Hi, my name is Gabe Newell and I’ll teach you how to count to ten: Image
1, 2
Learn how to count with Bill Gates
Submitted 5 months ago by Andromxda@lemmy.dbzer0.com to [deleted]
https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/pictrs/image/d03e8407-71df-4c6e-a7d7-db06369f6d8f.png
Comments
Hupf@feddit.de 5 months ago
konalt@lemmy.world 5 months ago
2 Episode 1, 2 Episode 2, Alyx
umbrella@lemmy.ml 5 months ago
RE: Re: FWD: RE:
Saganaki@lemmy.one 5 months ago
The reason there isn’t a Windows 9 is because there was a common test for windows versions that went something like this:
std::string winVer = getWinVerStr(); if (winVer.find(“Windows 9”) != -1) { // This is windows 95 or 98 }
dan@upvote.au 5 months ago
This is a myth. Windows version numbers are numbers, not strings. Windows 95 was actually 4.0. The Win32 API doesn’t even havea method that returns the string “Windows 95”!
Actually it’s not entirely a myth - there was some Java library that did this - but it wasn’t widespread at all, and certainly not standard.
Saganaki@lemmy.one 5 months ago
WMI was introduced in XP (I think? Was it later?) and asking WMI for the version string was pretty common.
Gumbyyy@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Lmao they only considered 95 > 98 > ME to be minor version updates? They didn’t even deserve their own major version? Although it’s probably pretty accurate, I remember 98 basically just being a slightly updated 95. I never used ME so no idea with that. It’s still pretty funny though.
bitwaba@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Close but not exactly. Windows 5 was 2000, Windows 5.1 was Windows XP.
But it’s more confusing than that because of the two different lines: the MS-DOS based line which covered Windows 1.0 through ME, and the multi-user NT line for workstations and servers which adopted the same version numbers as the currently released MS-DOS line that was available at the same time. I.E. windows NT 3.1 used the windows 3.1 UI from the DOS line, but was New-Technology instead of DOS under the hood. NT4 used the DOS based win95 UI, and NT5 was Windows 2000 also with the familiar Windows 9x UI. Everything since XP has been exclusively NT under the hood.
EmperorHenry@discuss.tchncs.de 5 months ago
What about windows millennium edition?
Blackmist@feddit.uk 5 months ago
We don’t talk about Windows ME.
MehBlah@lemmy.world 5 months ago
It was the true mistake edition.
jnk@sh.itjust.works 5 months ago
dumbass@leminal.space 5 months ago
Its always ME ME ME with you lot!
kelargo@lemmy.world 5 months ago
You make me WinCE
SirW00talot@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Was dude even at the company after Vista?
adespoton@lemmy.ca 5 months ago
Nope. Bill left MS in 2008 and Windows 7 came out in 2009.
Also the joke left out Windows 10x, AKA 11.
And for some reason, it includes NT and Win2k, but leaves out all the other Server versions (2003 through 23H2).
doc_dish@lemm.ee 5 months ago
NT (3.x & 4.0) and 2000 were also available as Workstation editions. They were concurrent with Windows 3.x, 95, 98 and ME (which did get missed on the above)
baggachipz@sh.itjust.works 5 months ago
Yeah the whole meme is funny but stupid and wrong. It’s like blaming Steve Jobs for the Vision Pro.
kshade@lemmy.world 5 months ago
I wonder if they will call the next versions 12 and especially 13. Alternative names:
- Windows AI
- Windows Azure Blue, Red and Yellow
- Windows Edge 20XX
- Windows. Just Windows.
tomkatt@lemmy.world 5 months ago
How about Windows NoPrivacyOnlyAdsForYou Edition? Kinda rolls nicely off the tongue.
eya@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 months ago
i mean that applies to every windows version ever so :P
kshade@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Could shorten that to Windows NP
amio@kbin.social 5 months ago
I distinctly remember this joke when 2000 or ME was the most recent one.
OhStopYellingAtMe@lemmy.world 5 months ago
0, 360, One, X, S…
creditCrazy@lemmy.world 5 months ago
People say valve can’t count to 3 but Microsoft is guessing what number comes after 0
intensely_human@lemm.ee 5 months ago
Isn’t it
nullthough?
wander1236@sh.itjust.works 5 months ago
NT 3.1 came out before 95, and isn’t a single version (Windows 11 is still Windows NT). If you include NT as a version, you can’t include 2000, XP, or anything after.
Rentlar@lemmy.ca 5 months ago
Sotuanduso@lemm.ee 5 months ago
Yeah I’m over here on Windows 13.
dan@upvote.au 5 months ago
I’m on Windows 2000 which is 1987 versions ahead of Windows 13.
son_named_bort@lemmy.world 5 months ago
I thought 1 came after 360.
EarthShipTechIntern@lemm.ee 5 months ago
This thing goes to ELEVEN now.
jol@discuss.tchncs.de 5 months ago
That’s how old this meme is.
mrgreyeyes@feddit.nl 5 months ago
The ancient texts are resurfaced.
EarthShipTechIntern@lemm.ee 5 months ago
C’mon! It is not as old as Spinal Tap!
webPunk@lemmy.world 5 months ago
But why not just make Windows 10 better? ;P
johannesvanderwhales@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Really chafing at mixing NT codebase with 9x codebase (especially when NT had versions).
dan@upvote.au 5 months ago
9x had versions too… 95 was 4.0 and 98 was 4.1.
Korne127@lemmy.world 5 months ago
For anyone really curious about this, 1, 2, 3, 95 and 98 are using the old MS-DOS Kernel. Windows 3 was the first product also released with an alternative new NT Kernel and available as Windows 3 NT.
So then when they continued with this NT Kernel they continued to count the version number like that (at least retrospectively when creating Windows 7).
Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Theres the problem. Everytime hes tried to go sequential, he fucks it up
IronKrill@lemmy.ca 5 months ago
Facebook
over_clox@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Thank you Bill, now I can math!
Everythingispenguins@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Well fuck time to relearn math again
flambonkscious@sh.itjust.works 5 months ago
Quality, but what about ME, and arguably 3.11. Does NT cover both 3.5.1 and 4? (my memory is hazy about earlier)
IIII@lemmy.world 5 months ago
8.1 as well
EtherWhack@lemmy.world 5 months ago
I see 8.1 as 9. Will never not.
db2@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Bob
saltesc@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Fuck you. Bringing up ME and making me relive the memories. Even as a kid, I couldn’t stand it wanted 98 back.
ME and Vista are by far the worst to date.
aeronmelon@lemmy.world 5 months ago
11 is trying its darnedest.
EtherWhack@lemmy.world 5 months ago
I personally never had any issues with Vista. Even deferred win7 for 4-5 years until I got curious. Though I did have a system made for it, so that was part of it.
MxM111@kbin.social 5 months ago
8 was quite bad too
aeronmelon@lemmy.world 5 months ago
I don’t know if they reclassified it at some point, but back on those days 3.5 was titled “Windows for Workgroups” and 4.0 was the first to be known simply as “NT”.
BillibusMaximus@sh.itjust.works 5 months ago
3.11 was WfW, and ran on top of DOS just like 3.1 did.
NT 3.51 used the NT kernel, and (mostly) looked like 3.1/3.11 on the surface. NT 4 used the NT kernel, and (mostly) looked like Win95.
Win 95/98/Me also ran on DOS, though it was more tightly integrated than it was in the 3.1 days.
Win 2k and everything after was based on NT.
brianorca@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Replace NT in this list with ME and you have all the consumer versions. NT was the business version in parallel with 3, 95, 98, and ME.
GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 5 months ago
Win2k wasn’t consumer. It was the business offering at the same time as ME, which may be surprising to some. Xp was their successor, merging the business and personal lines.
Everythingispenguins@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Also 98SE, is that just covered by 98? I don’t think it should be there’s a reason they released a second edition.