Nostalgia: Upgrading through every version of Windows 1 to 7

Someone on Youtube calling himself TheRasteri, with some time on his hands took it upon himself to test the ability to upgrade Windows from 1.0 through to 7. Not all Windows versions were used, and in one case probably rightly so, can you guess which one was (probably purposely) skipped?

How many programs and settings could remain intact across almost twenty years of OS updates? You might be surprised, reports The Next Web.

Impressively, color settings for the desktop were kept right up to Windows 2000, after which they wouldn't stick.

If you have a spare ten minutes, it's well worth a watch, if only for the memories and the effort involved, which according to the video took hours!

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Australian ISPs may be forced to disconnect cheats in new ruling

Next Story

Microsoft resumes Windows Phone 7 update for Samsung devices

82 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

I also went from 98 to 2000 to XP. 2000 was released earlier as it's mentioned, and Me just plained sucked. 2000 being so stable (and being called 2000 which confused people into buying it as an upgrade to 98) was great, and allowed for a lot of programs to become compatible with the NT branch. That's why a lot of stuff was alredy NT-compatible by the time XP was released

Julius Caro said,
I also went from 98 to 2000 to XP. 2000 was released earlier as it's mentioned, and Me just plained sucked. 2000 being so stable (and being called 2000 which confused people into buying it as an upgrade to 98) was great, and allowed for a lot of programs to become compatible with the NT branch. That's why a lot of stuff was alredy NT-compatible by the time XP was released

Yeah the confusion was definitely Microsoft's fault, but they originally thought 2000 was going to be the next consumer version. They changed the name from NT 5.0 to 2000 during beta. When it became clear that it wasn't going to work out the way they planned they should have changed the name back to NT I think.

TRC said,

Yeah the confusion was definitely Microsoft's fault, but they originally thought 2000 was going to be the next consumer version. They changed the name from NT 5.0 to 2000 during beta. When it became clear that it wasn't going to work out the way they planned they should have changed the name back to NT I think.

The NT 5.0 beta was insanely long, with a major revision between beta 1 and beta 2 (a lot like Vista happened).

However there was very little talk about NT 5.0 replacing Win9x, it was always known that NT 5.0 would splinter off a few consumers, but it was not going to be designed with the planned consumer features that shipped in WinXP.

For example, they wanted usability items and consumer repair features like 'System Restore' that were deemed to be important for a consumer version, as repairing and managing NT was out of the scope of most consumers and computer tech people outside of the 'geek' and corporate worlds.


The naming didn't have anything to do with it being a consumer version, it had more to do with the other 'marketing' changes in Microsoft, that was shoving the 'year' into the product name that started with Windows95 and Office95, which didn't work out so well at the time.

He may have got doom II to run in windows 3/3.1, but I wonder if he got the sound to work.
Biggest headache I ever had with that old windows, was getting sound to work in dos games if launched within windows, then having the windows sound mess up after returning to windows.
I still remember some of the stupid $*%*@ settings!
SET SOUND=C:\PROGRA~1\CREATIVE\CTSND
SET BLASTER=A220 I5 D1 H5 P330 E620 T6

naap51stang said,
He may have got doom II to run in windows 3/3.1, but I wonder if he got the sound to work.
Biggest headache I ever had with that old windows, was getting sound to work in dos games if launched within windows, then having the windows sound mess up after returning to windows.
I still remember some of the stupid $*%*@ settings!
SET SOUND=C:\PROGRA~1\CREATIVE\CTSND
SET BLASTER=A220 I5 D1 H5 P330 E620 T6

Actually, if memory serves, the main problem with games + sound under Win 3.1 was that Win 3.1 didn't play nicely with Extended memory and a whole lot of games required Extended memory to run sounds for some reason.

EMM386.exe anyone?

Metodi Mitov said,

Actually, if memory serves, the main problem with games + sound under Win 3.1 was that Win 3.1 didn't play nicely with Extended memory and a whole lot of games required Extended memory to run sounds for some reason.

EMM386.exe anyone?

Not so much w/sound, just in general.

It had to do with the real mode and protected mode differences.

Also most games wanted expanded memory, not extended. (Change that in your post, and you will about spot on.)

Win3.x liked extended memory, as expanded memory was used in real mode, and Win3.1 ran in protected mode, although it could be booted into real mode, which people would do for games or to run Win2.x (Win/386) applications.

thenetavenger said,

Not so much w/sound, just in general.

It had to do with the real mode and protected mode differences.

Also most games wanted expanded memory, not extended. (Change that in your post, and you will about spot on.)

Win3.x liked extended memory, as expanded memory was used in real mode, and Win3.1 ran in protected mode, although it could be booted into real mode, which people would do for games or to run Win2.x (Win/386) applications.

Fair enough. It's been a while, not to mention that I was quite young back then... something like 10-11 years old, so I don't recall the exact details nor did I care too much at the time to be honest. Was more interested in getting a game with sound than the exact terms of what was used to make it happen. Still, I do recall poking around in autoexec.bat and config.sys on more than one occasion.

Great video but it only went back to that newfangled MS-DOS 5 - I've been a PC user since I purchased my Kaypro PC in 1985 (a turbo-XT box) and it probably ran MS-DOS 3.1. I updated my systems and built several new ones over the years since and have almost always purchased the upgrade version of the next OS. I've tried all of the consumer level versions of Windows and am happily running Windows 7 Home Premium SP1 on my current desktop (which I upgraded from XP and Vista...)

Although I can't say that keeping the old color scheme would be a deal breaker for me. The tricky part would be finding a machine around here that still had the floppy drives I would need to use to install the old OS - not many boxes come with 5 1/4" floppy drives any more. ;P

GraveDigger27 said,
Great video but it only went back to that newfangled MS-DOS 5 - I've been a PC user since I purchased my Kaypro PC in 1985 (a turbo-XT box) and it probably ran MS-DOS 3.1. I updated my systems and built several new ones over the years since and have almost always purchased the upgrade version of the next OS. I've tried all of the consumer level versions of Windows and am happily running Windows 7 Home Premium SP1 on my current desktop (which I upgraded from XP and Vista...)

Although I can't say that keeping the old color scheme would be a deal breaker for me. The tricky part would be finding a machine around here that still had the floppy drives I would need to use to install the old OS - not many boxes come with 5 1/4" floppy drives any more. ;P

I think I still have a Kaypro Z80 luggable in the basement but the CP/M disks have probably demagnetized or disintegrated by now.

Great video! I worry that he upgraded through 2000 rather than ME down to ignorance (thinking as many did that 2000 was 98's successor when it was not), but otherwise it's an interesting watch. The other thing that he gets hung up about is the colour schemes. I disagree with him; Microsoft have clearly abandoned that compatibility to wean people off the classic theme and onto the much nicer new look. Some techies will just never learn. These days computers do not struggle with the extra memory needed to improve the user interface 1000%.

mulligan2k said,
remember these are upgrades though, not fresh installs. with an upgrade the point is it keeps your settings / files / themes

But some people would not realize that they could enable Luna.

eangulus said,
I am interested in what hardware specs he used for this.

more then likely its all done in a virtual machine so they can record it

eangulus said,
I am interested in what hardware specs he used for this.

In the video the author clearly stated he used a VMWare virtual machine for the testing.

I think it was a justifiable decision to use 2000 over ME, even though from the sound of it, a lot of us didn't go that route. If I had to do it all over again, I would have stuck with 98 before upgrading to XP.

Great video

He's got far more patience than me - I don't think I could sit through hours of setup processes in one go like that !

Pablo2008jedi said,
Really cool, I only remember Win 3.1 as the earliest Windows OS

I still remember my first version. I had a Zenith 286 with MS-DOS 6.20 and I went to this used software store and bought Windows 3.0 on 5.25" disks. WordPerfect was taking up most of my hard drive so I had to reluctantly delete it to make enough room to install Windows.

Edited by Rigby, Mar 3 2011, 10:35am :

Windowses NT 3.1, 3.5, 3.51 and 4.0 were also skipped although I assume it was because of similar upgrade restrictions.

EDIT: I agree with this guy, the mere fact that programs from Windows 3.0 and old, old DOS games work without any apparent hitches in Windows 7 says something about the lengths Microsoft have gone to keep backwards compatibility alive and well.

Douglas_C said,
Windowses NT 3.1, 3.5, 3.51 and 4.0 were also skipped although I assume it was because of similar upgrade restrictions.

Correct, once you upgrade to the NT line you are stuck with it so he would have had to skip Windows 95 and 98 (and Me which he skipped anyway). Plus those weren't consumer versions.

"Not all Windows versions were used, and in one case probably rightly so, can you guess which one was (probably purposely) skipped?"

The abomination that was called Windows Millennium ..

KRS Deamon said,
"Not all Windows versions were used, and in one case probably rightly so, can you guess which one was (probably purposely) skipped?"

The abomination that was called Windows Millennium ..


Actually, it was called Windows Millennium Edition

Or as PC World Magazine better described it, Windows Mistake Edition

KRS Deamon said,

The abomination that was called Windows Millennium ..

I'm always highly amused by this. I don't doubt the terrible problems that the majority of people had, but I must have been the only person in the world for whom it actually worked... and worked well. Always gives me a little laugh.

tnt118 said,

I'm always highly amused by this. I don't doubt the terrible problems that the majority of people had, but I must have been the only person in the world for whom it actually worked... and worked well. Always gives me a little laugh.

It worked mostly fine for me too. Still preferred 2000 when I got it. Might have been just for the interface difference, but I liked it better.

Tech Star said,
He forgot Windows Me.

Shhh, we don't speak of that.

Actually you cannot upgrade from Me to 2000 though since Me is newer. However since 2000 wasn't a consumer version of Windows he should have actually went from 98 to Me then to XP.

Tech Star said,
He forgot Windows Me.

Maybe because he said upgrades in every "Major" windows versior, ME was not major

ramik said,

Maybe because he said upgrades in every "Major" windows versior, ME was not major

Yes it was, it was a major **** up =P

allfive6 said,

I wish I could forget Windows ME

Great video tho

To be honest I had no problems with Me. Like Vista it has gotten an unfair reputation. If you already had 98 it was definitely not worth the upgrade but on a new system it was fine.

Navan said,

Everybody forgot Windows ME. =p

I was thinking 'vista' but ofcourse the prize goes to ME. Fail was an understatement of that OS!

Kushan said,

Yes it was, it was a major **** up =P

I still cannot believe ME was ostracized. For many people, ME worked fine and seemed to work better on newer hardware. I never had an issue with it as well as friends of mine that installed it. But, to each their own. Every version of Windows can have some issues to some people. 2000 had more crashes and blue screens for me than ME ever did.

TRC said,

To be honest I had no problems with Me. Like Vista it has gotten an unfair reputation. If you already had 98 it was definitely not worth the upgrade but on a new system it was fine.

Unfair rep ?

Windows 2000 was superior in every possible ways even for home usage.

TRC said,

To be honest I had no problems with Me. Like Vista it has gotten an unfair reputation. If you already had 98 it was definitely not worth the upgrade but on a new system it was fine.

What a crock. Vista was at least fixed somewhat, ME was left as the cluster**** that it always was. There was NOTHING unfair about the reputation ME got. Vista on the other hand was ironed out.

LaP said,

Unfair rep ?

Windows 2000 was superior in every possible ways even for home usage.

Not true. There were quite a few games that weren't playable or played like crap compared to 98/ME.

briangw said,

Not true. There were quite a few games that weren't playable or played like crap compared to 98/ME.

Technically, games weren't very playable on 2000 until SP1. Before that, you couldn't get DirectX on it. (Or at least that's what I remember, I could be wrong) No DirectX though = no gaming under Windows... except for the few DOS games you could actually run under 2000 until that point.

LaP said,

Unfair rep ?

Windows 2000 was superior in every possible ways even for home usage.

It wasn't marketed for home users though and it was uber expensive compared to Me.

Metodi Mitov said,

Technically, games weren't very playable on 2000 until SP1. Before that, you couldn't get DirectX on it. (Or at least that's what I remember, I could be wrong) No DirectX though = no gaming under Windows... except for the few DOS games you could actually run under 2000 until that point.

Even after that SP, there were still issues with DX games. I recall that MS had released compatibility packs that fixed a lot of games but still had to release various patches more times to get a lot more to work.

"can you guess which one was (probably purposely) skipped?"

Haha, yes I can indeed. I still think it should've been in though.
If not only for the extra challenge of running it enough to do an upgrade.

Northgrove said,
"can you guess which one was (probably purposely) skipped?"

Haha, yes I can indeed. I still think it should've been in though.
If not only for the extra challenge of running it enough to do an upgrade.

Couldn't do ME. The upgrade path from ME is to XP, not to 2000. He had to pick either windows 2000 or ME

Sraf said,

Couldn't do ME. The upgrade path from ME is to XP, not to 2000. He had to pick either windows 2000 or ME

Exactly, skipping had to be done either way. Windows NT 3.0, 3.1 and 4.0 were also skipped.
Up until XP you had two different Windows code bases, NT and Win9x (for lack of a better term for it). The Win9x code base can trace its roots all the way back to DOS version 2.0. DosShell followed by Windows version 1, 2 and 3 where just window managers that installed over DOS, DOS was the OS. Starting with Windows 95 the DOS OS was included with Windows and with each version became a more integrated part. On the flip side Windows NT started in the early 90's with version 3.0. NT was a new OS and was never based on DOS. NT versions 3.0, 3.1, 4.0 where never popular among home users, then Windows 2000 worked pretty well for home use but still wasn't popular outside of the techy crowd. XP was the first version of the NT codebase that was popular for home use. Windows ME was the last version based on the Win9x codebase. Because it came out after Windows 2000, skipping it is very logical.

PS: unrelated rant, Windows 2000, XP and on do not use DOS. When you open a command prompt it is just a command prompt, using the NT Shell, it is not DOS.

Sraf said,

Couldn't do ME. The upgrade path from ME is to XP, not to 2000. He had to pick either windows 2000 or ME


Another interesting note that i found years back when i did upgrade to ME - upgrade asked me for license key which I accidentally forgot to keep with me (it was middle of night so no key to ask around, and google wasnt there in 2000 atleast I didnt know about it then).. All I did was a simple key combination and upgrade took the bait...
I tried random numbers yeah it failed but next I tried...unknowingly..
****-*****-****-*****-**** - I actually entered same amount of astericks as was key length of key in diallog window and it took it.
(My idea was lame that whenever I type a password in mails it turns to an * so i used to think back then * reseblem a wild character in a program)
P.S. I dont think that foolish anymore.

sphbecker said,
XP was the first version of the NT codebase that was popular for home use. Windows ME was the last version based on the Win9x codebase. Because it came out after Windows 2000, skipping it is very logical.

He should have used WinME instead of Win2k. That is Microsoft's stated progression of the consumer versions of Windows. Actually Win95, 98, & ME are all considered "Windows 4".

This is for the consumer versions of Windows.
Win 1 = Windows 1
Win 2 = Windows 2
Win 3 = Windows 3
Win95, 98, ME = Windows 4
WinXP = Windows 5
Vista = Windows 6
Win7 = Windows 7

All of the Window NT versions prior to Windows XP had a server and a client version that were developed by a different team within Microsoft.

sphbecker said,

Exactly, skipping had to be done either way. Windows NT 3.0, 3.1 and 4.0 were also skipped.
Up until XP you had two different Windows code bases, NT and Win9x (for lack of a better term for it). The Win9x code base can trace its roots all the way back to DOS version 2.0. DosShell followed by Windows version 1, 2 and 3 where just window managers that installed over DOS, DOS was the OS. Starting with Windows 95 the DOS OS was included with Windows and with each version became a more integrated part. On the flip side Windows NT started in the early 90's with version 3.0. NT was a new OS and was never based on DOS. NT versions 3.0, 3.1, 4.0 where never popular among home users, then Windows 2000 worked pretty well for home use but still wasn't popular outside of the techy crowd. XP was the first version of the NT codebase that was popular for home use. Windows ME was the last version based on the Win9x codebase. Because it came out after Windows 2000, skipping it is very logical.

PS: unrelated rant, Windows 2000, XP and on do not use DOS. When you open a command prompt it is just a command prompt, using the NT Shell, it is not DOS.

You can't included NT versions of Windows at all until XP. NT was its own platform until Microsoft jpined them together with Windows 2000 and XP. After that its all NT code with no legacy coding.

mikefarinha said,

This is for the consumer versions of Windows.
Win 1 = Windows 1
Win 2 = Windows 2
Win 3 = Windows 3
Win95, 98, ME = Windows 4
WinXP = Windows 5
Vista = Windows 6
Win7 = Windows 7

All of the Window NT versions prior to Windows XP had a server and a client version that were developed by a different team within Microsoft.


windows 7 is windows 6.1

qdave said,

windows 7 is windows 6.1
Is that really the only flaw you found in his "logic"? His whole post is wrong

The version number actually comes from the NT kernel version number (funny thing is that like qdave pointed out Win7 is actually 6.1 ). So Windows 1,2,3, 95, 98, ME don't count towards that "version"

sphbecker said,

Exactly, skipping had to be done either way. Windows NT 3.0, 3.1 and 4.0 were also skipped.
Up until XP you had two different Windows code bases, NT and Win9x (for lack of a better term for it). The Win9x code base can trace its roots all the way back to DOS version 2.0. DosShell followed by Windows version 1, 2 and 3 where just window managers that installed over DOS, DOS was the OS. Starting with Windows 95 the DOS OS was included with Windows and with each version became a more integrated part. On the flip side Windows NT started in the early 90's with version 3.0. NT was a new OS and was never based on DOS. NT versions 3.0, 3.1, 4.0 where never popular among home users, then Windows 2000 worked pretty well for home use but still wasn't popular outside of the techy crowd. XP was the first version of the NT codebase that was popular for home use. Windows ME was the last version based on the Win9x codebase. Because it came out after Windows 2000, skipping it is very logical.

PS: unrelated rant, Windows 2000, XP and on do not use DOS. When you open a command prompt it is just a command prompt, using the NT Shell, it is not DOS.

1) NT started at 3.1 - There was no NT 3.0

2) Win9x can trace their lineage to DOS 2.0, but this is only in the bootloader and the Win16 and DOS VDMs. So, this is more of a 'sort of', as Win9x only used DOS to boot, and was its own kernel architecture once booted that no longer touched or used any aspects of DOS and handled all OS operations through its kernel. The reason this gets confusing is that some people were determined to prove that Win95 was using DOS underneath, for example some Andrew ? that I can't remember the name. Win95 would allow DOS access to hardware and the VDMs for DOS and Win16 to touch the hardware, so these would be seen as DOS calls, as Win95 was essentially side stepping and allowing the VDM full access to the hardware, unlike NT's hands off hardware VDM technologies.

3) Regard unrelated rant. In Windows NT, all versions from 3.1 to 6.1 (Win7), the command prompt is the NT CLI (cmd.exe); however, the DOS CLI(command.com) is still available as a part of the DOS and Win16 VDM emulation layers. So if you type CMD, you get the NT CLI that has nothing to do with DOS, and if you type COMMAND you get the DOS CLI with DOS loaded ready to go.
* (The DOS and Win16 VDM subsystem is not available on 64bit versions, as the thunking work needed was not worth the few applications that are still around, and with Windows 7, you can simply use XP Mode or run Win7 32bit in the integrated VM that allows Win16 and DOS applications that run still run seamlessly on the desktop.)


Win 1.x were graphical environments, although Win 3.1 bordered on an OS, as it started to take over I/O operations from DOS on 32bit systems.

Win9x were true OSes, that did had their own kernel technology, and was written in both C and assembly.

WinNT was a new OS technology, unlike anything that came before it or sense, as it abandon the traditions of the generic *nix I/O and parameter models for an object based OS model and introduced kernel layers and architecture that was pure theory at the time NT was designed.

---

Sorry if my response seemed over critical, as you are essentially on track and at least understand the technical aspects of the various differences in Windows over the years.

Sadly there are many people that still think Windows is using DOS or don't realize that Windows NT when it was designed turned the heads of every OS theorist and engineer at the time, as it was and still is an impressive set of technologies, architecture, and OS model. Even today Windows NT's design concepts allow it to extend in ways OS X and Linux cannot and it still has capabilities that will never exist in Linux or OS X because of their architecture and OS model and the inherent restrictions they will always have without becoming a new OS.

I just wanted to clarify what you were saying for accuracy, and say kudos for getting it.

TechieXP said,

You can't included NT versions of Windows at all until XP. NT was its own platform until Microsoft jpined them together with Windows 2000 and XP. After that its all NT code with no legacy coding.

I'm not sure I totally understand your post, so forgive me if what I am saying is redundant to what you were trying to convey in any way.

1) Microsoft NEVER joined anything together.

2) Windows NT 3.1, 3.50, 3.51, 4.0, Windows NT 5.0 (Win2K), WIndows NT 5.1 (WinXP), Windows NT 6.0 (Vista), Windows NT 6.1 (Win7) are a continuation of the original Windows NT platform. All NT releases are only Windows NT, nothing from previous DOS or Win9x versions of Windows is used in Windows XP whatsoever.

3) After Windows ME, the entire Win9x code base was thrown out, and it was not used in Windows XP at all.

4) The reason WinXP looks more 'consumer' and runs Win9X applications is because of brilliant engineering and a consistent Win32 API set that was designed for Win95 so that Windows NT would eventually just completely replace the consumer Win9x operating systems.

There is no 'combining', thers is no Win9x code in WindowsXP (nor any Windows NT release).

mikefarinha said,

He should have used WinME instead of Win2k. That is Microsoft's stated progression of the consumer versions of Windows. Actually Win95, 98, & ME are all considered "Windows 4".

This is for the consumer versions of Windows.
Win 1 = Windows 1
Win 2 = Windows 2
Win 3 = Windows 3
Win95, 98, ME = Windows 4
WinXP = Windows 5
Vista = Windows 6
Win7 = Windows 7

All of the Window NT versions prior to Windows XP had a server and a client version that were developed by a different team within Microsoft.

'different team'

The Win9x team was a completely different team and department from the Windows NT group.

However, the teams were not 'combined', essentially the NT group added some of the Win9x team to the NT group, but not all of the Win9x team made it to the NT group and were sent off to do otehr things.

The NT group key architects, designers, engineers were mostly in control of Windows NT and WindowsXP. (It was the upper managers and the whining of members from the Win9X team that got the WinXP security model ignored and is why everyone was set up as administrators without enforcing the NT security, etc.)

The way you worded this, made it sound like the teams happily joined forces, which is far from what happened.

WinME was the last chance for the Win9X to move forward with the features planned for Windows and deliver a faster yet reliable operating system than Windows NT. Which was a horrible failure.

The Win9X team had already been bested with Win95 and Win98 by NT 4.0.

Microsoft noticed that with 32mb of RAM, NT 4.0 was 25% faster than Win95. - Which should not have been possible, as NT was a much more complex architecture, with a lot more overhead, and was written in portable C. Where Win9x was a very custom and light architecutre, that didn't even have security, and was written in assembly, where the developers could flat out optimize to 486s and Pentiums.

Yet here was NT 4.0, and it with a bit of RAM was freaking faster than Win9x. Whoops.

The Win9x team had a chance with Win98 to redeem themselves, and failed.

WinME was sort of a hail-mary pass, as it shoved in system restore and some of the key new imaging features, etc into the Win9x architecture. This was a major mistake, as the Win9x architecture just could not handle these advanced features.

And it was still slower than Windows NT (Win2k).

Side note, Even WinXP was faster than any Win9X version if you had around 64mb of RAM. We still have 200mhz Pentium laptops with 80mb of RAM, 5gb hard drives, running WinXP and are 20-30% faster than when they are running any Win9x.

This is also why WinCE was built from the NT design concepts and used people from the NT group instead of using anything from Win9X.

----

All versions of Windows NT prior to WinXP did have a server and client version, and WinXP was ALSO supposed to have a coordinated server version, but it was held due to the massive security revamp inside Microsoft.

This produced XP SP2 and pushed the server version to Windows 2003, although it was fairly close to the XP code base, it was not exact. As the NT line goes, Windows 2003 is split about at the same point as XP SP2. The XBox 360 is split between Windows 2003 server and Vista, as it has some of the Vista kernel and video technologies, like features from WDDM and features from DX11 even.

Vista and Win7 returned to the traditional NT concept, which is a unified code base and a unified binary base for the same architecture for both desktop/server versions.

So Win7 x64 is the same code and executables as Windows Server 2008 R2.

As for the consumer numbers...

Even in Microsoft some of this is still debated. Some inside Microsoft would argue the version numbers and consumer version numbers that you are using and some would argue that Win2k,WinXP = 5 & 5.1 (as these are the kernel versions), they would also argue that Vista and Win 7 = 6 & 6.1 (again, as these are the kernel versions).

I agree that Microsoft did not consider Win2k a consumer release, as WinXP was the first Windows NT consumer release.

Rudy said,
Is that really the only flaw you found in his "logic"? His whole post is wrong

The version number actually comes from the NT kernel version number (funny thing is that like qdave pointed out Win7 is actually 6.1 ). So Windows 1,2,3, 95, 98, ME don't count towards that "version"

Ya, this is where all of this is a bit goofy.

As it would be just as accurate to start with DOS 1.0 and then progress through all the DOS versions and Win 3.x versions on DOS, and then do the Win9x OSes, and then migrate on to the NT OSes as they because the only desktop OS Microsoft continued with.

This traverses several OS technologies, and there is more difference between Win98 and WinXP than there is between Win95 and DOS 1.0.

The jump from DOS to a GUI environment on DOS was big, and the jump to Win9x OS was a big jump from DOS. However, the jump from any of these to Windows NT (which includes WinXP) is 100x more massive of a change.

dimitris said,
lol

Ohhh. He forget the various Win95 releases. He just stopped at saying it was Windows 95. It would have been fun to see OSR 2.1 and, or OSR 2.5... I remember the version that had umda, usb2, mmx and full support (well kind of ) for my Gateway P6 266MHz mini tower.

As for Win95... I seem to remember 12 or so floppies, but that was the original Win95. The wiki articles says 26 in OSR 2.1... wow.

justmike said,

It's really not the same unless you use the 25 floppy version of Windows 95.

I did that once on an old IBM PC jr that was a 286. I used the floppies. IOther than the fact the floppy drive it has was very slow, it took 3 hours to install. I kid you not. And it was slow too.

justmike said,

It's really not the same unless you use the 25 floppy version of Windows 95.

What about the 40ish floppy version of Windows 98?