Later I pondered, "7? Why 7 ?" Let's see there was Windows 3.0. That's the last time they used a number. Since then there have been Windows 2000™, Windows NT™, Windows XP™, and Windows Vista™. I never switched to Windows Vista. When I first heard about it, the reviews were all negative, so I thought why bother, especially since my employer at the time wasn't bothering either. I have used Vista on my honey's (he's my fiance, now...and he didn't propose via text!) HP laptop and experienced those annoying access control dialogs. Oops, I digressed! Back to the Windows lineage...let's say Windows 2000™ and Windows NT™ are Windows 4.0 (if my memory serves me correctly, they released very close together), Windows XP™ is 5.0, and Windows Vista™ is 6.0! And then Windows 7.0! Ta dah! But wait a minute what about Windows 95™?
Are you still wondering if their is any truth to the hype? I did a quick google and discovered there is?! Check out Don Reisinger's blog The Digital Home, specifically his posts, "What scares me about Windows 7" and "Why I can't get enough of Windows 7". And then there's Ina Fried's posts, "Securing the Windows 7 beta" and "Windows 7 on a Mac Mini". And finally, a petition to release it now!
What's makes me laugh is the comparison's to Mac OS X. I have this image of Microsoft engineers sitting in a conference room around an iMac running MacOS X with the question written on the whiteboard, "What can we bite off of Mac OS X and then improve on? " And didn't they do the same thing to develop Windows 3.0? All I can say is Microsoft may have the dominance in sheer numbers of users of their OS, but they have always followed Apple in innovation. And since Apple is on the eve of releasing their next version of Mac OS X this year before Windows 7, it's likely the Windows 7 beta hype will be short lived. Which just gives Apple more commercial material.
Disclaimer: I'm writing this blog on my iMac.
GoGadgetGurl!
“Knowledge, the ultimate fashion accessory!”
2 comments:
u r such a Mac user. LOL
Windows NT 4.0 (late 1990's) was version 4 of Windows NT, which is a different codebase and development path than DOS-->Windows that you know of as 3.1 through Windows 98 or ME. Microsoft was talking up NT since the early 90's but since it took more hardware resources to run, it didn't catch on until computers got cheap enough that a few more megs of RAM wasn't a big cost. Windows 2000 would be Windows NT version 5, with XP as mostly a skin of 2000 with the Win98 UI and better USB & WiFi support etc. Vista would be version 7 and Windows 7 would be version 7. Something like that, anyway!
Post a Comment