On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 09:47:30AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 09:27:35AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > No, I don't believe that is correct. This is conflating the Windows > > kernel version (6.1) with the windows OS version (7). I in fact *do* > > consider the Windows 2008 OS version to be 2008, but it has a kernel > > version of 6.1. It is not OS version 6.1. Some Windows releases don't > > have any sane version at all (Vista, ME, etc) in which case I'm just > > leaving the data blank, but there is still a kernel version number > > available for them. > > I would have thought that if "Windows 7" was really version 7, there > would have been 6 preceding versions called Windows 1 through 6. In > fact there were more like a dozen preceding versions according to > Wikipedia. Anyhow, everyone refers to the version in the registry, > which for "Windows 7" is 6.1. After researching some more I found this page http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ms724832%28v=vs.85%29.aspx Since Microsoft themselves officially say these are the real version numbers, I'm withdrawing this patch. Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|
