Windows "7"

[quarkx]

If you REALLY want to get technical about the numbers, After NT 4, NT 5 was sent out for beta testing, but it was too late in the cycle, and they pulled it. Windows 2000(was completely different then NT5) (should be Windows 6) and then ME (Windows 7 -Technical), then XP (Windows 8, but called 5.1), then Vista (Windows 9) and Finally "Windows 7" should be Windows 10 in my book, and thats not including all the "server" packages which are technically different.

[quarkx]

Sure, if you want to replace each named release with a sequential number, that makes sense. But I'm talking about internal version numbering with the traditional version.revision numbering convention.

Windows 95 was obviously Windows 4.0 - prerelease hype even referred to it as such. 98 and ME - though marketed (and priced) as major releases - were not fundamentally different. Hence they have internal numbers in the 4.x range. Windows 2000 was a significant enough change to see the version number bumped to 5. XP was another incremental improvement, so its version is 5.1. Vista was a fairly substantial overhaul, so there's an internal bump to 6.0, while Windows 7 is apparently a minor improvement on that, to 6.1.

My point is that I thought Microsoft's marketing machine was once again making the internal match the external, but it seems that's not the case. Windows 7 is just another name, not a number of any internal significance.

No argument here about that. I have been saying since the beta, that windows 7 is just Vista version 2.0 or "Vista Reloaded" (ME 3.0)