Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 4th Aug 2012 02:12 UTC, submitted by KLU9
Thread beginning with comment 529718
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Just call it what it is
by Laurence on Mon 6th Aug 2012 11:08
in reply to "RE: Just call it what it is"
RE[3]: Just call it what it is
by Tuishimi on Mon 6th Aug 2012 17:13
in reply to "RE[2]: Just call it what it is"
RE[2]: Just call it what it is
by btrimby on Mon 6th Aug 2012 17:38
in reply to "RE: Just call it what it is"
RE[3]: Just call it what it is
by Laurence on Mon 6th Aug 2012 20:47
in reply to "RE[2]: Just call it what it is"
Um... it's running on Windows NT 6.2 At least the release preview.
I'm pretty sure that's what he meant.
I'm pretty sure that's what he meant.
I know that's what he meant and I was stating that it's not NT 6.2. If you read the link I posted you'd see that the version number is only stored as 6.2 for compatibility reasons but it's still regarded as v8.
I agree it's a completely retarded approach to version numbering, but that's MS for you :p
Edited 2012-08-06 20:48 UTC
RE[2]: Just call it what it is
by zima on Sat 11th Aug 2012 22:45
in reply to "RE: Just call it what it is"
Windows 8 is definitely version NT 8 for the following reasons:
Windows 7 is actually Windows 7 (the internal version number of 6.1 was purely for compatibility reasons: http://windowsteamblog.com/windows/archive/b/windowsvista/archive/2... ). Win 8 is a much more significant break from Win7 and 7 was from Vista so it seems fair that Win 8 would be a major version number up as well (thus Windows 8).
Windows 7 is actually Windows 7 (the internal version number of 6.1 was purely for compatibility reasons: http://windowsteamblog.com/windows/archive/b/windowsvista/archive/2... ). Win 8 is a much more significant break from Win7 and 7 was from Vista so it seems fair that Win 8 would be a major version number up as well (thus Windows 8).
I don't know... Win7 is, for practical purposes, not far from Vista SE 'let's use a PR trick of "lucky 7"' - there's hardly any reason to upgrade to 7 from service-packed Vista (and IIRC the 64bit versions even basically share the kernel now)
PS.
I agree it's a completely retarded approach to version numbering, but that's MS for you :p
Give them some slack, their versioning is not so bad. Not when compared to the recent inflation of browser numbers, or of ~early Linux distros ( http://slackware.com/faq/do_faq.php?faq=general#0 ), or the change from long-standing Linux 2.6.x to 3.x.
Edited 2012-08-11 22:50 UTC






Member since:
2007-03-26
Windows 6.2
You're wrong on all counts:
Windows 8 is definitely version NT 8 for the following reasons:
Windows 7 is actually Windows 7 (the internal version number of 6.1 was purely for compatibility reasons: http://windowsteamblog.com/windows/archive/b/windowsvista/archive/2... ). Win 8 is a much more significant break from Win7 and 7 was from Vista so it seems fair that Win 8 would be a major version number up as well (thus Windows 8).
Furthermore, Metro is just a shell and not an OS. So calling it "Windows n" would just be ignorant anyway. It would be like calling Explorer.exe "Windows 95" or progman.exe "Windows 3.x".