|
| | | 
Administrator
Group: Administrators
Last Login: 11/11/2008 9:24:04 PM
Posts: 2,103, Visits: 2,251 |
| Software may have an "internal" version number which differs from the version number shown in the product name (and which typically follows version numbering rules more consistently). J2SE 5.0, for example, has the internal version number of 1.5.0, and versions of Windows from 95 on have continued the standard numerical versions internally: Windows 95 is Windows 4.0, 98 is 4.10, 2000 is 5.0, Me is 4.90, XP is 5.1, 2003 is 5.2, and Vista is 6.0.
I think I'm gona refer to vista as windows 6.0 from now on, so everyone gets confused..
AMD64 X2 5200+ 2.60GHz | 3GB DDR 667 | RAID 0 SATA3.0 WD Caviars 320GB total | Foxconn MCP61VM2MA-RS2H Geforce 6100 nforce400 chipset | Vista Ultimate x86
 |
| |
| | | | 
Vista Forum Moderator
Group: Vista Forum Moderator
Last Login: Today @ 4:45:07 PM
Posts: 142, Visits: 973 |
| Jason (6/20/2007)
Software may have an "internal" version number which differs from the version number shown in the product name (and which typically follows version numbering rules more consistently). J2SE 5.0, for example, has the internal version number of 1.5.0, and versions of Windows from 95 on have continued the standard numerical versions internally: Windows 95 is Windows 4.0, 98 is 4.10, 2000 is 5.0, Me is 4.90, XP is 5.1, 2003 is 5.2, and Vista is 6.0.
I think I'm gona refer to vista as windows 6.0 from now on, so everyone gets confused.. Hahaha! Windows 2000 came out before ME but its version number is higher. Seems like Microsoft expected ME to fail.
My Computer:
Windows Vista Ultimate Edition-ASUS M3A32-MVP WiFi Edition-AMD Phenom 9600 2.3 GHz Black Edition-4 GB DDR2-1000 (@1066 MHz)-Ati Radeon 3870 HD 512 MB-Two 320 GB SATA II Harddrives in RAID 0-800 Watt Tagan BZ Series Modular PSU
|
| |
| |
|