>Well, then shouldn't it say "MSDN 6.0a Edition", not "Visual Studio"???... the name on the CD leads one to believe that it is the docs for version 6.0a of VS... I know, I'm being "picky"!!! I've developed a new pet peeve about version numbers since M$ decided to throw away the idea of sequential numbers and jump to any number they feel like... version numbers use to mean something. Hmmmm, let's see...
>
>VFP 3.0, VFP 5.0 ... oops did I miss 4?
>J++ 1.0, J++ 6.0 ... oops, I miss a bunch! (odd how *real* Java is at 2.0)
>Yada, Yada, Yada...
>
>I know, I know... they wanted everything to match... how sweet... every product is now 6.0, regardless of what is was previously... Ok... I'll get off my Bit*hBox! :)
>

IMO, this is still better than the way Clipper did it. Let's see, I needed Summer '87, the 2:00 AM version. It also beats using the years. Personally, I think Win 98, WIN 2000, Office 2000 are stupid names.