iirc the no windows 9 thing was actually because a lot of software ran a compatibility check like:
ifwindowsversion= “windows 9*” then open legacy mode
This worked for software written for newer windows like xp but still allowing a legacy mode on older windows versions like 95 and 98. Problem was this also put that same software running on windows 9 into legacy mode. So they called it windows 10 to sidestep the compatibility issues.
It’s great to see to what lengths Microsoft goes to keep backwards compatibility. Compared to how a minor glibc update broke Linux apps without much warning. Without supporting legacy workflows I don’t think Microsoft would’ve had the market share they have today.
I believe that’s apocryphal… Some people came up with that theory on twitter, but AFAIK it’s not been confirmed. It only matters in some edge cases of an edge case.
And let’s be real, if backwards compatibility really mattered, they could have made the API return “Nine” or “IX” or whatever and used “9” everywhere else in the UI, marketing, packaging, whatever.
The real reason is probably the simplest and stupidest: Microsoft’s marketing department got impatient and went for the big round number because 10>9. Also why NVIDIA went 9xx->10xx->20xx… bigger number = better, it’s really that mind-numbingly stupid.
And that there is no version 9: no windows 9 no iPhone 9 etc. I think it’s s unlucky number somewhere in Asia
iirc the no windows 9 thing was actually because a lot of software ran a compatibility check like:
if windows version = “windows 9*” then open legacy modeThis worked for software written for newer windows like xp but still allowing a legacy mode on older windows versions like 95 and 98. Problem was this also put that same software running on windows 9 into legacy mode. So they called it windows 10 to sidestep the compatibility issues.
It’s great to see to what lengths Microsoft goes to keep backwards compatibility. Compared to how a minor glibc update broke Linux apps without much warning. Without supporting legacy workflows I don’t think Microsoft would’ve had the market share they have today.
I believe that’s apocryphal… Some people came up with that theory on twitter, but AFAIK it’s not been confirmed. It only matters in some edge cases of an edge case.
And let’s be real, if backwards compatibility really mattered, they could have made the API return “Nine” or “IX” or whatever and used “9” everywhere else in the UI, marketing, packaging, whatever.
The real reason is probably the simplest and stupidest: Microsoft’s marketing department got impatient and went for the big round number because 10>9. Also why NVIDIA went 9xx->10xx->20xx… bigger number = better, it’s really that mind-numbingly stupid.