Software version numbering generally does not follow many standards among companies, and even among different product lines of the same company. I suppose they may have called it MS-DOS 6.2.2 and Windows 3.1.1 instead, but also it is possible that there were several internal revisions of the product that were not released to the public. I guess only the development team of those products could explain the reasoning behind the versioning decisions, as it happens with most proprietary software. It may even have been a commercial/marketing decision.

You can find strange version numbering in other products as well, Firefox for example is currently on version 48.0 (!), one day they just decided to increment the major version on each new release and so you get that. The Solaris/SunOS version numbering is also strange, with Solaris major version generally being the corresponding minor SunOS version (but not always).

TL;DR: it's all pretty much random 😁

Not to mention Ubuntu, which version numbers by what month and year it is 🙄

NT major/minor versions were also nutty and OSX 10.X.XX is too. macOS 10.12- why not reset the numbers?
Basically developers don't care about making the numbers make sense to consumers, because ultimately it doesn't matter- they'll just want whatever is latest.

I've always said Windows Three point One One and MSDOS Six point Two Two.

In the case of MSDOS, 6.2 had a defragger that violated some copyright, so they removed it and called it 6.21. 6.22 added a new defragger, so it was a minor upgrade, not the 22nd in a hidden sequence.

In the end there is no real rhyme or reason except to denote that 3.1 is a newer version then 3.0 and 3.11 is a newer version then 3.1 and that is just the numbering the decided on. 3.11 is definitely the version immediately after 3.1 it is definitely not 10 versions newer.

Rhuwyn wrote:

3.11 is definitely the version immediately after 3.1 it is definitely not 10 versions newer.

I like this reasoning.

By default 3.11 cannot be installed on 286 but 3.1 can. I once tried (I have original 3.11 install floppies) and it gave error that at least 386 CPU is needed.

RJDog wrote:

I was wondering... is it Windows "Three point One One" or "Three point Eleven"? Or, for that matter, MSDOS "Six point Two Two" or "Six point Twenty Two"?

When I was younger and these things were popular I (perhaps mistakenly) thought that Windows 3.11 was just 0.01 better than Windows 3.1... but... was young RJDog right, or is it 10 minor versions after Windows 3.1...?

When do you ever read decimal places as if they were large numbers?

...would be my first response, but then you get companies like ATi that numbered their driver versions as 4.7, 4.8, 4.9, 4.10, 4.11, etc. And in that case, it might be permissible to read them as "four point ten" for example.

Though this certainly wasn't the case for DOS and Windows. There was no 3.3 through 3.9 for Windows, nor 6.1 through 6.9 for DOS, so I would be inclined to read them as normal decimal numbers, "three point one one" and "six point two two" respectively.

I always said "three-eleven" but "Dos six-two-two".

A lot of software does number like x.8, x.9, x.10, x.11 though most is open source that does that.

I've always said "three point one one" in the day.

I guess it helps to think of versions as a different "thing" that uses dotted notation, rather than an actual decimal number.

Like how speaker setups use the (full range).(subwoofers) notation, like "five point one speakers", but it doesn't literally mean there are five-and-one-tenth speakers.

Paadam wrote:

By default 3.11 cannot be installed on 286 but 3.1 can. I once tried (I have original 3.11 install floppies) and it gave error that at least 386 CPU is needed.

WfW 3.11 can't, but 3.11 can. WfW 3.1 can also run on a 286..

SRQ wrote:

NT major/minor versions were also nutty and OSX 10.X.XX is too. macOS 10.12- why not reset the numbers?.

MacOS X 10.10 = "Mac OS ten ten ten" 😁

debs3759 wrote:

I've always said Windows Three point One One and MSDOS Six point Two Two.

In the case of MSDOS, 6.2 had a defragger that violated some copyright, so they removed it and called it 6.21. 6.22 added a new defragger, so it was a minor upgrade, not the 22nd in a hidden sequence.

IIRC, it was an issue Doublespace with being used in MS-DOS:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DriveSpace

Defrag AFAIK was fine since MS licensed that from Central Point Software.

DosFreak wrote:

IIRC, it was an issue Doublespace with being used in MS-DOS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DriveSpace […]
Show full quote

debs3759 wrote:

I've always said Windows Three point One One and MSDOS Six point Two Two.

In the case of MSDOS, 6.2 had a defragger that violated some copyright, so they removed it and called it 6.21. 6.22 added a new defragger, so it was a minor upgrade, not the 22nd in a hidden sequence.

IIRC, it was an issue Doublespace with being used in MS-DOS:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DriveSpace

Defrag AFAIK was fine since MS licensed that from Central Point Software.

I blame my age for my poor memory 😀