General Discussion - Does anyone know the answer to this?

Author

Does anyone know the answer to this?

kaine26

2001-07-24, 8:21 am

This might seem like an odd question, but I would be interested to find out the answer to this.

Office 2000 came out before Windows 2000. Windows 95 came out in 95 and 98 in 98. Why was there an Office 97? Is it because windows 98 was due out in 97? Or am I looking for logic in something that has no logic to it!?!?!?

I ask this, because I am currently writing training courses for my work, and would like to know the answer to this just in case someone brings it up as a question (which I am sure they won't)

Thanks.

XtremeFighter

2001-07-24, 10:07 am

I never thought of this before, but I would say because windows 98 was due out in 97.

Regards,
XF

Nicole

2001-07-24, 10:11 am

Don't quote me on it, because I'm not 100% sure, but wasn't Windows 98 originally called Windows 97, but was so late being released that they renamed to to 98?

Office 98 was simply the Mac version of Office 97.

I don't think there's any intentional logic to it. Major releases just come out about every 2 years. NT had new versions in that time period, too.

lennon57

2001-07-26, 8:05 am

Windows 93...opps, I mean Windows94...ummm Windows95 aka Chicago was the one that was late.
Office97 was just a upgrade to Word 6.0, integrating PowerPoint, Excel, Outlook...
then Office 2000, Office XP, you know...they just have to keep doing updates and claiming that it's a new and improved WindowsMe...I mean XP....
Well...you know Micro$oft.

chunder

2001-07-26, 8:44 am

there was an upgrade to the Outlook 97 component of Office 97 which then made it Outlook 98 but the rest of the suite stayed @ 97.

why couldn't things have stayed with incrementing full and dotted numbers? i mean the office suite, any other app and most importantly the OS. i don't think there are any Linux flavors trying to use the yearly version designation... Mac didn't. i know the actual version stamp is using this (for at least the OS) but what's with the lame marketing dept. coming up with this brilliant yearly designator.. blah.

oh well.

lennon57

2001-07-26, 1:46 pm

But Chunder...
If they released Outlook97 SR-3, how could they make money off of Outlook98?

Oh yea...let us not forget, Win1.0, Win2.0, Win3.0, Win3.1, Win3.11, Win95, Win98, Win3.51, WinNT, Win2000, WinXP, DOS 1.0, 2.0, 3.1, 3.12, 4.0, 5.0, 6.0, 6.1, 6.12, 6.2, 6.21, 6.22 (btw, they charged for every edition....and they wonder why everyone loves to copy their software)

I think I have been dealing with Microsoft too long....

Taqwus

2001-07-26, 4:52 pm

If I remember right there was a Windows 97 but it became Windows version C or something of that nature

chunder

2001-07-26, 5:46 pm

quote:
Originally posted by Taqwus
If I remember right there was a Windows 97 but it became Windows version C or something of that nature

fer real? or are you talking a beta release? there were a few releases of 95... and then 2 of 98... but 97 and C?

quote:
If tommorrow never comes, How do we get out of today????

or should that read, "If tommorrow never comes, do you REALLY want Micro$oft helping you with where you want to go today?" i mean, COME ON! if there's no tomorrow, i don't want to waste all of today rebooting & patching!!

Neobuhummat

2001-07-26, 9:26 pm

heya peoples,

Maybe he was refering to Windows CE for PDAs and other small computer-like peripherials. I remember that the Sega Dreamcast was suppose to run on Windows CE and X-box was rumored to run on it ( of course when it was just announced that Microsfot will do X-box)

Sponsored Links