# How many versions of Windows have there been? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [September 6, 2009, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-versions-of-windows-have-there-been/509078 "2009-09-06T19:14:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Kal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/9de053/32.png) [@Kal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kal)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2009, 11:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-versions-of-windows-have-there-been/509078/21 "2009-09-08T11:15:17Z")
> [@jjimm](#): > > FTR, the Amazon MP3 Downloader won’t install on W7 - it says “you must have 2000 or Windows Vista”. Arses. Right click the installer, select ‘troubleshoot compatibility’, follow the wizard. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2009, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-versions-of-windows-have-there-been/509078/22 "2009-09-08T17:33:37Z")
> [@ThisOneHere](#): > > Windows 2000 does virtually everything XP does, while at the same time taking fewer computer resources, not having too much annoying copy protection and not making you jump through hoops to change basic settings. I won’t argue with that; it’s just that XP integrates DirectX much better than Windows 2000. Windows 2000 was MS’s first attempt at unifying everything, and they polished it with XP. ---
**Author:** ![engineer\_comp\_geek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/engineer_comp_geek/32/504_2.png) [@engineer\_comp\_geek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/engineer_comp_geek)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2009, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-versions-of-windows-have-there-been/509078/23 "2009-09-08T18:44:46Z")
If you turn off the eye candy in XP it has a performance level that is on par with 2000’s. You can also switch to “classic” menus so that you don’t have to jump through hoops to find everything. Of course, if you do that then XP pretty much looks and feels exactly like 2000 anyway, so I don’t know if there’s that much point to it. ---
**Author:** ![Alex\_Dubinsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dbc845/32.png) [@Alex\_Dubinsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alex_Dubinsky)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2009, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-versions-of-windows-have-there-been/509078/24 "2009-09-08T20:25:33Z")
Yeah, ok… Try setting up a WiFi connection in 2000 and get back to me. Noone should be using 2000. Just properly nLite XP and you’ll have everything you’re looking for plus be running a modern, patched OS. EDIT: And by ‘modern’ I mean, well, you know… Sigh. > [@Quartz](#): > > You can see that Vista was very much a transition product. If MS follow form, Windows 7 will be their flagship product / moneymaker for the next 7-10 years. Sigh, sigh sigh ---
**Author:** ![CaveMike](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cavemike/32/16379_2.png) [@CaveMike](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CaveMike)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2009, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-versions-of-windows-have-there-been/509078/25 "2009-09-08T20:33:02Z")
> [@Alex\_Dubinsky](#): > > Noone should be using 2000. Why not? You should explain why no one should do this if you are going to make the assertion. If you have a system that requires neither Wifi nor DirectX, why shouldn’t you use 2000? Are there un-patched security vulnerabilities? ---
**Author:** ![TBG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c89c15/32.png) [@TBG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TBG)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2009, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-versions-of-windows-have-there-been/509078/26 "2009-09-08T21:39:05Z")
> [@Alex\_Dubinsky](#): > > Yeah, ok… Try setting up a WiFi connection in 2000 and get back to me. I once had to set one up on 98 (not SE, plain 98) and it was a pain in the butt. ---
**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2009, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-versions-of-windows-have-there-been/509078/27 "2009-09-08T21:55:21Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > In that case, the idiotic part is in making a new operating system which isn’t backwards-compatible with the old drivers. You have to expect that when you roll out a new operating system, not all hardware vendors will instantly produce new drivers exactly simultaneously with your rollout. The point is: from a sane software developer’s point of view, you can’t. That’s what sane version number are for. If you write some piece of software against a library version X.Y you can generally assume it will work against library version X.(Y+Z). The only reason to change X to X+1 is when old versions actually won’t work anymore. Of course, marketing is different, which is why although you CALL it Windows 7 ™ which sounds nice and new to users, it’s actually 6.1 (or, Vista, revision 1) from the point of view of the software, meaning you generally guarantee compatibility with Vista. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-versions-of-windows-have-there-been/509078.md?page=1)