well, their numbering scheme is a mess(as Windows 7 is actually an NT 6.1)
(
pzyko Query failed.,
Fri 23 Oct 2009, 15:30,
archived)
Their numbering systemhas been confused by combining two different lines. The 95/98/ME line is ultimately a development of the 3.1/3.11 line, shells that sit on top of DOS even if by the time of ME it was mainly used to bootstrap the system. The NT4.1/2000/XP/Vista/7 line is instead a development of the NT3.1 line. Which I don't think had an NT2.0 because they dicked with the numbers to get it in line with Windows 3.1. 2000 was I think NT5.0, XP NT5.1, then Vista was NT6.0 and 7 is NT6.1.
The numbers are fucking meaningless, in the end. So they want to call it "7". It makes as much sense as the rest of their numbering...
(The numbers are fucking meaningless, in the end. So they want to call it "7". It makes as much sense as the rest of their numbering...
boris the spider,
Fri 23 Oct 2009, 15:38,
archived)