Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: antiRepublicrat

If we’re going to include 2000 because XP brought in the NT kernel then we should really drop 95, 98 and ME because they’re from the non-NT chain. So it would really be NT4, 2000 (5), XP as 5.x, Vista as 6.

Really it’s MS numbering, they just make crap up.


43 posted on 08/05/2009 2:47:00 PM PDT by discostu (Somehow mister reliable was not where he was supposed to be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies ]


To: discostu
Really it’s MS numbering, they just make crap up.

The 95 line is in there because someone mentioned it. The MS numbering does make sense. After 3 there was 95 so it gets 4, and the rest were incremental updates worthy of a dot release. 2000 was a big change from NT, so got a whole number, while the incremental changes of XP and 2003 got dot releases. Vista was a big change from XP (good or bad), so got a new number, with 7 getting a dot.

I am among those who isn't happy that the original 7 project didn't come through. I was expecting that complete rewrite with the MinWin kernel, but just got a dot release over Vista.

44 posted on 08/05/2009 3:59:27 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson