<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Windows 8 and Windows 9: Various Tidbits</title>
	<atom:link href="http://msftkitchen.com/2009/04/windows-8-and-windows-9-various-tidbits.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://msftkitchen.com/2009/04/windows-8-and-windows-9-various-tidbits.html</link>
	<description>Heard of Windows 8? Learn about Windows 8, Office 15, Windows Mobile 8 and more. The future of Microsoft, here @ MSFTKitchen: The #1 Windows 8 resource!</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2012 18:35:26 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: EXCLUSIVE: Windows 8 and Windows 9 Kernels to Support 128-bit Architecture?</title>
		<link>http://msftkitchen.com/2009/04/windows-8-and-windows-9-various-tidbits.html/comment-page-1#comment-762</link>
		<dc:creator>EXCLUSIVE: Windows 8 and Windows 9 Kernels to Support 128-bit Architecture?</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Oct 2009 13:16:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://msftkitchen.com/?p=115#comment-762</guid>
		<description>[...] Interestingly enough, this isn’t the first time I’ve seen mention of Windows 9 (see here and here). With all of that in mind, it appears as though Windows 8 and Windows 9 are shaping up to [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Interestingly enough, this isn’t the first time I’ve seen mention of Windows 9 (see here and here). With all of that in mind, it appears as though Windows 8 and Windows 9 are shaping up to [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://msftkitchen.com/2009/04/windows-8-and-windows-9-various-tidbits.html/comment-page-1#comment-593</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Aug 2009 14:34:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://msftkitchen.com/?p=115#comment-593</guid>
		<description>I believe that Windows 8 will actually have its internal major version set to 8 instead of 6 or 7.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Here are the major/minor versions of NT-based Windows (with the internal major/minor versions for Windows 2000 and later in parentheses):&lt;br /&gt;- NT 3.1&lt;br /&gt;- NT 3.5&lt;br /&gt;- NT 3.51&lt;br /&gt;- NT 4.0&lt;br /&gt;- Windows 2000 (5.0)&lt;br /&gt;- Windows XP (5.1)&lt;br /&gt;- Windows Server 2003 / XP Professional x64 (5.2)&lt;br /&gt;- Windows Vista / Windows Server 2008 (6.0)&lt;br /&gt;- Windows 7 / Windows Server 2008 R2 (6.1)&lt;br /&gt;- Windows 8 (8.0)&lt;br /&gt;- Windows 9 (9.0)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Notice that the GetVersionEx() call for Windows 8 will return 8 as its major version (and not 6 or 7). Microsoft actually skipped major versions in Microsoft Office at least twice. Office 95, which was the 32-bit successor to Office 4.2 and 4.3, was Office 7.0. Office 2010, which is the upcoming release of Office, is Office 14, while Office 2007 was Office 12.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Programs that carry the Windows logo are required to accept higher major versions of Windows. In addition, accepting higher major versions of Windows was required for programs to run correctly on NT 4, Windows 2000, Windows XP, and Windows Vista.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Given that applications have been required to accept higher major versions in the past, and the limitations of the GetVersionEx() call, Microsoft will actually increase the internal major version, or the major version that would be returned by the GetVersionEx() call. Programmers should expect the GetVersionEx() call to set the major version to 8 on Windows 8, and 6 on Windows Vista and Windows 7. Programmers should also be prepared to accept higher major version numbers, as they did in the past (even though version checking was done incorrectly).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I believe that Windows 8 will actually have its internal major version set to 8 instead of 6 or 7.</p>
<p>Here are the major/minor versions of NT-based Windows (with the internal major/minor versions for Windows 2000 and later in parentheses):<br />- NT 3.1<br />- NT 3.5<br />- NT 3.51<br />- NT 4.0<br />- Windows 2000 (5.0)<br />- Windows XP (5.1)<br />- Windows Server 2003 / XP Professional x64 (5.2)<br />- Windows Vista / Windows Server 2008 (6.0)<br />- Windows 7 / Windows Server 2008 R2 (6.1)<br />- Windows 8 (8.0)<br />- Windows 9 (9.0)</p>
<p>Notice that the GetVersionEx() call for Windows 8 will return 8 as its major version (and not 6 or 7). Microsoft actually skipped major versions in Microsoft Office at least twice. Office 95, which was the 32-bit successor to Office 4.2 and 4.3, was Office 7.0. Office 2010, which is the upcoming release of Office, is Office 14, while Office 2007 was Office 12.</p>
<p>Programs that carry the Windows logo are required to accept higher major versions of Windows. In addition, accepting higher major versions of Windows was required for programs to run correctly on NT 4, Windows 2000, Windows XP, and Windows Vista.</p>
<p>Given that applications have been required to accept higher major versions in the past, and the limitations of the GetVersionEx() call, Microsoft will actually increase the internal major version, or the major version that would be returned by the GetVersionEx() call. Programmers should expect the GetVersionEx() call to set the major version to 8 on Windows 8, and 6 on Windows Vista and Windows 7. Programmers should also be prepared to accept higher major version numbers, as they did in the past (even though version checking was done incorrectly).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

