4 ms·

Not directly comparable but Intel processor names and architecture are the worst. I mean who can remember all the differences? Same goes for OS X version names

Not directly comparable but Intel processor names and architecture are the worst. I mean who can remember all the differences? Same goes for OS X version names. Unless you are a Mac Dev nobody can remember what is what. I feel windows got their version names right. Easy to remember.

aroman 13y ago
I'm sorry, but how is the Windows naming scheme superior to OS X? For the past decade+, OS X releases have been named after "big cats". Puma, Cheetah, Jaguar, etc. Consistent and distinct. Windows on the other hand has had positively no common scheme. Windows 95, 98, Me, 2000, XP, Vista, Windows 7, Windows 8, Windows 8.1. Worse still, the above "public-facing versions" actually mismatch their underlying versions. For example, Windows 7 is actually Windows Version 6.1.x, while Windows 8 is Windows Version 6.3.x. I think the simple fact is that Windows releases have been substantially less frequent and have been met with much more fanfare and obviously have much wider adoption. But to say that the Windows version names are superior to that of Windows is laughable, imho.
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  IMO it really is a bit easier to understand the Windows lineup. Any idiot can figure out that 98 came after 95 and 7 came before 8. But I cannot ever remember which "big cat" came first in OSX, or even which one we are on now. I personally don't really care, but I definitely agree that "Puma Cheetah Jaguar" is less friendly to the uninitiated than "Windows 7 Windows 8"
  - oneeyedpigeon 13y ago
    But Windows 95 came out 94 versions too early according to that naming scheme. The advantage of "big cat" or similar names is that they don't really impart any meaning, other than acting as a unique label.
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      > But Windows 95 came out 94 versions too early according to that naming scheme. 91 versions too early, since Windows 95 followed Windows 3.x.
      - oneeyedpigeon 13y ago
        Fair point; I was working backwards from Windows 7, which obviously makes even less sense than this naming scheme :)
    - sliverstorm 13y ago
      Eh, it's stupid, yes. But once you know, it is trivial to remember: '95 => '98 => 2000 7 => 8 => 8.1 As well as remembering the second sequence follows the first. Really, I don't mean to say it is a wonderful naming scheme or anything. I'm just less frustrated by it than by "big cats": Kodiak, Cheetah, Puma, Jaguar, Panther, Tiger, Leopard, Snow Leopard, Lion, Mountain Lion, Mavericks
- freehunter 13y ago
  Save for XP and Vista, they're all pretty logical and you can tell which version is the next version. With big cats, you have to wonder "was Puma before or after Snow Leopard?". There's no increment, only a change. With Windows, 95 came out in 1995. 98 came out in 1998. 2000 came out in 2000. 8 came out after 7 (and obviously no one would ever wonder if they should update Windows 7 to Windows 95 thinking they had missed 88 releases). The underlying version (actually the version of NT that is powering the OS, not the Windows version) doesn't matter a bit and is never mentioned to consumers. Outside of Linux, people tend not to care what kernel version is under their OS.
james33 13y ago
Are you kidding me? Let's see...Windows 7 Starter, Windows 7 Home Basic, Windows 7 Home Premium, Windows 7 Professional, Windows 7 Enterprise, Windows 7 Ultimate, etc...

aroman 13y ago

I'm sorry, but how is the Windows naming scheme superior to OS X? For the past decade+, OS X releases have been named after "big cats". Puma, Cheetah, Jaguar, etc. Consistent and distinct. Windows on the other hand has had positively no common scheme. Windows 95, 98, Me, 2000, XP, Vista, Windows 7, Windows 8, Windows 8.1. Worse still, the above "public-facing versions" actually mismatch their underlying versions. For example, Windows 7 is actually Windows Version 6.1.x, while Windows 8 is Windows Version 6.3.x. I think the simple fact is that Windows releases have been substantially less frequent and have been met with much more fanfare and obviously have much wider adoption. But to say that the Windows version names are superior to that of Windows is laughable, imho.

sliverstorm 13y ago
IMO it really is a bit easier to understand the Windows lineup. Any idiot can figure out that 98 came after 95 and 7 came before 8. But I cannot ever remember which "big cat" came first in OSX, or even which one we are on now. I personally don't really care, but I definitely agree that "Puma Cheetah Jaguar" is less friendly to the uninitiated than "Windows 7 Windows 8"
- oneeyedpigeon 13y ago
  But Windows 95 came out 94 versions too early according to that naming scheme. The advantage of "big cat" or similar names is that they don't really impart any meaning, other than acting as a unique label.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > But Windows 95 came out 94 versions too early according to that naming scheme. 91 versions too early, since Windows 95 followed Windows 3.x.
    - oneeyedpigeon 13y ago
      Fair point; I was working backwards from Windows 7, which obviously makes even less sense than this naming scheme :)
  - sliverstorm 13y ago
    Eh, it's stupid, yes. But once you know, it is trivial to remember: '95 => '98 => 2000 7 => 8 => 8.1 As well as remembering the second sequence follows the first. Really, I don't mean to say it is a wonderful naming scheme or anything. I'm just less frustrated by it than by "big cats": Kodiak, Cheetah, Puma, Jaguar, Panther, Tiger, Leopard, Snow Leopard, Lion, Mountain Lion, Mavericks
freehunter 13y ago
Save for XP and Vista, they're all pretty logical and you can tell which version is the next version. With big cats, you have to wonder "was Puma before or after Snow Leopard?". There's no increment, only a change. With Windows, 95 came out in 1995. 98 came out in 1998. 2000 came out in 2000. 8 came out after 7 (and obviously no one would ever wonder if they should update Windows 7 to Windows 95 thinking they had missed 88 releases). The underlying version (actually the version of NT that is powering the OS, not the Windows version) doesn't matter a bit and is never mentioned to consumers. Outside of Linux, people tend not to care what kernel version is under their OS.

james33 13y ago

Are you kidding me? Let's see...Windows 7 Starter, Windows 7 Home Basic, Windows 7 Home Premium, Windows 7 Professional, Windows 7 Enterprise, Windows 7 Ultimate, etc...