Aug 04 Sep 04 Oct 04 Nov 04 Dec 04
Jan 05 Feb 05 Mar 05 Apr 05 May 05 Jun 05 Jul 05 Aug 05 Sep 05 Oct 05 Nov 05 Dec 05
Jan 06 Feb 06 Mar 06 Apr 06 / Apr 06 (with comments) May 06 Jun 06 Jul 06 Aug 06 Sep 06 Oct 06 Nov 06 Dec 06
Jan 07 Feb 07 Mar 07 Apr 07 May 07 Jun 07 Jul 07 Aug 07 Sep 07 Oct 07 Nov 07 Dec 07
Jan 08 Feb 08 Mar 08 Apr 08 May 08 Jun 08 Jul 08 Aug 08 Sep 08 Oct 08 Nov 08 Dec 08
Jan 09 Feb 09 Mar 09 Apr 09 May 09 June 09 July 09 Aug 09 Sep 09 Oct 09 Nov 09 Dec 09
Jan 10 Feb 10
uRandom
Tue 20th Oct 23:38: Windows 6.1+0.9
Apparently Windows 7 calls itself Windows 6.1 - as it would if it was a minor upgrade to Vista, for example. Which Microsoft assure is it is not: well that's alright then.
Or is it (as Adam Barr claimed in his fascinating book "Proudly Serving My Corporate Masters"), that Windows 2000 was due to be called NT5.0 - Windows XP was just a minor update to Windows 2000? - Which is why the Windows2000 banner has a small apologetic tagline "Built on NT Technology" to appease the developers who didn't want their more-stable NT product line associated with the less-stable "date-based" Windows versions 95, 98, 2000:
...Just as Windows 7 is a minor update to Vista.
I'm *not* a Microsoft basher, I wish them well.
For the record, this is a table of Windows version numbers. I suspect that there is more detail for the pedantic; I remember Windows 3.11 and Windows for Workgroups 3.11, though all of "Windows 3" is mentioned only in passing in the windowsteamblog site, and I don't know how they identified themselves internally.
Note that the blog linked above suggests that there is one tree; there are two, the "Windows for DOS" stream which leads up to Windows ME, and the "Windows NT" stream which leads from NT3.5 to XP and onwards:
| Windows for DOS Marketing Name | Version |
|---|---|
| 1 | 1 |
| 2 | 2 |
| 3 | 3 |
| 95 | 4.0 |
| 98 | 4.0.1998 |
| 98SE | 4.0.2222 |
| ME | 4.90.3000 |
| Windows NT Marketing Name | Version |
|---|---|
| NT3.5 | 3.5 |
| NT3.51 | 3.51 |
| NT4 | 4.0 |
| 2000 | 5.0 |
| XP | 5.1 |
| Vista | 6.0 |
| 7 | 6.1 |
...I really need to get out more!
Comments for 'Windows 6.1+0.9'
| Wed 21 Oct 2009 @ 00:14 GMT : Steve Parker Reading the comments on the windows blog, I love some of the |
| Somebody (apparently seriously) suggests doing away with numbers altogether, and going for "Snow Leopard" type names: Windows Vista: Sunset Windows Vista: Mountain Range Windows Vista: Ocean Verge Windows Vista: Forest ..."That way you have the umbrella of Vista, and then you can keep that base idea while evolving a distinct branch-off. You could have colour and themes and stuff relating to a specific “vista” on the packaging, the default UI, the marketing campaign and such like." Hee hee - another one says "Perhaps I can convince my self that version 6.1 is really a code for version 6 + 1..." aw bless. I really must stop reading these comments... |
| Wed 21 Oct 2009 @ 00:17 GMT : Steve Parker Another commenter makes a very good point |
| "Of course it's a very relevant release -- it's the minor versions of Windows (3.1, 98, XP) that have been the most successful, because they've built upon the .0 before them but refined the .0's rough edges." That is true - and makes the maxim "Never by x.0 of a product" even match the crazy naming conventions of MS Windows! |
| Wed 21 Oct 2009 @ 00:57 GMT : Steve Parker Engineering vs Marketing |
| I should make the observation that there are two teams at work at Microsoft: Engineering and Marketing. Engineering need to call it 6.1, because it is a minor update to 6.0; Marketing need to call it 7.0 to step away from the bad PR that was Vista. I found it painful when the Solaris releases went from 2.5 -> 2.51 -> 2.6 -> 7 - internally, the Kernel version remained as SunOS 5.7 and so on - as a continuation from SunOS4 to SunOS5 being the SVR4 release of Solaris. The "marketing name", or "Operating Environment" may have become "Solaris 7" but the kernel was still "5.7". No major problems were reported when Solaris 9 (SunOS 5.9) was upgraded to Solaris 10 (SunOS 5.10 - numerically lower than 5.9). I continue to be surprised at how regularly people get confused about Linux versions; RedHat 5.3 uses a Linux 2.6 kernel (or 2.6.18 to be precise); Development and Marketing are two totally separate pursuits whose interests combine only very rarely. |
You could post a comment if you were logged in.
Site Links
Programming
»Shell Tutorial
»Networking Tutorial
»Logic Gates
»VxVM
»C
»C Code
»Shell Code
Articles
My CV
SpeedTouch
uRandom
Tell your Friends and Family what you really want.
Links
Mail Me
Hosted by WebQualityHost
Unix shell tips, hints, commands, info.