The version of Windows following 8.1 will be Windows 10, not Windows 9. Apparently this is because Microsoft knows that a lot of software naively looks at the first digit of the version number, concluding that it must be Windows 95 or Windows 98 if it starts with 9.
Many think this is stupid. They say that Microsoft should call the next version Windows 9, and if somebody’s dumb code breaks, it’s their own fault.
People who think that way aren’t billionaires. Microsoft got where it is, in part, because they have enough business savvy to take responsibility for problems that are not their fault but that would be perceived as being their fault.
The version of Windows following 8.1 will be Windows 10, not Windows 9. Apparently this is because Microsoft knows that a lot of software naively looks at the first digit of the version number, concluding that it must be Windows 95 or Windows 98 if it starts with 9.
Except that Windows 95 actual version number is 4.0, and Windows 98 version number is 4.1.
It seems that Microsoft has been messing with version numbers in the last years, for some unknown (and, I would suppose, probably stupid) reason: that’s why Xbox One follows Xbox 360 which follows Xbox, so that Xbox One is actually the third Xbox, the Xbox with 3 in the name is the second one, and the Xbox without 1 is the first one. Isn’t it clear?
Maybe I can’t understand the logic behind this because I’m not a billionarie, but I’m inclined to think this comes from the same geniuses who thought that the design of Windows 8 UI made sense.
But then Microsoft could just have set the new version string to “Windows9” or “Windows_9“ or “Windows-9” or “Windows.9” or “Windows nine”, etc., without messing with the official product name.
No, this is due to their own code. A shortcut in the standard developer’s tools (published by Microsoft) for Windows devs bring use ‘windows 9’ as a shortcut to windows 95 and windows 98. This is a problem of their own making.
Microsoft got where it is, in part, by relying on the exact opposite user psychology. “What the guy is supposed to do is feel uncomfortable, and when he has bugs, suspect that the problem is DR-DOS and then go out to buy MS-DOS.”
-John D. Cook
Except that Windows 95 actual version number is 4.0, and Windows 98 version number is 4.1.
It seems that Microsoft has been messing with version numbers in the last years, for some unknown (and, I would suppose, probably stupid) reason: that’s why Xbox One follows Xbox 360 which follows Xbox, so that Xbox One is actually the third Xbox, the Xbox with 3 in the name is the second one, and the Xbox without 1 is the first one. Isn’t it clear?
Maybe I can’t understand the logic behind this because I’m not a billionarie, but I’m inclined to think this comes from the same geniuses who thought that the design of Windows 8 UI made sense.
The programs causing the problem are reading the version name string, not the version number.
Examples: https://searchcode.com/?q=if%28version%2Cstartswith%28%22windows+9%22%29
But then Microsoft could just have set the new version string to “Windows9” or “Windows_9“ or “Windows-9” or “Windows.9” or “Windows nine”, etc., without messing with the official product name.
I don’t buy this was the issue.
No, this is due to their own code. A shortcut in the standard developer’s tools (published by Microsoft) for Windows devs bring use ‘windows 9’ as a shortcut to windows 95 and windows 98. This is a problem of their own making.
Microsoft got where it is, in part, by relying on the exact opposite user psychology. “What the guy is supposed to do is feel uncomfortable, and when he has bugs, suspect that the problem is DR-DOS and then go out to buy MS-DOS.”
Crikey, how does the dumb software react to running on Windows 1?
I am rather doubtful that a noticeable number of programs are actually capable of running on both Windows 1 and Windows 10.
I think the core reason is marketing. Windows 10 sounds more revolutionary then switching from 8 to 9.
Why not “Windows Nine”? :-)