Stabilizer comments on Rationality Quotes October 2014 - Less Wrong

4 Post author: Tyrrell_McAllister 01 October 2014 11:02PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (236)
Tags: quotes

Comments (236)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Stabilizer 03 October 2014 10:24:12PM 22 points [-]

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.

-John D. Cook

Comment author: V_V 03 October 2014 10:55:22PM *  11 points [-]

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.

Comment author: ShardPhoenix 04 October 2014 10:16:44PM *  6 points [-]

Except that Windows 95 actual version number is 4.0, and Windows 98 version number is 4.1.

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

Comment author: V_V 04 October 2014 11:00:05PM 3 points [-]

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.

Comment author: roystgnr 04 October 2014 04:13:44PM 3 points [-]

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."

Comment author: VAuroch 06 October 2014 03:59:13AM 6 points [-]

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.

Comment author: ChristianKl 07 October 2014 12:42:48PM 1 point [-]

I think the core reason is marketing. Windows 10 sounds more revolutionary then switching from 8 to 9.

Comment author: johnlawrenceaspden 04 October 2014 12:30:16PM 1 point [-]

Crikey, how does the dumb software react to running on Windows 1?

Comment author: Luke_A_Somers 04 October 2014 02:25:19PM 4 points [-]

I am rather doubtful that a noticeable number of programs are actually capable of running on both Windows 1 and Windows 10.

Comment author: [deleted] 06 October 2014 05:24:23PM 0 points [-]

Why not “Windows Nine”? :-)

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit