I did not know that

[worker201]

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

Real Name	-->	Marketing Name
Windows NT 3.1	-->	Windows NT
Windows NT 5.0	-->	Windows 2000
Windows NT 5.1	-->	Windows XP
Windows NT 6.0	-->	Windows Vista
Windows 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]

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

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? 

[Calum]

well that's it, regardless of whether it's called 3.11 for workgroups, 2000 or 7, it's still microsoft making shit up without any coherent pattern.
Let's hope their actual software design isn't as haphazard and directionless as their version numbering system, eh?

[worker201]

Okay, that's fucked up.  I can see now, that if you go to Help > About, it does give you the version number.  But if you go to Control Panel > System, it tells you something else.  What's with the different story in different locations?  Inconsistency breeds foolishness.

The easy answer for "Why 7?" is that it is Windows six plus one.  This post at the Vista blog talks about how Windows 7 is somehow the 7th major OS release, and that the 6.1 is an internal thing that refers to the codebase, not the actual version number.  Are they making shit up?  Sounds like it to me.

Anyway, if I can, I'll try to avoid using 7 and Vista for as long as I can.  Which shouldn't be hard in the professional world.  I don't know if you know this or not, but most companies and government agencies have so many proprietary extensions and control programs on their computers that even a major security patch would destroy their entire computer systems.  And the longer you use such systems, the more of a bitch it is to upgrade them when support disappears.  It's really only home and small business customers who have to worry about which new version of Windows works or not.

[Calum]

i can think of a pretty easy way to avoid using MS Windows, even at home.

by the way, in microsoft's case i think it's more that foolishness breeds inconsistency than the other way round.

[Lead Head]

I've also heard that the "Version Number" refers to the codebase/kernel version, but I don't believe it that much personally. They say XP was a major release, but it is not too much different then Win2k internally. The biggest thing is that it has a prettier front end.

If you look at it, MS had NT 4.0 for a while, then they released its successor - Windows 2000 Pro, which was labeled at 5.0 internally - indicating that it is technically NT 5. So it can only be logical to assume that Vista was also technically NT6, indicating a major update change - which it is, and that 7 being 6.1 is a relatively minor update - which it is. 7 is just basically a refresh, what vista should have been from the start.

That article brings up something else too, if 95/98/98SE/Me were all 4.x versions, wouldn't that mean Microsoft was essentially selling the exact same thing over and over?

[Calum]

yes.

[worker201]

If you're to believe what Microsoft actually says about the numbering scheme, you have to accept that:
a) Windows 7 is a major overhaul of Vista, with significant differences across the board
b) Of all the Windows releases in Microsoft history, only 6 of them have been "major versions"
c) Versioning conventions that were standardized long before Microsoft even existed are totally ignored by Microsoft, both internally and externally

Once again, I call bullshit.