Windows 1.0

windows xp had a third service pack? never used it

Yup, and it has some fixes that were not shipped in other patches. It is actually really recommended to use it if you ever do use XP for anything.

>>Windows Vista
>>Windows XP SP3
>>Windows Server 2008
>>Windows 7
>>Windows 8
>>Windows 8.1
>>Windows 10
is really just windows 6

What the hell was the difference between Win2k and Win ME? The NT Kernel? I lived through that time period and I legit thought they were the same thing; that ME was slang for 2000. I jumped from Win98SE to WinXP because the one box I saw that had ME ran like absolute dogshit.

Why would someone not use the latest version of the Linux Kernel? Honest question, might be retarded but I don't know.

Latest version is too bloated

>xp
>2000 to retards and mutts

>Including windows server
I'd argue that that's a seperated thing. It's not an OS intended for the avarage consumer.

>What the hell was the difference between Win2k and Win ME? The NT Kernel?
2k was basically a 9x skin for NT. No DOS base (DOS-based programs like older games won't run), but superior in every other aspect.

Windows 2000 was NT. Same as NT 4.0 and XP. Yes, it had the NT kernel.
Windows Me was DOS/Win9x. Same as Windows 95/98. It ran on the DOS kernel with extensions.

Vista is unironically better than XP. XP's lack of support (and therefore security updates) has rendered it unsafe to use on any machine that's connected to the internet.

Where are:
>Windows 8.1 Update 1
>Windows Embedded Standard 2009, Windows Embedded POSReady 2009
>Server 2008/Vista SP1, SP2
>Windows 2000 SP1-SP4
>Windows 3.2(简体中文版)
>Windows 10 1507, 1511, 1607, 1703, 1709, 1803
>Windows Server 2008 R2, Windows Server 2012, Windows Server 2012 R2, Windows Server 2003 R2
>Windows NT 4.0 SP1-SP6

e.t.c.?

If we argue like that, neither was NT 3.1.

Thanks for contributing.

But 2000 was better than both.

Linux had started in '92, Windows in '85.
And it is not correct comparing Windows (the DE for DOS) and kernel.
Comparing MS-DOS and GNU/Linux would be more correct.

I'm not sure what to tell you about Vista security updates either, user.

I would how would be a Bill Gates interjection.
>this isn't windows but dos/windows

I think you mean
>Windows 1.0
>Windows 2.0
>Windows 3.0
>Windows 3.1
>Windows NT 3.1
>Windows 3.11
>Windows NT 3.5
>Windows NT 3.51
>Windows 4.0
>Windows NT 4.0
>Windows 4.03
>Windows 4.10
>Windows NT 5.0
>Windows 4.90
>Windows NT 5.1
>Windows NT 5.2
>Windows NT 6.0
>Windows NT 6.1
>Windows NT 6.2
>Windows NT 6.3
>Windows NT 10.0

Wrong
>Windows 1.0/PC-DOS 3.0
>Windows 2.0/PC-DOS 3.0
>Windows 3.0/PC-DOS 5.0
>Windows 3.1/MS-DOS 5.0
>Windows NT 3.1/NT 3.1
>Windows 3.11/MS-DOS 5.0
>Windows NT 3.5/NT 3.5
>Windows NT 3.51/NT 3.51
>Windows 95/MS-DOS 6.22
>Windows 95 SP1/MS-DOS 6.22
>Windows NT 4.0/NT 4.0
>Windows 95 OSR2/MS-DOS 6.22
>Windows 95 OSR2.5/MS-DOS 6.22
>Windows 98/MS-DOS 6.22
>Windows 98 SE/MS-DOS 6.22
>Windows 2000/NT 5.0
>Windows ME/MS-DOS 6.22
>Windows XP/NT 5.1
>Windows XP 64-bit/NT 5.2
>Windows Server 2003/NT 5.2
>Windows XP MCE 2003/NT 5.1
>Windows XP MCE 2005/NT 5.1
>Windows XP SP2/NT 5.1
>Windows Vista/NT 6.0
>Windows XP SP3/NT 5.1
>Windows Server 2008/NT 6.1
>Windows 7/NT 6.1
>Windows 8/NT 6.3
>Windows 8.1/NT 6.3
>Windows 10/NT 10, because Fuck you.

>XP's lack of support (and therefore security updates) has rendered it unsafe to use on any machine that's connected to the internet.
Can't believe people on Jow Forums actually think that way.

That would still be wrong. DOS is an OS.
It's kernel is in IO.SYS, OS in MSDOS.SYS and shell interpreter in Command.com, rest of it is in it's own folder usually named DOS and not mandatory for basic usage.

GNU/Linux is just GNU utilities with Linux kernel. Debian would be an example of an OS based on Linux kernel.

I'm not sure if you're just googling random shit or what, but Windows 1.0 thru 3.0 did not come with PC-DOS but MS-DOS.
I have all original install media for them right here. PC-DOS only came with IBM's own PCs.

Let me interject a moment. What you are referring as Windows is in fact Windows/DOS and Windows/NT, or as I've recently taken to call it Windows plus DOS, and Windows NT.
Windows is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another proprietary component of a fully functioning Windows/DOS or Windows/NT system made useful by the kernel corelibs, hardware drivers, and vital system components comprising a full OS.
Many computer users run a version of the Windows/NT or Windows/DOS system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of Windows/NT or Windows/DOS which is widely used today is often called Windows, and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the MS-DOS or NT system, developed by the Microsoft.
There really is a Windows, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Windows is the shell: the program in the system
that draws pretty GUI. The shell is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Windows is normally used in combination with the MS-DOS or NT operating system: the whole system
is basically DOS or NT with Windows added, or Windows/NT or Windows/DOS. All the so-called "Windows".

Attached: billy-interjection.jpg (275x183, 5K)

The kernel is NTkrnl, resides in NTkrnl.exe.

I think, that Window 1.0 was just a shell, not an OS on itself.

All of them were that were based on DOS, but they came bundles with DOS on the install media.

I think you'll find it is "ntoskrnl.exe"

Why fucking NT is not as consistent as Linux through versions?

he saved billions of lifes what fuckin stallman saved? a laptop maybe.

Stallman had saved his virginity.

Someone make a good list pls

this is the real list

Doesn't it miss some?

not really

Attached: Windows_Updated_Family_Tree.png (1024x568, 135K)

But it's missing and incorrect at parts.

Should just use

What does NT mean?

New Technology

Skipped a few windows.
Off the top of my head, server 2012.

>Mac OS
>Mac OS X
>OS X
>Mac OS

What did applel actually mean by this?

It's 30 years old already. What makes it "New"?

The tracking and backdoors

>2k was basically a 9x skin for NT.
I always saw it the other way around; ME being a 2k skin for 9x. NT 4.0 already looked like 9x.

>Windows NT
>NT = New Technology
I never understood this. They hired the VMS team to reimplement VMS but with Windowsisms and backwards compatibility.

compile it without bloat

VMS+1=WNT

So? 2000 isn't supported.

Eh? It's still supported and it doesn't have any of the telemetry crap, right?

Do tell? Security on Windows needs all of the help that it gets. I fucking dare you to take a fresh, totally unupdated Windows 7 machine out on the internet. It won't last a week. I doubt that a fully updated XP will even make it a month.

Windows 7 SP1 is missing too

Not completely. Most increment according to a scheme, which are typically not arbitrary.

WHERE IS MCE 2004
>XP is NT 6
>t. retard

Attached: 1464183983787.jpg (250x241, 7K)

who this qtp2t

Windows NT has 0 actual DOS components in it. The analogy fails.

Windows/NT by itself would be funny though.