+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 21
  1. 09-24-2003 04:29 AM #11
    adewri's Avatar
    adewri
    adewri is offline Oracle Monk
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    New Delhi, INDIA
    Posts
    1,796
    Win2k is nothing but a upgraded NT OS.

    Actual NT(SP6) OS Version 4.00.1381
    Actual Win2K Prof(SP4) Version 5.00.2195

    And XP is also an upgraded Win2K Prof.
    Amar
    "There is a difference between knowing the path and walking the path."

    Amar's Blog  Get Firefox!
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
  2. 09-24-2003 10:58 AM #12
    abhaysk's Avatar
    abhaysk
    abhaysk is offline Krishna
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Bangalore ( India )
    Posts
    2,434
    Originally posted by adewri
    Win2k is nothing but a upgraded NT OS.

    Actual NT(SP6) OS Version 4.00.1381
    Actual Win2K Prof(SP4) Version 5.00.2195

    And XP is also an upgraded Win2K Prof.
    This is what every one knows ( You may guess even I know :-) ), but does that mean instead of saying WIN2k to Win2K is it ok if i call it NT?

    huh?
    funky...

    "I Dont Want To Follow A Path, I would Rather Go Where There Is No Path And Leave A Trail."

    "Ego is the worst thing many have, try to overcome it & you will be the best, if not good, person on this earth"
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
  3. 09-25-2003 04:27 AM #13
    adewri's Avatar
    adewri
    adewri is offline Oracle Monk
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    New Delhi, INDIA
    Posts
    1,796
    Why, yes you can call Windows 2000 as WINNT Version 5.00.2195 (That would be the actual technical name and any one familiar with the technical term can make out that its win2k.) Win2K is the general name.

    Now don't ask me why it shows WIN_NT-8.1.0 and not WIN_NT-5.00.2195 though i can tell you why its called IBMPC .
    Last edited by adewri; 09-25-2003 at 04:32 AM.
    Amar
    "There is a difference between knowing the path and walking the path."

    Amar's Blog  Get Firefox!
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
  4. 09-25-2003 05:15 AM #14
    DaPi's Avatar
    DaPi
    DaPi is offline Old Cranky Philosopher
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Geneva Switzerland
    Posts
    3,142
    Just to complete the list: my XP Pro client thinks it is NT 5.1.26
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
  5. 09-25-2003 09:46 AM #15
    Mr.Hanky's Avatar
    Mr.Hanky
    Mr.Hanky is offline X-Mas poo
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    3,131
    I am herby officially re-naming this as "The thread that wouldn't die"
    Kinda has a 50's B horror movie sound to it huh?

    MH
    I remember when this place was cool.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
  6. 09-25-2003 11:26 AM #16
    marist89's Avatar
    marist89
    marist89 is offline Super-Genius
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    greenwich.ct.us
    Posts
    9,094
    Originally posted by abhaysk
    This is what every one knows ( You may guess even I know :-) ), but does that mean instead of saying WIN2k to Win2K is it ok if i call it NT?

    huh?
    I just call it DOS 12.1
    Jeff Hunter
    marist89@yahoo.com
    http://marist89.blogspot.com/
    Get Firefox!
    "I pledge to stop eating sharks fin soup and will not do so under any circumstances."
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
  7. 09-25-2003 11:41 AM #17
    DaPi's Avatar
    DaPi
    DaPi is offline Old Cranky Philosopher
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Geneva Switzerland
    Posts
    3,142
    Jeff, did you start counting from 360/DOS?
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
  8. 09-25-2003 12:35 PM #18
    adewri's Avatar
    adewri
    adewri is offline Oracle Monk
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    New Delhi, INDIA
    Posts
    1,796
    May be he started counting from the days when it was QDOS (Quick and Dirty Operating System) or may be after Tim Paterson sold QDos to Bill Gates for $50,000 to be renamed as MS-DOS.
    Amar
    "There is a difference between knowing the path and walking the path."

    Amar's Blog  Get Firefox!
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
  9. 09-25-2003 02:11 PM #19
    marist89's Avatar
    marist89
    marist89 is offline Super-Genius
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    greenwich.ct.us
    Posts
    9,094
    Originally posted by DaPi
    Jeff, did you start counting from 360/DOS?
    Windows 1.x and 3.x ran on MS-DOS 4.x or higher, so that was just an application.

    The last version of MS-DOS was 6.something.

    The first time MS started calling Windows an OS was with Windows 95. (DOS 7).

    98 (DOS 8).

    NT (DOS 9)

    ME/2K (DOS 10.0/10.1)

    XP (DOS 11)

    2003 (DOS 12)
    Jeff Hunter
    marist89@yahoo.com
    http://marist89.blogspot.com/
    Get Firefox!
    "I pledge to stop eating sharks fin soup and will not do so under any circumstances."
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
  10. 09-26-2003 02:35 AM #20
    DaPi's Avatar
    DaPi
    DaPi is offline Old Cranky Philosopher
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Geneva Switzerland
    Posts
    3,142
    . . . in 1969 I was using something called DOS on an IBM 360/44 . . . come to think of it, it was a bit like a 50's horror movie.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Forum Rules

 Click Here to Expand Forum to Full Width