Windows 7



  • Today I read about Windows 7.

     Wel that was the WTF, in fact....



  •  Could you care to explain?



  • The WTF is that you are illiterate?  I don't get it.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    The WTF is that you are illiterate?  I don't get it.

     

    How am I?



  • @pbean said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    The WTF is that you are illiterate?  I don't get it.

     

    How am I?

    You said you read an article today so the only WTF I could think of would be if you were illiterate. 



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    You said you read an article today so the only WTF I could think of would be if you were illiterate. 
     

     I LOL'd



  • @pbean said:

    Today I read about Windows 7.

     Wel that was the WTF, in fact....

     

    OK..  Kind of like how Windows XP is version 5, Windows Vista is version 6, and then the next will be Version 7.  The WTF is that you didn't try a google search:

     

     



  •  Today I read this post.

    Well that was the WTF, in fact...



  • TRWTF is that nobody gets the joke. And that is my fault. Silly me.



  • @pbean said:

    TRWTF is that nobody gets the joke.
    Oh, we get it, we just question your use of the word "joke" in that sentence.



  • @tster said:

    Kind of like how Windows XP is version 5,

    5.1. 2000 was 5.



  • @Spectre said:

    @tster said:
    Kind of like how Windows XP is version 5,

    5.1. 2000 was 5.

     

    I only had 1 significant digit, so I wasn't really wrong.   Version 5.1 is version 5, it's just a more specific version.



  • @pbean said:

    TRWTF is that nobody gets the joke. And that is my fault. Silly me.

     

     

    Is there a joke to get? You read an article about Windows 7... ha ha ha?



  •  Windows 7 should have existed previous to windows 95, I assume...



  • @pbean said:

    Today I read about Windows 7.

     Wel that was the WTF, in fact....

    I'm particularly amused by the little furor developing over how we call it Windows 7, but the internal O/S version is 6.1, and there are more than seven versions of Windows - so clearly we don't even know how to count.

     



  • @tster said:

    OK..  Kind of like how Windows XP is version 5, Windows Vista is version 6, and then the next will be Version 7.
    Except it apparently won't be - kernel version in Windows 7 is supposed to be 6.5.



  •  @ender said:

    @tster said:
    OK..  Kind of like how Windows XP is version 5, Windows Vista is version 6, and then the next will be Version 7.
    Except it apparently won't be - kernel version in Windows 7 is supposed to be 6.5.
      that sucks.



  •  I personally thinks Microsoft is using this:

    Windows 1
    Windows 2 (286, 386)
    Windows 3
    Windows 4 (95,98,ME)
    Windows 5 (NT, 2000, XP, Server 2003)
    Windows 6 (Vista, Server 2008)
    Windows 7



  • @dtech said:

     I personally thinks Microsoft is using this:

    Windows 1
    Windows 2 (286, 386)
    Windows 3
    Windows 4 (95,98,ME)
    Windows 5 (NT, 2000, XP, Server 2003)
    Windows 6 (Vista, Server 2008)
    Windows 7

    Close, but they're only counting the home versions, so it's really:

     

    Windows 1
    Windows 2
    Windows 3
    Windows 4 (9x)
    Windows 5 (XP)
    Windows 6 (Vista)
    Windows 7



  • It's not like their the first product to just skip version numbers to get one they like. There was no Winamp 4 (or Netscape 5, but no one was using Netscape any more at that point anyway)



  • I thought Windows 7 was called that because it was actually NT 7, though they dropped the "NT" from the name:

    NT 1-4 used "NT" +  the version number as the name, until...

    NT 5 - Windows 2000

    NT 5.1 - Windows XP (Windows 2000 + (Windows ME - Crap))

    NT 5.2 - Windows Server 2003

    NT 6 - Vista, Server 2008

    Thus...

    NT 7 - Windows 7



  • @SuperousOxide said:

    There was no Winamp 4 (or Netscape 5, but no one was using Netscape any more at that point anyway)
    What about Word 3, 4 and 5?



  • @durendal.mk3 said:

    NT 1-4 used "NT" +  the version number as the name, until...
    There was no NT 1 and 2 (and even 3 - first public release was NT 3.10).@durendal.mk3 said:
    NT 5.1 - Windows XP (Windows 2000 + (Windows ME - Crap))
    Was there really any real quantity of code from 9x/ME included in XP (that wasn't there in 2000)?



  • @ender said:

    There was no NT 1 and 2 (and even 3 - first public release was NT 3.10).

    NT1: "It's done! Oh, crap. It just made the server catch fire."

    NT2: "It's done! Oh, crap. It just became sentient and wrote five million viruses and put them on the internet 'for later'..."

    NT3: "It's done! Oh, crap. It just became sentient and gave itself security holes, then printed "JOB SECURITY FOR ALL!"..."

    NT3.1: "Hey, we deleted 50 random files, and it isn't sentient now. WE WIN!"



  • @Wolftaur said:

    @ender said:
    There was no NT 1 and 2 (and even 3 - first public release was NT 3.10).

    NT1: "It's done! Oh, crap. It just made the server catch fire."

    NT2: "It's done! Oh, crap. It just became sentient and wrote five million viruses and put them on the internet 'for later'..."

    NT3: "It's done! Oh, crap. It just became sentient and gave itself security holes, then printed "JOB SECURITY FOR ALL!"..."

    NT3.1: "Hey, we deleted 50 random files, and it isn't sentient now. WE WIN!"

    Oh, Windows trolling!  How original! 



  • @durendal.mk3 said:

    I thought Windows 7 was called that because it was actually NT 7, though they dropped the "NT" from the name:

    NT 1-4 used "NT" +  the version number as the name, until...

    NT 5 - Windows 2000

    NT 5.1 - Windows XP (Windows 2000 + (Windows ME - Crap))

    NT 5.2 - Windows Server 2003

    NT 6 - Vista, Server 2008

    Thus...

    NT 7 - Windows 7

    No, "Windows 7" is NT 6.1.  It's 7 because it's the 7th major consumer version of Windows. 



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Oh, Windows trolling!  How original! 

    It's not my fault it's too easy.



  •  what a waste of my time this thread was



  • @jeffg said:

     what a waste of my time this thread was

     

    I thought that was the definition of a forum thread.



  •  touche



  • @Wolftaur said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    Oh, Windows trolling!  How original! 

    It's not my fault it's too easy.

    We really don't appreciate clueless anti-Microsoft trolling around here.  If you want that, I suggest you go back to Slashdot.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @Wolftaur said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    Oh, Windows trolling!  How original! 

    It's not my fault it's too easy.

    We really don't appreciate clueless anti-Microsoft trolling around here.  If you want that, I suggest you go back to Slashdot.

     

    Actually, compared to many others that was a pretty original M$-bashing.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    We really don't appreciate clueless anti-Microsoft trolling around here.  If you want that, I suggest you go back to Slashdot.
     

    I think there's a problem with your keyboard; sometimes when you type the letter "i" the letters "w" and "e" come out.



  • @durendal.mk3 said:

    I think there's a problem with your keyboard; sometimes when you type the letter "i" the letters "w" and "e" come out.
    Nah, he's got multiple personality disorder, and they all hate xkcd.



  • @jeffg said:

     what a waste of my time this thread was

     

    You fucking signed up for an account to post that?  Your entire life is probably a waste of time.



  • @PSWorx said:

    Actually, compared to many others that was a pretty original M$-bashing.

    Bashing? I wouldn't say that. I thought it was pretty funny.



  • @tster said:

    @jeffg said:

     what a waste of my time this thread was

     

    You fucking signed up for an account to post that?  Your entire life is probably a waste of time.

     

    Yes, I signed up on 10/23 in anticipation of this worthless thread being created on 10/29 and wasting my time on 10/31.

    but alas, dtech brings up a good point.



  • @jeffg said:

    @tster said:

    @jeffg said:

     what a waste of my time this thread was

     

    You fucking signed up for an account to post that?  Your entire life is probably a waste of time.

     

    Yes, I signed up on 10/23 in anticipation of this worthless thread being created on 10/29 and wasting my time on 10/31.

    but alas, dtech brings up a good point.

     

    Oh, I didn't see your joined on date.  I just assumed that your first post would come right after you joined.   That being said, it's a waste of everyone else's time to read comments like "This thread is a waste of time."  Other people might not think so.



  • @tster said:

    That being said, it's a waste of everyone else's time to read comments like "This thread is a waste of time."  Other people might not think so.

    That's an amusing pair of sentences.

    Other people might not think the thread is a waste of time, so saying that is a waste of time.

    Other people might not think it's a waste of time to say a thread is a waste of time.

    Other people might not think, so it's a waste of time.

    Don't mind me. I'm just wasting time. That's what this thread's for, isn't it?

     



  • @tster said:

    @jeffg said:

    @tster said:

    @jeffg said:

     what a waste of my time this thread was

     

    You fucking signed up for an account to post that?  Your entire life is probably a waste of time.

     

    Yes, I signed up on 10/23 in anticipation of this worthless thread being created on 10/29 and wasting my time on 10/31.

    but alas, dtech brings up a good point.

     

    Oh, I didn't see your joined on date.  I just assumed that your first post would come right after you joined.   That being said, it's a waste of everyone else's time to read comments like "This thread is a waste of time."  Other people might not think so.

     

    what a waste of time your post about not wasting other people's time reading posts calling posts wastes of time was.



  • @jeffg said:

    what a waste of time your post about not wasting other people's time reading posts calling posts wastes of time was.
    DIE!!!! DIE NOW!!! PLEASE DIAF!!!



  • @belgariontheking said:

    DIE!!!! DIE NOW!!! PLEASE DIAF!!!

    But wouldn't that be a waste of time?



  •  But not belgarion's. I think that is the point.



  • To waste someone else's time? What a waste of time.



  • In Soviet forums, time wastes YOU[i]!![/i]


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.