[ubuntu-uk] What's in a name?

[Liam Proven]

On 11 June 2011 22:32, Grant Sewell <dcglug at thymox.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 22:13:03 +0100
> Alan Bell wrote:
>
>> On 11/06/11 21:06, (:techitone:) wrote:
>> >
>> > Windows is a familiar word. It's releases have progressive names,
>> > Windows XP, Windows Vista, Windows 7. They sound cool.
>> not to me, they sound confused. 1, 2, 3, 3.1, 95, 98, NT, 2000, ME,
>> XP, Vista, 7. That is a complete and utter mess, far from progressive
>> it totally fails to form any kind of coherent progression.
>
> The Windows naming convention is totally baffling.  There have been 2
> main "branches" of Windows - DOS based and NT based.  The naming scheme
> seems to be a bit off on both sides:
> DOS based:
>  + Windows 1
>  + Windows 2
>  + Windows 3
>  + Windows 3.1
>  + Windows 3.11
>  + Windows 95
>  + Windows 98
>  + Windows ME
> NT based:
>  + Windows NT 3.1
>  + Windows NT 3.5
>  + Windows NT 4.0
>  + Windows 2000  (NT version 5.0)
>  + Windows XP    (NT version 5.1)
>  + Windows Vista (NT version 6.0)
>  + Windows 7     (NT version 6.1)
>  + Windows 8     (NT version 6.2)
>
> It is completely non-sensical.

True!

And you missed out 98SE & NT 3.51 - the latter being my personal
favourite-ever version, followed by Win 2000.

NT 3.1 was really v1.0, of course; 3.5 and 3.51 were actually 1.1 and
1.2, and NT 4 was version 2.0. :¬)

And then there are the server versions...

-- 
Liam Proven • Info & profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/lproven
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk • GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: lproven at gmail.com
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 • Cell: +44 7939-087884 • Fax: + 44 870-9151419
AIM/Yahoo/Skype: liamproven • MSN: lproven at hotmail.com • ICQ: 73187508