http://www.edbott.com/weblog/?s=%22windows+95%22
"Why do the Windows developers feel this new way is an advantage?"
The collective uproar over Microsoft’s decision to kill the Start menu in Windows 8 reminds me of this discussion I found in microsoft.public.win95.shellui.
Microsoft hasn’t had good luck with Windows launches this decade, and Windows 7 is probably going to continue that unfortunate tradition.
The version history of the various Windows families goes like this:
Windows 3.0 and 3.1 (and Windows for Workgroups 3.11) from the early 1990s used the version numbers as part of their name.
The first releases of Windows NT, also from that era, followed suit, with Windows NT 3.1 and 3.5.
Windows 95 was technically version 4.0. Windows NT 4.0, which was released exactly a year after Windows 95, adopted the Windows 95 interface. Windows 98 was version 4.10.1998 and Windows 98 Second Edition was 4.10.2222A. The
much-maligned Windows Me was 4.90.3000. (History lessons here and here for those who care.)
Windows 2000 was the first release in the version 5 family. It was followed by Windows XP, which was version 5.1.
Service packs are identified by build numbers, but service packs do not affect the version number.
Windows Vista was Windows 6.0 (Vista Service Pack 1 is build 6001, as the screen shot above shows). Because the next release of Windows is going to be based on the same kernel as Windows Vista, it should have the version number 6.1.
Indeed, every copy of Windows 7 that has leaked to public view so far has had a build number of 6.1.xxxx. This numbering is almost certain to remain in the final product. If the major version number changed to 7.0, many applications written for Windows Vista would fail to install or run properly, simply because of version checking.
So if the next release of Windows is version 6.1, why call it Windows 7?
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/vista-isnt-me2-its-win95-12-years/261
Vista isn't Me2, it's Win95 + 12 years
Summary: The similarities between Vista and Windows 95 are striking: Unachievable levels of hype; a long and public beta; initial compatibility, performance, and stability problems. If history repeats itself
A very long and public beta. Windows 95 was in wide-scale beta releases for nearly two years. Similarly, the first public beta release of Windows Vista was released in July 2005, roughly 18 months before its eventual final release. Having buggy, incomplete code in your users’ hands for that long guarantees disappointment in the final release.
http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/questions/101-390272/immersive-apps-for-windows-8-can-only-be-downloaded-from-windows-store
Q:Immersive Apps for Windows 8 can only be downloaded from Windows Store ?
