MS numbering doesn’t make sense, that’s why they keep changing. First they did version numbers, then they went to years, then they went to goofy names, now apparently they’re going back to version numbers, unless 7 is just a goofy name.
Part of the problem is there were 2 lines (the 3.x code and NT code had little to do with each other), then they merged (XP uses the NT kernel), but even after the merger they still maintained a separate identity. You say 95 was 4 then 2000 get’s its own number, but 2000 is in the NT line and there was NT4, which still leave 2000 as 5 but not of the 3.x/95 line.
I’m among those who isn’t happy the original Longhorn project didn’t come through. Jettisoning downward compatibility would have done wonders for he OS.
Oh, you’re talking about the marketing department. They never could make up their minds.
I was just talking actual under-the-hood versions.
Ah, I see what you're talking about. Microsoft started NT with the first version being NT 3.1 in order to synchronize the version numbers with the 16-bit line, which was at the time Windows 3.1.
The 16/32 bit line ended with 4, so the way I listed it does look like a continuation with 2000 as 5. I thought the separation between the lineage blocks would be enough to distinguish them, but I should have probably labeled them.