Microsoft Windows 6.0 . . . ?

[DJGM]

On my virtual travels around the interweb, I've found this slightly intriguing image . . .



Obviously it's not an officially endorsed Microsoft Windows logo, and it is somewhat lame, but it
set me thinking . . . since Windows Longhorn identifies itself to webservers as Windows NT6.0,
maybe MS could use "Windows 6.0" as the official release name, for what is currently code-
named "Windows Longhorn", when they finally get around to publicly releasing the thing!

Since Windows 2000 is NT5.0, XP is NT5.1 and Server2003 is NT5.2, I think it might be be a
good thing for MS to go back to a x.x numbering convention for the next version of Windows.

Unless anyone has any other suggestions for the official title of the replacement for WinXP?
(Perhaps even a better attempt at a new mock logo than the shamefully poor effort above?

[Chris]

On my virtual travels around the interweb, I've found this slightly intriguing image . . .



Obviously it's not an officially endorsed Microsoft Windows logo, and it is somewhat lame, but it set me thinking . . . since Windows Longhorn identifies itself to webservers as Windows NT6.0, maybe MS could use "Windows 6.0" as the official release name, for what is currently code-named "Windows Longhorn", when they finally get around to publicly releasing the thing!

Since Windows 2000 is NT5.0, XP is NT5.1 and Server2003 is NT5.2, I think it might be be a good thing for MS to go back to a x.x numbering convention for the next version of Windows.

Unless anyone has any other suggestions for the official title of the replacement for WinXP?(Perhaps even a better attempt at a new mock logo than the shamefully poor effort above?

Thing is that Windows has always use the numbering scheme under the hood (ie. in the system properties and about boxes) so it's not really a change. On a seperate note, I think they should merge both Home and Professional versions together to form one Windows - perhaps there should be an option to switch on/off the advanced (professional) interface, so those who know what they are doing can play around with the techy bits and those who aren't too sure aren't baffled by the array of options available to them.

[DJGM]

Thing is that Windows has always use the numbering scheme under the hood
(ie. in the system properties and about boxes) so it's not really a change.

That's true. Although, for almost ten years now, Microsoft Windows has been marketed with
years (95/98/2000/2003) with letters (NT/Me/XP) so maybe (IMO) it maybe a good idea for
the next major version of Microsoft Windows to be marketed with a normal version number,
as opposed to the way they've been marketing version of the OS since the mid 1990's.

Windows 6.0 does have a certain ring to it. It sounds better than Windows XP2 (or XP3) . . . !

[Pete]

yes but

Numbering for morons (or the internet explorer numbering system)

Windows 3.1
Win95/NT4 >> Windows 4
98 >> Windows 5
2000/ME >> Windows 6
XP/2003 >> Windows 7
Longhord >> 8?

So 6.0 might sound old to those who aren't up to scratch with numbering. Plus Windows 6 with IE7 may sound odd.

Everyone is using snazzier names at the moment like Macromedia with the MX range. I'd expect they might keep to that or call it Windows 2008.

[DavidJonathan]

yes but

Numbering for morons (or the internet explorer numbering system)

Windows 3.1
Win95/NT4 >> Windows 4
98 >> Windows 5
2000/ME >> Windows 6
XP/2003 >> Windows 7
Longhord >> 8?

So 6.0 might sound old to those who aren't up to scratch with numbering. Plus Windows 6 with IE7 may sound odd.

Everyone is using snazzier names at the moment like Macromedia with the MX range. I'd expect they might keep to that or call it Windows 2008.

Well, Windows XP is only Windows 5, so Longhorn would be Windows 6 unless they call Windows XP Reloaded Windows 6.

[Pete]

Well, Windows XP is only Windows 5, so Longhorn would be Windows 6 unless they call Windows XP Reloaded Windows 6.

Yes I know that - I'm referng to what other less techy people might think.

[cwathen]

If we're splitting hairs, Windows XP is version 5.1 - 2000 is 5.0.

[Neil Jones]

Well, Windows XP is only Windows 5, so Longhorn would be Windows 6 unless they call Windows XP Reloaded Windows 6.

Yes I know that - I'm referng to what other less techy people might think.

I reckon "less techy people" couldn't give a toss either way as long as it works.

[James Martin]

If we're splitting hairs, Windows XP is version 5.1 - 2000 is 5.0.

As Home versions of Windows go...

Windows 3.1
Windows 3.11
Windows 4 (Windows 95)
Windows 4.1 (Windows 95b)
Windows 5 (Windows 98)
Windows 5.1 (Windows 98 SE)
Windows 6 (Windows 2000)
Windows 6.1 (Windows ME)
Windows 7 (Windows XP)
Windows 8 (Longhorn)

[Neil Jones]

If we're splitting hairs, Windows XP is version 5.1 - 2000 is 5.0.

As Home versions of Windows go...

Windows 3.1
Windows 3.11
Windows 4 (Windows 95)
Windows 4.1 (Windows 95b)
Windows 5 (Windows 98)
Windows 5.1 (Windows 98 SE)
Windows 6 (Windows 2000)
Windows 6.1 (Windows ME)
Windows 7 (Windows XP)
Windows 8 (Longhorn)

Um... You have WinXP.

Go to Start --> Run and type in "winver" and press Enter. Does that look like version 7 to you? You'll find it's version 5.1.

Version 4 is indeed Windows 9x but there are six flavours of it, four Win95s and two Win98s. There are others but that's beside the point.

Version 4.00.950x (where x is either A, B, or C) is Windows 95. Flavour B introduces FAT32, flavour C introduces USB but wasn't very good at it IIRC. Lack of a letter after the version implies the original release.

Version 4.10.1998 is Windows 98 Gold (original release).
Version 4.10.2222 is Windows 98 Second Edition.

It therefore follows that Win 2000 and ME are version 5, and as WinXP is based on the Win2000 shell, it is version 5.1 and NOT version 7 that you've ended up at.

http://www.computerhope.com/whow.htm for more on versions of Windows. Or just look at this: http://www.mdgx.com/ver.htm for ALL the version numbers and builds

[DJGM]

As Home versions of Windows go...

Windows 3.1
Windows 3.11
Windows 4 (Windows 95)
Windows 4.1 (Windows 95b)
Windows 5 (Windows 98)
Windows 5.1 (Windows 98 SE)
Windows 6 (Windows 2000)
Windows 6.1 (Windows ME)
Windows 7 (Windows XP)
Windows 8 (Longhorn)

Not quite. Windows 98 and 98SE were still v4.x under the x.x numbering system, although I'm not sure
of their exact v4.x increments. Windows 2000 wasn't designed as a home user version of Windows. It
was primarily designed for business users, since it's actually the next step up from Windows NT4.0.
MS decided to call it Windows 2000 Professional, as opposed to Windows NT5.0, so a lot of home
users thought that, since it's marketed with a year, this was the upgrade from Windows 98/98SE.
Strangely, it seems to me at least, that most of these either didn't notice the word "Professional"
emblazoned on the packaging, or weren't really all that bothered about it

Officially, the next Windows version up from Windows 98 Second Edition designed for home users
was Windows Millenium Editon. You could essentially call it Windows 98 Third Edition, since it was
still mostly built on an updated version of the old MSDOS codebase the Windows 9x was built on.
The x.x style version number on Windows Millenium Edition was actually v4.90. Mind you, since
it was such a notoriously buggy release, I prefer to call it Windows Malignant Edition!

The proper x.x version numbering from Windows ME upwards, should look like this . . .

Windows Millennium Edition = v4.90
Windows 2000 Professional = v5.0
Windows XP (Home/Pro) = v5.1
Windows Server 2003 = v5.2
Windows Longhorn = v6.0

Or to summarize . . .

9x/NT4/Me = v4.x
2000/xp/Srv2003 = v5.x
Longhorn and beyond = v6.x

(EDIT - I see Neil Jones posted his message above, while I was typing this one out!)