0 in version number?

[Gary Willoughby via Digitalmars-d]

On Friday, 16 October 2015 at 23:23:15 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> Not to mention, if you want to talk about the truly Big Boys, 
> even Windows doesn't follow any of the proposed versioning 
> schemes (I mean, what's up with 3.0 -> 3.1 -> 95 -> 98 -> 2000 
> -> XP -> 7 -> 8 -> 9... ? That doesn't even follow any logical 
> numerical ordering!), yet you have to admit its marketing is 
> far more successful than D can probably dream of being.

This is wrong. Microsoft follows a very strict versioning system. 
The list you are referring to above are the marketing *names* of 
the operating systems, not the versions.

https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-gb/library/windows/desktop/ms724832(v=vs.85).aspx
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Microsoft_Windows_versions