A similar issue appeared in Linux, when the kernel version jumped from 2.6 to 3 “just because”. At least it was not recommended for normal users to upgrade their system out of curiosity.
Yep. Because windows 95 and 98 exist, and there is a bunch of software which would do a check for the operating system version you were running with something like, if the operating system name starts with “Windows 9” etc
I have heard, but never in any way verified, that there was code that tried to identify whether you were running 95 or 98 by looking for a version starting with 9. If true, it would mean some code might treat Windows 9 as 95/98.
the official explanation is “marketing”. (there’s a few reasons for it. 9 is considered unlucky in japan, for example. they wanted branding with 10. etc)
The fun thing is that there was a version that should have come out between 8 and 10 and didn’t. they decided to abandon it in very very pre-alpha because it was just that bad. (No, that probably doesn’t explain the gap. but its fun to poke at.). Basically it was supposed to take all the stupid features like seamless phone OS integration and tablet stuff and become some sort of uber universal-operating system that sucks.
8.1 was a lot more different under the hood than it appeared. It was much more than a tweak or a patch. I’ve always felt like it was more of a Windows 9 with a retro 8 theme.
Did they ever explain why they skipped from 7 to 8 to 10?
rumour being a lot of legacy software checked
if(os_name.startsWith(“Windows 9”)) …which would break
A similar issue appeared in Linux, when the kernel version jumped from 2.6 to 3 “just because”. At least it was not recommended for normal users to upgrade their system out of curiosity.
Not a rumor, it was.
Yep. Because windows 95 and 98 exist, and there is a bunch of software which would do a check for the operating system version you were running with something like, if the operating system name starts with “Windows 9” etc
That sounds profoundly lazy and shortsighted…and so is totally believable.
Because Windows 7 8 9
I have heard, but never in any way verified, that there was code that tried to identify whether you were running 95 or 98 by looking for a version starting with 9. If true, it would mean some code might treat Windows 9 as 95/98.
I could totally believe that. Sounds like something I would do.
Nein.
the official explanation is “marketing”. (there’s a few reasons for it. 9 is considered unlucky in japan, for example. they wanted branding with 10. etc)
The fun thing is that there was a version that should have come out between 8 and 10 and didn’t. they decided to abandon it in very very pre-alpha because it was just that bad. (No, that probably doesn’t explain the gap. but its fun to poke at.). Basically it was supposed to take all the stupid features like seamless phone OS integration and tablet stuff and become some sort of uber universal-operating system that sucks.
8.1 used build numbers 9xxx (7 used 7xxx, 8 used 8xxx, and 10 started out using 10xxx), so you could argue it was technically Windows 9.
8.1 was a lot more different under the hood than it appeared. It was much more than a tweak or a patch. I’ve always felt like it was more of a Windows 9 with a retro 8 theme.
They wanted to be able to call it Windows X for religious reasons but then decided it was too obvious a tell. ☯️🔺x🔻☤
Elon on the other Hand is not that thoughtful.