Comments on: Windows Vista

By: John Moltz

John Moltz — Tue, 26 Jul 2005 05:29:31 +0000

I noticed the same thing about Microsoft’s naming conventions a while back when they named the EU-mandated version “Windows XP Home Edition N.”

By: Chris

Chris — Sat, 23 Jul 2005 19:46:59 +0000

Yeah I knew there was more NT versions and Windows for Workgroups…but for the sake of not making an ever lasting list I left those off.

OS X is a bit of a marketing flash, but at least they didn’t go 2005 on us with the versions.

Name it after the year never makes sense to me unless your using software that really goes out of date quickly (Encarta or tax software for example).

By: James Kew

James Kew — Sat, 23 Jul 2005 19:38:58 +0000

FWIW, there were multiple NT versions — 3.1, 3.5, 3.51 — before NT 4.0. And don’t forget Windows for Workgroups.

That said, OS X is a bit of marketing flash, isn’t it, given that the X duplicates the 10 in the version number?

But it’s the name-it-after-the-year trend I really dislike: it’s a way to accelerate obselescence by making old versions look really old. (Microsoft Money takes this to extremes by releasing a new dated version every year.)