So why is MS skipping 9? And going to 10?

[will9]

:wink: Like I heard some kid say when asked to count to 100: 1, 2, skip a few, 99, 100.

 

[DavidinCT]

Yea, I know...it's just a number and personally I don't care but, I am just wondering what was the logic behind skipping a 9 when the last 2 versions of Windows were on Numbered versions and the next progression in Windows would of been Windows 9....

Like I said not that I really care, 7,9, 10, 22, I don't care but, what was the internal logic behind it and the reasoning for it....That is what I am wondering...

Cause 7 ate 9.

Not too many posts get me to LOL on this site (Yea, because I hang around the Cyan for the ICON threads) but, this did have me rolling a little bit....Funny and it fits perfect..

 

[Ebuka Allison]

Because 8.1 was 9

 

[ygtgngr]

Also there is this theory that 10 is actually 2 in binary because this is like the New Windows that runs on every device so like the second generation of the regular desktop OS.

 

[undulose]

I'm sorry but those are your opinions. Mine are different, I think Windows 10 Sounds good, but to me I think they should have went numeral order.

They can't. Aside from their explanation on their live show (which I hoped you've already watched since I quoted your first comment on my previous comment), there have been rumors that coding problems arose from Windows 9 having the same first digit as Windows 95 and 98. So there are a lot of logical explanations why they should skip '9'.

Sent from my MI 3W using Tapatalk

 

[Christian Kallevig]

Also there is this theory that 10 is actually 2 in binary because this is like the New Windows that runs on every device so like the second generation of the regular desktop OS.

That is actually really clever... And would go right over the heads of most people.

Still, I like it personally at least. Even if it would be silly

 

[ntice_521]

Because Windows 8 has the stink of failure, so they want people to think that Windows 10 is very different.

 

[RoyalX]

In their opinion WP8.1 is Windows 9
Therefore now is Windows 10 coming
By the way Microsoft has never had decimal digits OS, like 8.1

 

[t.mehoves]

In their opinion WP8.1 is Windows 9
Therefore now is Windows 10 coming
By the way Microsoft has never had decimal digits OS, like 8.1

You mean like Windows 3.1 or what about 3.11?

 

[Mike Gibson]

I wish people would stop posting the kernel API version as if it means something. The Windows group at MSFT uses the codename, e.g. "Threshold", and then switches to the official name when it is determined, e.g. "Windows 10". You never hear anyone talk about "version 6.3". The version reported by GetVersion() or GetVersionEx is more of a headache than anything else, the concern being "how many programs will we break by changing the reported value". The preferred way for client programs to test for features is to actually try to use them and see if the operation fails.

Why did MSFT go from 8 to 10? Who knows. There are plenty of conspiracy theories (issues with Germany, trying to match OSX with WinX, etc.). Maybe it was just to stir up discussion about Windows again. I'm more concerned about the this is the last major version of Windows talk from MSFT. I don't know exactly what that means ... but I don't like the sound of it.

 

[a5cent]

That is actually really clever... And would go right over the heads of most people.

Still, I like it personally at least. Even if it would be silly

I started this rumour here at WPC, but really, I was just kidding. I have no idea what is behind the jump in version number, other than what was already mentioned by MS themselves.

My veiled point was that even abstract numbers may have a different meaning than one might think, so obsessing over decimal 10 may really just be a waste of time.

If I had to speculate, I'd say MS is just trying to get as far away from the Windows 8 name as possible. No more, no less.

Either way, the name comes from MS' marketing department and has nothing to do with engineering, so at least all the theories about kernel versions and such are most definitely bogus.

 

[wuiyang]

cause most programmer did this:

if( version.StartWith("Windows 9") )
{ print("you are using Windows 95 or Windows 98"); }

 

[a5cent]

cause most programmer did this:



if( version.StartWith("Windows 9") )

{ print("you are using Windows 95 or Windows 98"); }

You'd better not be serious. Not always easy to tell...

;-)

 

[Andrew Kerr2]

yeah its weird

 

[Letros]

This is probably true, there is a lot of third party software that would have to be recoded if Windows 9 was read as the version.

 

[a5cent]

This is probably true, there is a lot of third party software that would have to be recoded if Windows 9 was read as the version.

Really, no software program on earth determines the Windows version number in the way implied above. Win32 doesn't even report it that way.

It's BS.

 

[ygtgngr]

Really, no software program on earth determines the Windows version number in the way implied above. Win32 doesn't even report it that way.

It's BS.

He is saying that developers calls 95 and 98, 9x thats why when their code sees 9 it decides it's either 95 or 98.

 

[wuiyang]

Really, no software program on earth determines the Windows version number in the way implied above. Win32 doesn't even report it that way.

It's BS.

cranbourne comments on New Windows Version will be called Windows 10

most company developed application/program way decade ago, they still have some very old code like those

 

[TLRtheory]

Our company's local Microsoft rep was in today and gave us the scoop on this.

Apparently, Windows Vista *was* supposed to be seven, and they released what should've been Windows 8 as Windows 7. From what he said, Windows 10 was them fixing a long running issue in the naming.

 

[a5cent]

cranbourne comments on New Windows Version will be called Windows 10

most company developed application/program way decade ago, they still have some very old code like those

A lot of old code may still be in use, but Win32 never supported the idiotic method of version checking that is being implied here. It never worked that way, so that type of mistake could never have been made. That is why it's BS. You don't have to believe me. Look up the APIs used 15 years ago. They never were that stupid.