0 in version number?

[H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d]

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 10:49:25AM -0400, Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> 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.

Not to mention, even for those who *do* know about these internal
version numbers, talking about NT 6.2 vs. NT 6.3 is the best way to get
blank stares from your average audience, who will have no idea what
you're talking about.

Besides, we were talking about marketing. As far as marketing is
concerned, the "marketing names" of Windows are what people see and
know, not the internal version numbers, which have nothing to do with
marketing.


T

-- 
MAS = Mana Ada Sistem?