Discussion
captain_cynic said:
The threads should obviously follow the Microsoft convention.
1, 2, 3, 3.11, 95, 98, ME, XP, 7, 8, 10, 11.
Obsv, we should skip Vista like everyone else did.
How about Android system names?1, 2, 3, 3.11, 95, 98, ME, XP, 7, 8, 10, 11.
Obsv, we should skip Vista like everyone else did.
1, 1.1, Cupcake, Donut, Eclair, Froyo, Gingerbread, Honeycomb, Ice Cream Sandwich, Jelly Bean, KitKat, Lollipop, Marshmallow, Nougat, Oreo, Pie, 10, 11, 12.
vaud said:
captain_cynic said:
The threads should obviously follow the Microsoft convention.
1, 2, 3, 3.11, 95, 98, ME, XP, 7, 8, 10, 11.
Obsv, we should skip Vista like everyone else did.
What about NT 3.5, NT 4 and 2000? 1, 2, 3, 3.11, 95, 98, ME, XP, 7, 8, 10, 11.
Obsv, we should skip Vista like everyone else did.
So we'd continue that list with 2003, 2008, 2008R2 et al.
captain_cynic said:
I skipped those as they're server OSs.
No they're not! Everything in your list from Windows XP onwards is based on Windows NT technology. The non-NT operating systems were retired with Windows ME. Windows NT was the professional desktop operating system and Windows 3.x -> 9x was the domestic / home desktop operating system. Then Microsoft unified the two with Windows 2000, which was then succeeded by XP.
The server ones were different again.
But, hey, keep digging. This is all very amusing seeing you compound your mistakes and trying to sound like you have a clue what you are talking about when you clearly don't.
Edited by Clockwork Cupcake on Wednesday 20th October 18:22
As an aside, I remember when Windows 95 came out and you could side load the UI onto NT (it was a skunworks project similar to PowerToys which was allowed to escape) and of course pretty much every developer where I was working at did before Management asked us to stop doing so, or at the very least retain testing machines with the traditional UI, as the rollout was not going to have the new UI. By the time the product was deployed, everyone was running the new UI as it was so much better.
Edited by Clockwork Cupcake on Wednesday 20th October 18:34
S6PNJ said:
I might be setting myself up for a fall here, but.... [pedantic mode] doesn't NT stand for 'New Technology', so NT technology is a tautology (or whatever the correct phrase is)? [/pedantic mode]
Yes, you're right. But it's one of those things that became a thing in its own right (like DVD) and by the time 2K came out then Microsoft were actively marketing it it as "based on NT technology" so probably best to take it up with them. (DVD started out as an acronym for "Digital Video Disc" but was ultimately changed to just be a word in its own right, and I think NT did too. There is some debate as to whether or not DVD was retconned to "Digital Versatile Disc" but I'm pretty sure that DVD just stands for DVD now)
Edited by Clockwork Cupcake on Wednesday 20th October 18:46
deckster said:
ajprice said:
Voldemort said:
As it's getting close, a petition to number the next volume of the Geek Jokes thread in roman numerals. Seems geeky and we can all laugh at the people who ask where volumes 2-10 are.
We should do it in binary, which has the same effect but is much, much more geeky.
vaud said:
captain_cynic said:
I skipped those as they're server OSs.
So we'd continue that list with 2003, 2008, 2008R2 et al.
No. See Mr Cupcake.So we'd continue that list with 2003, 2008, 2008R2 et al.
There's always been a difference between a Windows Server OS and Windows Desktop OS.
Workstation OSs and Desktop OSs were merged in Window XP, Windows 2000 was the last workstation.
captain_cynic said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Server
There's always been a difference between a Windows Server OS and Windows Desktop OS.
Yes, there has. And Windows NT (as opposed to Windows NT Server) was a Desktop OS and hence should have been in your list. There's always been a difference between a Windows Server OS and Windows Desktop OS.
Keep digging.
Clockwork Cupcake said:
captain_cynic said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Server
There's always been a difference between a Windows Server OS and Windows Desktop OS.
Yes, there has. And Windows NT (as opposed to Windows NT Server) was a Desktop OS and hence should have been in your list. There's always been a difference between a Windows Server OS and Windows Desktop OS.
Keep digging.
vaud said:
Quite. Early in my career I maintained a fleet of NT4 workstations as desktop (ok, niche) environments.
NT 3.51 (followed by NT 4) with Visual C++ (as it was back then before it became Visual Studio) was my primary development platform back in the mid-90's. Generally Windows 95 was considered a bit Noddy for serious business development. 
Caruso said:
As regards to the naming convention for the new thread, if we're being true to our Geek selves we should come up with our own unique convention agreed by some sort of self appointed technical design authority.
We may need a new thread for that, and debate might be so heated that it may need its own continuation thread before this one does. 
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff