I'm sorry, but how is the Windows naming scheme superior to OS X?
For the past decade+, OS X releases have been named after "big cats". Puma, Cheetah, Jaguar, etc. Consistent and distinct.
Windows on the other hand has had positively no common scheme.
Windows 95, 98, Me, 2000, XP, Vista, Windows 7, Windows 8, Windows 8.1.
Worse still, the above "public-facing versions" actually mismatch their underlying versions. For example, Windows 7 is actually Windows Version 6.1.x, while Windows 8 is Windows Version 6.3.x.
I think the simple fact is that Windows releases have been substantially less frequent and have been met with much more fanfare and obviously have much wider adoption. But to say that the Windows version names are superior to that of Windows is laughable, imho.
IMO it really is a bit easier to understand the Windows lineup. Any idiot can figure out that 98 came after 95 and 7 came before 8. But I cannot ever remember which "big cat" came first in OSX, or even which one we are on now.
I personally don't really care, but I definitely agree that "Puma Cheetah Jaguar" is less friendly to the uninitiated than "Windows 7 Windows 8"
But Windows 95 came out 94 versions too early according to that naming scheme. The advantage of "big cat" or similar names is that they don't really impart any meaning, other than acting as a unique label.
Save for XP and Vista, they're all pretty logical and you can tell which version is the next version. With big cats, you have to wonder "was Puma before or after Snow Leopard?". There's no increment, only a change. With Windows, 95 came out in 1995. 98 came out in 1998. 2000 came out in 2000. 8 came out after 7 (and obviously no one would ever wonder if they should update Windows 7 to Windows 95 thinking they had missed 88 releases).
The underlying version (actually the version of NT that is powering the OS, not the Windows version) doesn't matter a bit and is never mentioned to consumers. Outside of Linux, people tend not to care what kernel version is under their OS.
For the past decade+, OS X releases have been named after "big cats". Puma, Cheetah, Jaguar, etc. Consistent and distinct.
Windows on the other hand has had positively no common scheme.
Windows 95, 98, Me, 2000, XP, Vista, Windows 7, Windows 8, Windows 8.1.
Worse still, the above "public-facing versions" actually mismatch their underlying versions. For example, Windows 7 is actually Windows Version 6.1.x, while Windows 8 is Windows Version 6.3.x.
I think the simple fact is that Windows releases have been substantially less frequent and have been met with much more fanfare and obviously have much wider adoption. But to say that the Windows version names are superior to that of Windows is laughable, imho.