Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 4th Aug 2012 02:12 UTC, submitted by KLU9
Thread beginning with comment 529963
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[4]: Just call it what it is
by btrimby on Tue 7th Aug 2012 03:51
in reply to "RE[3]: Just call it what it is"
RE[5]: Just call it what it is
by Laurence on Tue 7th Aug 2012 08:49
in reply to "RE[4]: Just call it what it is"
Eh.
I'd say that's marketing vs technical. It doesn't really matter either way.
I'd say that's marketing vs technical. It doesn't really matter either way.
Not really. Versions numbers are just arbitrary and you can make an app return whatever version number you want - even incorrect version numbers if you choose to.
So there's no reason why MS can't get ver to report 6.x while the revision / versioning system they use inside Redmond has the Win7 and Win8 NT branches archived under 7 and 8 respectively.




Member since:
2007-03-26
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