All Things Microsoft > Microsoft Software

I did not know that

(1/3) > >>

worker201:
Crazy.  Here's a nice little chart to let you know how fucked up Microsoft's release scheme is.

Real Name --> Marketing NameWindows NT 3.1 --> Windows NTWindows NT 5.0 --> Windows 2000Windows NT 5.1 --> Windows XPWindows NT 6.0 --> Windows VistaWindows NT 6.1 --> Windows 7
Really puts things in perspective, doesn't it?

Calum:
the msdos based win16/win32 release is equally dumb.

they went 1.0, 2.0, 2.1, 3.0, 3.1, 3.11, 95, 98, Me.

Quite sensible for a bit there, then they suddenly jump 91.89 version numbers to celebrate having a 32 bit multitasking environment. next version number is 98 (presumably 3 version numbers is good enough to celebrate finally getting the USB interface to work) and finally, in a moronic step of finality, the next (and final) msdos based version doesn't even have a number, just a codename and a couple of letters.

Although according to this page, 95, 98 and Me are all actually 4.x versions of the MS windows interface: http://www.codeguru.com/cpp/w-p/system/systeminformation/article.php/c8973

Lead Head:
I'm pretty sure its not trying to indicate a version, but rather the timeframe they were released in. Hence Windows 95 was 1994/1995, 98 was 97/98, 2000 was 1999/2000 ME (Millennium) was released in 2000. Although the whole ME/2000 thing was weird. MS should have just made a 2000 Home edition and never released ME.

I still don't see whats so screwed up about their release scheme

Seems no more screwed up to me then Canonical calling Ubuntu 8.04 Hardy Heron, and 8.10 Intrepid Ibex

worker201:

--- Quote from: Lead Head on 15 June 2009, 17:19 ---I still don't see whats so screwed up about their release scheme

Seems no more screwed up to me then Canonical calling Ubuntu 8.04 Hardy Heron, and 8.10 Intrepid Ibex

--- End quote ---

I disagree.  I think the Ubuntu designations are codenames, much like Longhorn or Shiretoko.  The fact that they celebrate and advertise (so to speak) those codenames is kinda cute, actually.  The thing about Windows that bothers me is that Vista is neither a codename nor a version number.  It's a marketing name which specifically seeks to obscure the version number and the codename.  7 is even worse - it masquerades as a version number, but it isn't.  The actual version number will not be found anywhere in the user-accessible parts of the interface.  Even with a numbered version, the actual version number is mysterious arcana.

Here's what my Thinkpad has to say about its OS:
System:
Microsoft Windows XP
Professional
Version 2002
Service Pack 3

Compare this to OSX.  When you click on "About this Mac", it doesn't tell you that you are running Leopard.  The word 'Leopard' doesn't even appear.  It says 10.5.7, the version number.  The work of remembering which cat goes with which version number is left up to the user.  The fact that Mac users are proud of the cat names and use them exclusively, even in situations where the version number is more appropriate, is another subject altogether.

I think the main reason Microsoft is so interested in hiding the actual version numbers from their customers is the slow increase.  5.0 to 5.1 certainly doesn't seem like it should be worth $200.  6.0 to 6.1 doesn't seem like it should be worth $400.

Lead Head:


You can access this under ANY Explorer window. Just go Help>>About. I know for sure it works under every NT based OS. I assume it may work for the 9x series as well. It is hardly hidden, but I can see your point of Microsoft "masking" the actual OS version with a marketing name.

But what I can't figure out, is what Significance does "7" have. I suppose if you go by their "mainstream" OS's, 95-98-ME-2000-XP-Vista it works - but 2000 was never officially a "mainstream" windows version. It doesn't particularly make sense from an NT only point of view either - as we can see, it is technically version 6.1. Perhaps MS had originally planned a huge update for 7, in which case it would have made sense, but never came through but they stuck with the name? 

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page