17

Versioning that raises no questions for most of the world. The majority can't be wrong, eh?

1.0
2.0
2.1
3.0
3.1
3.2
95
98
2000
1000 (M)
10 (X)
5 (V)
7
8
8.1
10
11

Comments
  • 3
    Do assassin's creed next.

    But it's a bit subversive to not use XP/Vista, and claim them as roman numerals. ME is a bit of a stretch but at least kinda accurate.
  • 3
    This is how it looks like, when the marketing is in charge of versioning :)
  • 3
  • 1
    To be fair, current Windows versioning is based on the old NT line of windows, of which Vista was 6, and XP was (contemporary to, they weren't merged yet) 5.1.
  • 0
    "marketing"
  • 1
    it just looks like whoever was in charge changed through the years. someone decided they should do it by year, then they backtracked that
  • 0
    It's just an enumeration from the marketing name to the kernel version.

    Windows consists of more than the kernel - hence the build id is the relevant version, not the marketing term, not the kernel version.

    Imho Linus made a valid point regarding versioning: It's just a number, nothing special.
Add Comment