• Hildegarde
      link
      fedilink
      152 years ago

      NT was a parallel line of “professional” windows. It had a different kernel or something. There were equivalent versions to most of the home releases.

      The first release was NT 3.1, to match version numbers with the home OS.

      NT 4 was the professional version of win 95/98.

      In the year 2000 Microsoft released both Windows ME, and Windows 2000. ME for the home, 2000 was the NT release for the workplace.

      The products were merged with windows XP, now all windows is windows NT.

      The version numbering makes sense if you count by the NT version numbers. 2000/ME is version 5, therefore XP is 6, and if you pretend Vista never existed (as you should for your own sanity) you get to windows 7 and it all starts to make sense.

    • w2tpmf
      link
      fedilink
      -32 years ago

      NT was 4.0 and the same basic operating system as 95 but with server services.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        262 years ago

        Different kernel. 95 was still DOS based. I believe a significant amount of stuff (especially drivers of course) which worked on one side didn’t work on the other.

        XP was the “merger” - the first NT based system for the consumer market.

        • Nougat
          link
          fedilink
          62 years ago

          XP was the “merger” - the first NT based system for the consumer market.

          You’re thinking of Windows 2000. Win2K was released before Windows ME, and was widely sold on consumer market computers. When ME came out, and was pretty terrible, Win2K remained as the popular consumer option.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            92 years ago

            A lot of people did use it on home computers (myself included) but the target was still businesses. XP had TV ads and colorful themes, and all that, while Windows 2000… Didn’t. (Well maybe on C-SPAN or something) And the most basic (major) edition was “Professional” instead of something like “Home” as XP had.

            I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the big box computer makers did ship with it to home users, but it wasn’t “meant” for them.

            • Nougat
              link
              fedilink
              22 years ago

              Oh sure - the intent was for it to be a business-centric OS, it definitely was not flashy, but it was just so much better than 9x that plenty of computer makers made it available, and lots of people chose it over 98SE.

              • Nougat
                link
                fedilink
                32 years ago

                The googles tells me that Win2K was released Feb 17, 2000, and that ME was released Sep 14, 2000. Plenty of time for word to get out about how much better 2000 was than 9x even for home use.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  22 years ago

                  Ah but in reality that wasn’t entirely the case, direct X compatible drivers were a big sticking point basically until XP came along. Windows 2000 was fantastic as a productivity OS, but it wasn’t fully there for the home user yet

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  12 years ago

                  It was also a lot more expensive than Windows 9x/me, so most consumer desktops went that way. The only people running 2000 were professionals and nerds that weren’t running Linux.

  • Xylight (Photon dev)
    link
    fedilink
    42 years ago

    Basically, they were doing 3.15, 3.16, etc but they decided to turn it into whole numbers. It was currently 3.19 so they decided to go from 3 to 4.0, and remove the decimal.

  • Matúš Maštena
    link
    fedilink
    162 years ago

    It’s like that because KDE is based on Qt. On 🪟, It’s because they don’t care, and on GNOME, it’s for aesthetic reasons.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          112 years ago

          People in general crave the big numbers. It’s why Microsoft is so weird with Xbox naming. Having the Xbox 360 compete with the PlayStation 3 Vs “Xbox 2”.

          Firefox also started inflating version numbers because the high version numbers Chrome was using made it look more updated.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        22 years ago

        Simple, OP and some people just don’t know what they are talking about. There was no “aesthetic reason”.

        One of the big changes in GNOME 40 (that would be 3.40) was the introduction of GTK4. People used to assume that the gnome major versioning scheme was tied to GTK, so loads of people were asking the devs when GNOME 4 was coming out.

        To demistify this idea of one being tied to the other they just dropped the “3.”, specially since that part wasn’t that relevant and started with the 40.

  • w2tpmf
    link
    fedilink
    10
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    Windows 95, 98, me were kernel version 4.0+

    Windows 2000 was kernel 5.0

    XP and Vista were 6.0 and 6.1

    Windows 10 had to be called that because the naming convention used on Windows 95/98 caused someware to see the OS as version 9.x

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    172 years ago

    Juking the version number was trendy there for a while. It happened to browser versions to. Firefox and Chrome went from like version 10 to 100.

    • masterofn001
      link
      fedilink
      72 years ago

      By 2024 firefox will be on version 1043624x*12^69 where x is the latest version of chrome.

    • Rikudou_Sage
      link
      fedilink
      English
      42 years ago

      I remember waiting a long time between minor versions around the 2.x versions of Firefox. And then suddenly it was major version every time.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    132 years ago

    Even stranger is the windows 8 and 8.1 part since this is the one and only time a service pack changed the name of the OS.