98 was just .1 up
from Win95, yet MS jumped another .8 for WinME,
which was little more than a mucking up of Win98.

| Are you saying Anything after XP or possibly Vista cant use the Fat32
| format?

They can read it, but you can't install Vista+ to
FAT32. There was a discussion about that recently.
I'm not sure whether someone figured out some
sort of hack whereby it's *possible*, but the installer
simply doesn't give you a choice, while XP can be
installed to either file system. (Most or all OEM
machines were FAT32 for at least the first few years.)
 
C

casey.o

Microsoft numbers things the way it wants to. A new version can be a
whole number greater than the previous one, or it can be a tenth of a
number greater. Or it can be anything else it wants it to be.

If they actually used the nunbers, Windows 98 would be the NEWEST
(Highest number). :)
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top