|
XP SP2 had major changes to the OS.
I *may* be wrong, I never purchased a copy, but I would imagine that if you purchased a copy in 2005, it would be XP SP2, not just XP with no service packs installed.
|
|
|
|
|
Service Pack 2 (SP2) was released on August 25, 2004,[57] SP2 added new functionality to Windows XP, such as WPA encryption compatibility and improved Wi-Fi support (with a wizard utility), a pop-up ad blocker for Internet Explorer 6, and partial Bluetooth support.
Service Pack 2 also added new security enhancements (codenamed "Springboard"),[58] which included a major revision to the included firewall (renamed Windows Firewall, and now enabled by default), Data Execution Prevention gained hardware support in the NX bit that can stop some forms of buffer overflow attacks. Also raw socket support is removed (which supposedly limits the damage done by zombie machines). Additionally, security-related improvements were made to e-mail and web browsing. Service Pack 2 also added Security Center, an interface which provides a general overview of the system's security status, including the state of the firewall and automatic updates. Third-party firewall and antivirus software can also be monitored from Security Center.[59]
Nothing in there is a noticeable change to the user
|
|
|
|
|
Not sure what you're getting at here with the "noticeable change" philosophy. If the logo changed to a from the Windows banner to a leprechaun, would that constitute a "major version"?
I think we can agree to disagree. Your perspective is unlikely to change, and I think that it can be safely said I will not align myself with your feelings.
Have a great weekend buddy ! Blow off some steam, and come back fresh on Monday. 
|
|
|
|
|
Well, XP lasted for quite some time, so Windows 9 might too I guess 
Anyway, not sure when but I'm guessing the release of Windows 9 is going to happen.
|
|
|
|
|
There was no Windows 6.
There is more evidence that the next version will be called Windows OneCore or Windows 8.2 then there is it being called Windows 9.
|
|
|
|
|
ok, so its literally just the name you're taking issue with? When I said 'Windows 9' I thought it obvious that just meant 'the next major release of Windows'.
No idea what they'll actually call it
|
|
|
|
|
Windows 8.1 was the next major release of Windows after Windows 8.
And thank you for confirming my point.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not entirely sure what your point was tbh. I'm sure there will be another major release of Windows on the horizon. What it'll be called, I'm not sure. I think Windows 9 is sort of the generic term for it right now
|
|
|
|
|
|
Or it could very well be Windows 9. What's the big deal? Why are you worried about what they call it?
|
|
|
|
|
Microsoft is calling it the next release of windows without saying 9 for a reason, when any company has avoided such a thing in the past - it is to avoid an uproar when the public finds out they are not getting what they expect.
|
|
|
|
|
I suspect there isn't that much to it. The next version will be called something, I just don't see the naming as being terribly significant. The important thing will be seeing what ends up actually being in it, not what its called.
|
|
|
|
|
My point is
Windows 8 exists
Windows Threshold exists
Windows 9 could exist - but doesn't.
And anyone that can't admit that is full of sh*t.
|
|
|
|
|
I looked again at your original post to see what I was missing. I think I got it now. You're referring to the underlying version numbers used by Windows right? i.e. the below link?
MSDN Operating System Version
The version numbers there are obviously a completely different thing than the product naming used. Windows XP, Windows Vista, Windows 7, Windows 8, Windows 9, etc.
There's no reason 6.4 couldn't be called Windows 9. So are you just nit-picking about the difference between the internal version numbers and the product names?
|
|
|
|
|
No I was not referring to that numbering system in my original post.
|
|
|
|
|
well, clearly you have some sort of axe to grind - I'm just not sure I understand what that is
|
|
|
|
|
The axe to sue Microsoft.
|
|
|
|
|
oh, you're going to sue Microsoft over their version naming or something? good luck
|
|
|
|
|
|
you're the one that started this discussion thread 
|
|
|
|
|
Colborne_Greg wrote: There is no such thing is windows 9.
So Microsoft is lying as well?
Let me guess; when let out of the basement and not taking your medication, you walk around with tin foil hat.
You are a loon.
(In response to other assertions; Windows Vista & Server 2008 had the internal version number of 6.0. What is called Windows 8.1 has the internal version number of 6.3. It doesn't really matter. Microsoft could call the next major version, Windows Elephant and yet people will still refer to it as Windows 9.
In the meantime, go back on your medication.)
|
|
|
|
|
Show me where Microsoft has declared windows 9, you wont because they haven't.
|
|
|
|
|
ABUSIVE! ABUSIVE! ABUSIVE!
(I did that so he wouldn't have to.)
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not really sure where should I post this question, so I came here.
I'm writing an article, but the project requires ROM files of a legacy system in order to run. Now I don't think these files are 100% legal to distribute freely, so what do you think is the best course of actions? Should I provide link to external location where these can be downloaded or include it with source code/executables anyways?
Edit:
It's 30 years old firmware from a company that does not exist for the last 20 years.
modified 23-Jul-14 13:54pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Mock them up. 
You'll never get very far if all you do is follow instructions.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
