[Gllug] MS grumbles (was: take a lookat my photos on Facebook)

[Matthew King]

Peter Corlett <abuse at cabal.org.uk> writes:

> NT 5.0 = Windows 2000
> NT 5.1 = Windows XP
>
> NT 6.0 = Vista
> NT 6.1 = Windows 7
>
> This makes sense when you consider the similarity between the two  
> point release operating systems for each release.

So actually they're being true to form and not weird at all[1]

Windows 98 is the final product where Windows 95 is beta.

Windows XP is the final product where Windows 2000 is beta.

Windows 7 is the final product where Windows Vista is beta.

It all makes sense now, although they do confuse the world mightily with
a clear-as-mud distinction between the marketing version number (95, 98,
2000, xp, vista, 7) and the actual version number (4, 4.[ugly], 5, 5.1,
6 and 6.1).

The rationale for using 6.1 instead of 7.0 is that bumping a major
version number breaks backwards compatibility. Does this mean that for
ever onwards windows will internally be 6.something, thus repeating the
fun had by IE identifying itself as 'Mozilla'.

Matthew

[1] At least no more than usual.

-- 
I must take issue with the term "a mere child", for it has been my
invariable experience that the company of a mere child is infinitely
preferable to that of a mere adult.
                                           --  Fran Lebowitz
-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug