Deciphering Windows 7 Upgrades: The Official Chart

Mossblog ^ | Walt Mossberg

[antiRepublicrat]

Pretty cool. Thanks!

[antiRepublicrat]

95 = 4.0
98 = 4.1
ME = 4.9

2000 = 5.0
XP = 5.1
XP 64-bit/Server 2003 = 5.2
Vista/Server 2008 = 6.0
7/2008 R2 = 6.1

[discostu]

If we’re going to include 2000 because XP brought in the NT kernel then we should really drop 95, 98 and ME because they’re from the non-NT chain. So it would really be NT4, 2000 (5), XP as 5.x, Vista as 6.

Really it’s MS numbering, they just make crap up.

[antiRepublicrat]

Really it’s MS numbering, they just make crap up.

The 95 line is in there because someone mentioned it. The MS numbering does make sense. After 3 there was 95 so it gets 4, and the rest were incremental updates worthy of a dot release. 2000 was a big change from NT, so got a whole number, while the incremental changes of XP and 2003 got dot releases. Vista was a big change from XP (good or bad), so got a new number, with 7 getting a dot.

I am among those who isn't happy that the original 7 project didn't come through. I was expecting that complete rewrite with the MinWin kernel, but just got a dot release over Vista.

[discostu]

MS numbering doesn’t make sense, that’s why they keep changing. First they did version numbers, then they went to years, then they went to goofy names, now apparently they’re going back to version numbers, unless 7 is just a goofy name.

Part of the problem is there were 2 lines (the 3.x code and NT code had little to do with each other), then they merged (XP uses the NT kernel), but even after the merger they still maintained a separate identity. You say 95 was 4 then 2000 get’s its own number, but 2000 is in the NT line and there was NT4, which still leave 2000 as 5 but not of the 3.x/95 line.

I’m among those who isn’t happy the original Longhorn project didn’t come through. Jettisoning downward compatibility would have done wonders for he OS.

[papasmurf]

Could ya’ let me know if it works on a legit copy?

Thanks.

[antiRepublicrat]

Oh, you’re talking about the marketing department. They never could make up their minds.

I was just talking actual under-the-hood versions.

[SunkenCiv]

:’)

[dayglored]

> See my post # 35. :)

Cool, I'll pass that to some of my guys who were complaining this week about it!! (With credit to you, of course!)

[discostu]

Even under the hood I don’t think it’s that clear. With the death of the non-NT kerneled chain after ME we really should ignore 95 and 98, the count would got from NT3.51 to NT4 to 2000.

[papasmurf]

Today, I am working on a method to “upgrade” XP to Win7, installed applications and all.

Cover me...

[antiRepublicrat]

You say 95 was 4 then 2000 get’s its own number, but 2000 is in the NT line and there was NT4, which still leave 2000 as 5 but not of the 3.x/95 line.

Ah, I see what you're talking about. Microsoft started NT with the first version being NT 3.1 in order to synchronize the version numbers with the 16-bit line, which was at the time Windows 3.1.

The 16/32 bit line ended with 4, so the way I listed it does look like a continuation with 2000 as 5. I thought the separation between the lineage blocks would be enough to distinguish them, but I should have probably labeled them.