On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 12:40:23AM +0100, Robert Waldner wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 15:49:53 -0700, "Wesley J. Landaker" writes:
> >>> Debian documentation is a joke. It constantly refers to Debian
> >>> versions by their nick names, and not their versions.
> >> Right, more or less like the Windows documentation authors, where it's
> >> clear that 3.11 < 95 < 98 < ME < XP < Vista < 7 < 8. Or of the MacOS
> >> documentation authors, where everybody knows the respective positions
> >> of the Pumas, Tigers, Cheetas, Panthers and other such animals. Or of
> >> the Ubuntu Double-Daring Synchronized Snakes.
> >Oooh, don't forget 2000 and NT. (I'm not sure you can put those in a linear
> >list, though!)
> Parallel tracks, off the top of my head:
> WfW 3.11 < Win95 < Win98 < WinME
> NT3.51 < NT4 < Win2000 < XP < Vista < 7 < 8
> Next one can do a proper NT timeline, MSDOS and the non-Workgroups
> Windoses ;-)
And of course some were 16 bit on DOS, and it does go all the way back
to version 1, and some were 32 bit on DOS, and then the NT ones are 32
or 64 bit, and there are the server variants too.