4 ms·
95 -> 98 -> 2000 -> XP -> Vista -> 7 -> 8 -> 10 do you see anything logical in the entire progression. I kind of get it what they were saying from 8 to 10 jump
by sremani 12y ago
95 -> 98 -> 2000 -> XP -> Vista -> 7 -> 8 -> 10
do you see anything logical in the entire progression.
I kind of get it what they were saying from 8 to 10 jump, that we are making a leap with this version over the previous one - because of the whole "universal" unification of devices of various form factors.
Unlike many people here, I do not know the "pulse of average people", so I really do not know how this will play out.
- buckbova 12y agoWin2000 was more for business and a successor of WinNT. WinME was the successor to Win98SE and it was absolute trash.
- dragonwriter 12y ago> 95 -> 98 -> 2000 -> XP -> Vista -> 7 -> 8 -> 10 do you see anything logical in the entire progression. Well, no, but the progression of the DOS-based line from 3.1 on is 3.x -> 95 -> 98 -> 98SE -> Me -> <end of line> The NT line is NT 3.1 -> NT 3.5 -> NT 4.0 -> 2000 (which was NT 5.0 in betas) -> XP -> Vista -> 7 -> 8 -> 8.1 -> 10 If you assume that the 2000 -> XP -> Vista series conceals two major and one minor version, then the rest of the numbers make sense (until 10).