Windows 7 screenshots

[Mangetout]

Windows ME was just Win98 with a goofy mask?

There were versions of windows before 3.1 though…

(actually, I think it’s because the numbering system is derived from the NT family/pedigree, not the other one)

[Bosstone]

@Scarlett67

That’s 6 versions since 3.1. How come now we’re only up to 7?

WAG: ME isn’t a ‘real’ OS. At best it’s Win 98+. (Or Win98-, yuk yuk yuk.)

I actually prefer names over numbers, because it’s easier for me to tell the versions apart that way. I know with Office I sometimes have difficulty remembering what version has what capabilities, because just using the years alone doesn’t do enough to distinguish them.

[ultrafilter]

@Scarlett67

I wanna know how the heck they’re numbering their versions! Not counting Windows CE, Server, and other “nonstandard” versions:
Windows 3.1
Windows 95
Windows 98
Windows ME
Windows 2000
Windows XP
Windows Vista

That’s 6 versions since 3.1. How come now we’re only up to 7?

Really, I wish they’d stick with either X.X numbering or 200X numbering (my preference, because it reminds one how old the thing is).

IIRC, 95 was 4.0, 98 was 4.1 and ME was 4.9. That’s a separate product line from the NT family. Over there, 2000 was 5.0, XP was 5.1 and Vista is 6.0.

[Mangetout]

The Microsoft-own version of the Windows version history is here:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/WinHistoryDesktop.mspx

[GuanoLad]

Those just look like entries in the “Design a new GUI for Windows” competition.

[Scarlett67]

@Mangetout

Windows ME was just Win98 with a goofy mask?

There were versions of windows before 3.1 though…

Yeah, I had WinME briefly. BRIEFLY. What a piece of dung. I saw BSOD every damn day. Since switching to Win2KPro and then WinXPPro, I haven’t seen it once. Not once. (Does it even exist in these versions?)

I know there were versions before 3.1; I just used that as the jumping-off point where things got strange.

Interesting about how the versions really go. Why don’t they just say so??

[threemae]

@GuanoLad

Those just look like entries in the “Design a new GUI for Windows” competition.

Exactly. They’re radically different so it really only reflects some random graphic designers ideas for Windows 7 rather than actual information about what Windows 7 will look like.

[Furious_Marmot]

@Quartz

I don’t know why they’re wasting effort on a 32-bit version.

Will 32 bit applications run on a 64 bit OS? I don’t know, but if not, it’s going to be a long time before I switch because there are about 20 apps I use every day that would need to be remade. Heck, I can’t see any reason for leaving XP, ever. OK, maybe when DirectX10-only games come out. I really hope Windows 7 out and better than Vista by then.

[Gary_Robson]

@Scarlett67

Yeah, I had WinME briefly. BRIEFLY. What a piece of dung. I saw BSOD every damn day. Since switching to Win2KPro and then WinXPPro, I haven’t seen it once. Not once. (Does it even exist in these versions?)

That’s a good question. Since switching from the Win95 line (95/98/SE/ME) to the Win2K/XP line, I can’t recall seeing a BSOD. It hangs, crashes, locks up, experiences painful slowdowns, and so forth - but no BSOD.

[ultrafilter]

BSODs usually happened when some program played badly with some hardware component. NT doesn’t allow programs direct access to hardware; rather, everything goes through drivers and the OS interacts with the hardware. You can still get a BSOD, but it’s much rarer as it requires Windows itself to screw up (say what you will about the OS, but it’s rock solid compared to some of the crap you can install on it).

[Colophon]

@ultrafilter

IIRC, 95 was 4.0, 98 was 4.1 and ME was 4.9. That’s a separate product line from the NT family. Over there, 2000 was 5.0, XP was 5.1 and Vista is 6.0.

And 7.0, by the looks of it, will be Windows MEh.

[DCTrekkie]

@ultrafilter

BSODs usually happened when some program played badly with some hardware component. NT doesn’t allow programs direct access to hardware; rather, everything goes through drivers and the OS interacts with the hardware. You can still get a BSOD, but it’s much rarer as it requires Windows itself to screw up (say what you will about the OS, but it’s rock solid compared to some of the crap you can install on it).

Also, in XP at least, there is a setting that makes xp restart instead of showing a BSOD so you wouldn’t see it anyway.

[Inigo_Montoya]

Well, it certainly looks different. But tell me:

• I have a new e-mail address. Can I just open Outlook, tell it my new e-mail address & password, and then rock & roll or do I have to spend 4 hours bashing my head against a wall trying to figure out the pop server and all that shit? Because I get to do that already.

• Can it run my old DOS/Win 3.1/Win95/Win98 compatible games without a tremendous amount of fooling around in the Compatability Wizard trying to figure out what settings the computer should already know it has? Because I get to do that already.

• Can it just play a DVD when I put a DVD in it without having to adjust the settings on some wacky MoviePlaya software to tell the computer about the hardware it should already know it has? Because I get to do that already.

[Merkwurdigliebe]

Here’s the way I count:

1: Windows 1.0
2: Windows 2.0
3: Windows 3.0
4: Windows 95
5: Windows 98
6: Windows ME
7: Windows XP
8: Windows Vista
9: Windows 7

Windows 2000 was never meant to be a home user OS. Otherwise then we’ll need to count the NT versions too. XP marked the first time an NT based OS was meant for home users. I guess though that if you lump Windows 1.0 to 3.0 in one then it makes sense…

ETA:

• Can it just play a DVD when I put a DVD in it without having to adjust the settings on some wacky MoviePlaya software to tell the computer about the hardware it should already know it has? Because I get to do that already.

Ha! I always hated that about Windows. Seriously, isn’t it time that MS creates some useful DVD playing software? I hope they did it with Vista at least.

[ultrafilter]

@Merkwurdigliebe

Ha! I always hated that about Windows. Seriously, isn’t it time that MS creates some useful DVD playing software? I hope they did it with Vista at least.

They’ve already hit legal trouble in the EU for bundling Windows Media Player. Adding in a DVD playing package would probably not go over well.

[Bosstone]

@Merkwurdigliebe

Windows 2000 was never meant to be a home user OS.

Sure works beautifully for one, though. Course, I don’t run games on my Win2k machine, but it’s an ancient laptop anyway.

[Gary_Robson]

@ultrafilter

(say what you will about the OS, but it’s rock solid compared to some of the crap you can install on it).

True, but I think it’s been true of just about every non-dedicated operating system in history.

[GorillaMan]

@Merkwurdigliebe

Here’s the way I count:

1: Windows 1.0
2: Windows 2.0
3: Windows 3.0
4: Windows 95
5: Windows 98
6: Windows ME
7: Windows XP
8: Windows Vista
9: Windows 7

Windows 2000 was never meant to be a home user OS. Otherwise then we’ll need to count the NT versions too. XP marked the first time an NT based OS was meant for home users. I guess though that if you lump Windows 1.0 to 3.0 in one then it makes sense…

Wikipedia as my source:

NT 1, 2, 3, 4
Windows 2000 = NT 5.0.2195
XP Pro = NT 5.1.2600
Current Vista release = 6001.18000.080118-1840 (no NT designation, it appears, but the numbering continues)

Using ‘Windows 7’ at least reverts to the MS bland norm, having got into tangles with the ‘Longhorn’ business when they tried to ape Apple cutsie names.

[eldowan]

@GorillaMan

Wikipedia as my source:

NT 1, 2, 3, 4
Windows 2000 = NT 5.0.2195
XP Pro = NT 5.1.2600
Current Vista release = 6001.18000.080118-1840 (no NT designation, it appears, but the numbering continues)

Using ‘Windows 7’ at least reverts to the MS bland norm, having got into tangles with the ‘Longhorn’ business when they tried to ape Apple cutsie names.

But the previous iterations of windows had their codenames also
'95 was Chicago
XP was Whistler

Complete list here: List of Microsoft codenames - Wikipedia

[Cisco]

This reminds me of the screenshots of “Longhorn” (eventually Vista) that I saw back in ~2003. They told us nothing about the OS and, IIRC, did not look like the final product. In other words: la-dee-freakin’-da. I have no plans of upgrading to Vista anytime in the foreseeable future, so I can’t see this even being a blip on my radar a year and a half from now.