Wasn't there an NT 2.0?

Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device

-------- Original message --------
From: Ed Leafe <e...@leafe.com> 
Date:10/18/2014  07:02  (GMT-07:00) 
To: profoxt...@leafe.com 
Subject: Re: Windows 10 

On Oct 17, 2014, at 7:39 PM, Ted Roche <tedro...@gmail.com> wrote:

> This
> is the company that made:
> 
> Windows 3
> Windows 3.11
> Windows 95
> Windows NT
> Windows NT 3.51
> WIndows 98
> Windows NT 4
> Windows Me
> Windows 2000
> Windows Vista
> Windows 7
> Windows 8

You left out Windows XP. How is that possible, when it fits so nicely into the 
above pattern? 

;-)

-- Ed Leafe







--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/signed
  text/plain (text body -- kept)
  application/pgp-signature
---

_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: 
http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/0a456079-b0e7-4870-be8d-c28fa488a...@leafe.com
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Report [OT] Abuse: 
http://leafe.com/reportAbuse/0a456079-b0e7-4870-be8d-c28fa488a...@leafe.com
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: 
http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/3mje3fncp65j6gxx1mr47uc6.1413649347...@email.android.com
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Reply via email to