Vista to Vista SP2 was more significant of a performance improvement than Vista SP2 to 7 RTM.
What you described was a combination of marketing and a change in behavior. They skipped 7 because it would be confusing for 10 to be NT 7. They skipped 8 for the same reason, and 9 for the reason you described.
Nothing about those choices changes that from 2000 to 8.1 there were only one major kernel build number changes, and it was from XP to Vista. Although unpopular, Vista was the biggest leap between any two versions, and part of its lack of popularity was that it was a breaking change that broke most drivers. It also didn't help that they were certifying underpowered machines as compatible.
The conversation I started was about the frequency of major build number increments, not what number they chose to signify a change.
What you described was a combination of marketing and a change in behavior. They skipped 7 because it would be confusing for 10 to be NT 7. They skipped 8 for the same reason, and 9 for the reason you described.
Nothing about those choices changes that from 2000 to 8.1 there were only one major kernel build number changes, and it was from XP to Vista. Although unpopular, Vista was the biggest leap between any two versions, and part of its lack of popularity was that it was a breaking change that broke most drivers. It also didn't help that they were certifying underpowered machines as compatible.
The conversation I started was about the frequency of major build number increments, not what number they chose to signify a change.