Windows 7 or 8

[loetar44]

(10-03-2014 12:05 PM)STS Lincolnite Wrote:  

(10-03-2014 11:56 AM)LincolnMan Wrote:  Was there a Windows 9?

No. When asked about it at the announcement, Windows chiefs Myerson and Belfiore lamely joked that "seven ate nine" (7 8 9). Who knows why they skipped 9. Probably some marketing strategy.

You are right! It's all just marketing. The numbers given to Windows releases don't mean anything. Believe it or not, but we are still on Windows 6. I’m 70 and I remember well the good old days when I worked with Windows 3.0 (16-bit OS) in 1990. That was the first widely successful version of Windows and a real technical improvement. I’ve even worked with Windows 1.0 (1983), Windows 2.0 (1987) and 2.1 (1988), all not so successful versions. Windows 3.0 was the first "flawlesly working OS". After Windows 3.0 and 3.1 came Windows 95 and Windows 98 and Windows ME. This were all Windows 4.x versions (“flavors”, resp. 4.0, 4.1 and 4.9 and not 4.3!). Windows 2000, Windows XP and Windows 2003 were all Windows 5.x “flavors” (resp 5.0, 5.1 and 5.2). Windows Vista was Windows 6.0, Windows 7 was 6.1, Windows 8 was 6.2 and Windows 8.1 was 6.3.

Windows 10 will be in fact 6.4. The reason that Windows 9 is skipped is that with designation “10” people will more easily think that it is a complete new generation and “something really new”, but it’s still a Windows 6 …. As I said, just marketing.