0 in version number?

[Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d]

On 10/18/2015 07:47 AM, Gary Willoughby wrote:
> 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
>

That's entirely irrelevent since nearly nobody ever hears, uses, or 
knows about those (essentially) internal version numbers.