June 30, 2015

About this comic

I still think it’s a little odd that MS jumped right over 9 to 10 in their numbering convention for Windows. What was it about 9 that didn’t do the job? It’s not a particularly ugly number. It’s not a low number. It’s rather penultimate in nature, but I’d see that as a good thing. Is it possible there was a 9, but it sucked so bad, they just leaped over it in favor of whatever was better about 10?

Strange. Nonetheless, I am pretty excited about 10. Seems like they are doing a lot of the right things this time around…stuff people want and need out of a modern OS.

OH! And did I tell you? There’s a way for you to get the ExtraLife definitive collection book right now? Well, support the Kickstarter, anyway! Head over there now!

18 Responses to Middleware

  1. Guillermo C says:

    According to a MS dev who posted on Reddit, the problem lies in that many apps have a code to verify which version of Windows they’re running. Guess how they check for Windows 95/98?

    if(version.StartsWith("Windows 9"))
    { /* 95 and 98 */
    } else {

  2. JKFraser says:

    Didn’t Tom say that there was some legacy software that looked for a “9” in the OS and automatically optimised itself for windows 95/98 ?

  3. Jeremy says:

    I think I heard that they skipped 9 because of supporting really old code that does a search on Windows version 9* (as in 95 or 98).

  4. Ben Lubar says:

    Java thinks any version of Windows that starts with a 9 is 95.

  5. Aye, it sounds like a plan to keep programs written by lazy programmers from thinking they’re on Windows 9x.

    Maybe this means somewhere down the road they’ll skip from Windows 29 to Windows 40. (Unless there’s something written for Windows 2.x that still matters!)

  6. Keith Gould says:

    Welcome to how twisted marketeers think.

    It’s all about a desperate need to seem to be as hip and advanced as Apple (never thought I’d have the opportunity to write that). 9 is, after all, less than 10. Microsoft couldn’t possibly release something less than Mac OS 10.

  7. Jay says:

    Erich has it spot on, lazy programs just used to check for 95 and 98 compatibility by only checking the first 9 characters of the version for “windows 9”. Seemed okay at the time.

  8. Crazy says:

    Actually, it’s because there is another Windows-related architecture whose number is 9, and they don’t want to have a mix between that thing and the next Windows.

  9. Vake Xeacons says:

    (sings)”Naugh-ty, nas-ty, mean old numba Ni-yi-yi-yiiine!”

  10. Jack says:

    Some folks actually thought 8.1 was windows 9… These are also the people that thought that if you installed 32 bit twice you would have 64 bit…

  11. Luis says:

    It’s all marketing. To make it “sound” equal to the competition, thus changing your perception.

    Xbox 360 -> PlayStation 3
    Windows 10 -> OS X

    It’s not strange, it’s stupid.

  12. Chase says:

    No tall skinny and short fat guys?

  13. Yue says:

    Because of compatibility issues. With older softwares not working properly due to devs just putting ” 9* ” instead of 95/98/98se or whatever into their programming. So say you try to use such software on Windows 9, it will think you’re using an ancient version of windows and potentially just crash because some OS dependency are no longer present.

  14. Derek Good says:

    Where’s the fat guy/skinny guy combo? This comic is all wrong!

  15. Rick says:

    They’re probably skipping right to Windows 10 after 7 ate 9.

  16. James says:

    We can thank Hitler and his 9, 9, 9 speech.

  17. t33p0 says:

    …..I bet MS did this only to confuse everybody!

    I would have done the same way, just to have everyone freaking out!

Comments are closed.