<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: New Windows &#8211; Windows 7</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.brajkovic.info/windows7/new-windows-windows-7/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.brajkovic.info/windows7/new-windows-windows-7/</link>
	<description>Windows Server 2008, Server Core, Foundation Server, Virtualization, Hyper-V, Virtual PC...</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 Jul 2010 04:05:55 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: UXPassion.com</title>
		<link>http://www.brajkovic.info/windows7/new-windows-windows-7/comment-page-1/#comment-620</link>
		<dc:creator>UXPassion.com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Oct 2008 20:39:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.brajkovic.info/?p=45#comment-620</guid>
		<description>There is a logic in that decision (thats what M. Nash is telling us): The very first release of Windows was Windows 1.0, the second was Windows 2.0, the third Windows 3.0. 

Here&#039;s where things get a little more complicated. Following Windows 3.0 was Windows NT, which was code-versioned as Windows 3.1. Then came Windows 95, which was code-versioned as Windows 4.0. Then, Windows 98, 98 SE and Windows Millennium each shipped as 4.0.1998, 4.10.2222, and 4.90.3000, respectively. So we&#039;re counting all 9x versions as being 4.0. 

Windows 2000 code was 5.0, and then we shipped Windows XP as 5.1. Even though it was a major release, we didn&#039;t want to change code version numbers to maximize application compatibility. That brings us to Windows Vista, which is 6.0. So we see Windows 7 as our next logical significant release and seventh in the family of Windows releases.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There is a logic in that decision (thats what M. Nash is telling us): The very first release of Windows was Windows 1.0, the second was Windows 2.0, the third Windows 3.0. </p>
<p>Here&#8217;s where things get a little more complicated. Following Windows 3.0 was Windows NT, which was code-versioned as Windows 3.1. Then came Windows 95, which was code-versioned as Windows 4.0. Then, Windows 98, 98 SE and Windows Millennium each shipped as 4.0.1998, 4.10.2222, and 4.90.3000, respectively. So we&#8217;re counting all 9x versions as being 4.0. </p>
<p>Windows 2000 code was 5.0, and then we shipped Windows XP as 5.1. Even though it was a major release, we didn&#8217;t want to change code version numbers to maximize application compatibility. That brings us to Windows Vista, which is 6.0. So we see Windows 7 as our next logical significant release and seventh in the family of Windows releases.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
