Jim Cathey wrote: >> i have always hear it as "oh-ess-ex" but now i read where it says that >> "0h-ess-ten" is actually correct. anyone know? >> > > It's "ten", because it came after nine, which came after eight, > which came after seven, which came after six, which came after five, > which came after four, which came after three, which came after two, > which came after one, which came after zero-point-something. > > There is a detectable pattern there.
True. I can see how people were confused, though, since abandoning logical patterns has become fashionable in the computer field. Microsoft has done it twice, with the transition from Windows 3.11 -> Windows 95, and with Windows 2000 -> Windows XP. And of course Intel did it when they went 386 -> 486 -> Pentium. Supposedly that was because it's too hard to trademark a part number.
