Not sure it's true! Maybe it were just a coincidence? And the writer of that article is wrong with one: Windows 9 isn't Windows Blue or vice versa. Microsoft had make it publically clear the those 2 OS's are differs, Windows Blue would be a (huge) Update to Windows 8 while Windows 9 is a new OS! So, the calculation in this regard would be wrong already! I guess we'll see that those "Secrets" are everything but Secrets!
the askvg article is not about windows blue or next version of windows. its about the fact behind generating those build numbers.
@Windows Fan,thanks for sharing that article,my friends and i had an intense discussion on this matter
Hope you all enjoyed the discussion another one like the last thread wont be starting again. I have had request to keep thread open Any Discussion or Speculation about Windows Blue build numbers e.c.t and thread will be closed
^^ thanks for re-opening the thread. request to all members! please do not discuss about windows blue in this topic. this topic is not about windows blue or next version of windows. its about how microsoft decides build numbers of windows versions. so please stay on the topic.
It is simply a co-incidence, many people knows that windows RTM numbers has to be a multiple of 100 and 16(starting from Vista), meaning it has to make a jump of 400. Before win8 RTM's, many people expected it to be 8800; but MS wanted to be 8888, unfortunately it caused a big problem in windows update, and neither could MS go back to 8800, so the next candidate is, naturally 9200. Also, MS and software developers had overcome the 4-digit restriction some time ago, so, build numbers could be 5-digit, it won't be 0800 or whatever 4-digit thing.
This must be a co-incidence in my opinion.. MS may be following a different method to evaluate build numbers, and this is just a fluke.
ugh there is no damn secrets a MS developer admited they make build numbers as they fit and they skip them as they want and reason why winblows 8 is 9200 is because they screwed up with number 8888