4 ms·
That's what they've done with NT for the past 4 releases, yes. 2000 was the first NT5, XP was the second. Vista was the first NT 6, Windows '7' was the second.
by code_duck 16y ago
That's what they've done with NT for the past 4 releases, yes. 2000 was the first NT5, XP was the second. Vista was the first NT 6, Windows '7' was the second. The actual version numbers of Windows, unlike the marketing names, reflect this release style.
- judofyr 16y agoActually, the reason WinXP is 5.1 (instead of 6) and Win7 is 6.1 (instead of 7) is for "maximizing application compatibility": http://windowsteamblog.com/windows/archive/b/windowsvista/archive/2008/10/14/why-7.aspx http://windowsteamblog.com/windows/archive/b/windowsvista/ar...
- Joeri 16y agoAh, but they care about maximizing application compatibility more for some versions than others. Will microsoft care as much about app compatibility for windows 8 as they did for windows 7?
- code_duck 16y agoThey sure don't care about IE 9 being compatible with XP. Breaking third party software and hardware is more of a pain, though, as Vista proved. That was most of the problems they had with Vista, but I guess they are over that hump at this point.
- contextfree 16y agoWindows 8 is 6.2. But I doubt it has any relation to the content.
- code_duck 16y agoWhy would it not?