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.
