Versioning that raises no questions for most of the world. The majority can't be wrong, eh?

1.0
2.0
2.1
3.0
3.1
3.2
95
98
2000
1000 (M)
10 (X)
5 (V)
7
8
8.1
10
11

Do assassin's creed next.

But it's a bit subversive to not use XP/Vista, and claim them as roman numerals. ME is a bit of a stretch but at least kinda accurate.

This is how it looks like, when the marketing is in charge of versioning :)

@AvatarOfKaine https://stackoverflow.com/a/...

To be fair, current Windows versioning is based on the old NT line of windows, of which Vista was 6, and XP was (contemporary to, they weren't merged yet) 5.1.

"marketing"

it just looks like whoever was in charge changed through the years. someone decided they should do it by year, then they backtracked that

It's just an enumeration from the marketing name to the kernel version.

Windows consists of more than the kernel - hence the build id is the relevant version, not the marketing term, not the kernel version.

Imho Linus made a valid point regarding versioning: It's just a number, nothing special.