Windows 7 has Kernel 6.1 because its only a small "update" to vista Vista is NT 6, right XP is NT 5.1 2000 is NT 5 NT isnt correct so... there were NT 4.0 and earlier 3.51, 3.5 and 3.1. They were no earlier NTs, they started back then With 3.x
Windows 3.1 was DOS based, like 2.x and 1.x and they DO NOT HAVE ANYTHING to do with NT which is talked about here...
no, real Windows NT was NT 3.1 back in early 90's, then NT 3.5 and 3.51 came, then NT 4.0 and Windows NT 4.0, than NT 5.0 which was later renamed to Windows 2000 (codename was "Memphis NT".
no it's not. 10.4 and 10.5 are basically differentiated by subversions, as opposed to the parent version, which is 5. The relationship between 5 and 5.1 is different from the relationship between two subversions. Apples and oranges.
And to put it in context, Windows XP is in fact based on and built from Windows 2000; as such, makes sense that it's within the same parent version (5 to 5.1 as opposed to 6.0, which denotes a full milestone and a new version)
i read that windows 7 is gonna have the same requeriments of vista 2gb ram 2ghz cpu (the real requeriments), so i don't see what's the advantage of this new kernel if this is true.
Who is MS trying to fool here...??? They are sure going to lower the number of lines in it's kernel but all he did was show us the "KERNEL", not the OS... What makes the OS is all the applications that comes with it and there was none in this presentation.
Google slitaz or DSL and see what they are doing with similar system resources and they include a gui!
This is riduculous! but hopefully still a step in the right direction.
Windows 7 has Kernel 6.1 because its only a small "update" to vista
Vista is NT 6, right
XP is NT 5.1
2000 is NT 5
NT isnt correct so... there were NT 4.0 and earlier 3.51, 3.5 and 3.1.
They were no earlier NTs, they started back then With 3.x
Windows 3.1 was DOS based, like 2.x and 1.x and they DO NOT HAVE ANYTHING to do with NT which is talked about here...
later then they did XP as 5.1.
That's how you gain knowledge, dipshit.
And to put it in context, Windows XP is in fact based on and built from Windows 2000; as such, makes sense that it's within the same parent version (5 to 5.1 as opposed to 6.0, which denotes a full milestone and a new version)