Lazy coding might be why Windows 10 isn't called 'Windows 9'

[Scorpus]

At the launch of Windows 10, many people were wondering why Microsoft decided to skip calling the OS 'Windows 9', which would have been the obvious choice going by past naming conventions. Some people claimed the updated OS is named this way because it's such a significant upgrade over Windows 8.1, but that might not be telling the full story.

According to a self-proclaimed Microsoft developer on Reddit, during testing of the next version of Windows, the company discovered a number of third-party programs that were lazy with their version checking. Some apps were simply checking if the name of the OS reported by Windows started with "Windows 9", and configuring themselves as if the OS was either Windows 95 or Windows 98.

This caused compatibility problems when the new version of Windows was called 'Windows 9', as these apps believed they were running on a horribly outdated OS. This method of checking the version of Windows isn't one Microsoft advises developers use, but the problems during testing may have swayed the company to name their new OS 'Windows 10' regardless.

Microsoft has previously run into compatibility issues arising from in-app version checks, which is why all modern versions of Windows report themselves as Windows 6.x, despite being named with a higher number. Windows 8.1, for example, is actually labeled as Windows version 6.3 by the OS. Running into a similar issue with Windows 9 isn't unbelievable, though choosing to rename an OS because of it does seem somewhat far fetched.

That said, some Redditors did point out that the lazy version checks are found throughout a large number of applications simply by performing an online check of publicly available code. This does make this theory behind the name of Windows 10 more credible, although Microsoft isn't likely to confirm it any time soon.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/58279-lazy-coding-might-be-why-windows-10-isnt-called-windows-9.html

 

[Kibaruk]

I would consider changing the news topic, it makes it sound like microsoft is the lazy coder.

To, example "3rd party software coding might be..." yata yata.

Though I wouldn't have thought about it

 

[tipstir]

Windows 10 was suppose to be 128-bit OS! Well 64/128-bit now without Windows 9 they just gone over that to Windows 10. I fee a Windows 15 will be next. They need to use a different name. Windows EX!

 

[Guest]

Trying to compete with OS X (10). That's the main reason, 9 is less than 10, not good for marketing. But soon OS X will go to 11

 

[cliffordcooley]

Well they can't call it Windows 12, because then "lazy coding" will get in the way of Microsoft naming the 128 bit "Windows 128".

Edit:
Or perhaps Windows 12 is when they want to come out with the 128 bit version.

 

[Guest]

There are 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.

 

[MID.AS]

"all modern versions of Windows report themselves as Windows 6.x, despite being named with a higher number. Windows 8.1, for example, is actually labeled as Windows version 6.3 by the OS"

By that logic calling the new version "Windows 10" makes even less sense!! ...if the above statement is true, a new OS could be called anything - I.e. "Windows 9", but just report itself internally as say Windows version 6.4!!!

 

[cliffordcooley]

What is confusing me is the thought of an antiquated Windows OS getting in the way of App installs. Seriously why is Windows 9x even an issue. I thought we were moving past Windows XP, but yet here we are stuck with conflicts from Windows 9x generation. After all the talk of Microsoft dropping support for XP, here they are going out of their way to continue support for Windows 9x Applications.

Let the Lazy Coders fix their own Lazy Code. We are not teaching them anything by avoiding the issue.

 

[Guest]

Developers aren't going to update code that works. The onus is on the OS to not break compatibility, not the developer.

 

[BlueDrake]

I want to know what developers would, use such a universal code that covers from 95 up to Windows 8. Seriously it shouldn't be that hard, what apps are they even talking about? That's what confuses me, being if it's some silly / dodgy app to begin with, why should Microsoft be at fault for someone's bad coding?

 

[cliffordcooley]

Developers aren't going to update code that works. The onus is on the OS to not break compatibility, not the developer.

Microsoft has broken compatibility of older applications with every OS release. What makes this any different. It is appalling to think that Windows 9x is still a topic of compatibility today.

 

[Trillionsin]

Some apps were simply checking if the name of the OS reported by Windows started with "Windows 9", and configuring themselves as if the OS was either Windows 95 or Windows 98.

As non serious as this is... BAM, CALLED IT.

 

[Chazz]

From what I gather, the code is only at issue from windows 95 and 98 not the other windows versions. It seems when people made version checks in their programs, they would check for(throwing random names out)
Windows 9
Windows me
Windows xp
Windows vista
I think they all have their own checks, but instead of checking for windows 95 and 98, they instead just check for the 9, since at the time that only included those two windows versions. If Microsoft names it Windows 9, then all of these programs that took shortcuts will see the new windows as the old windows and not work properly. Microsoft can't force others to add stuff to their code, even if it's minor.. so I guess they decided to bypass that and call it Windows 10.

@MID.AS
WIndows NT 6.3 could mean server or home, pretty much down the line for the versions. It's kind of the operating system before they make it better/worse for all the versions I think. It's the core technology. Whereas I think the version checks would check for windows 8.1 or windows server 2012 R2 in some cases? I'm not too sure and just offering up suggestion.

 

[Guest]

The other Guest was spot on and this guest also think that's the reason... Keeping up with OS X (Roman Numeral for 10). Microsoft needs not chasing other company around like friggin' loser and start innovating and start leading. You'll never be a leader if you following other companies around. Just do something different or do something you'll be successful at for the last 3 decade... geez. They should just hire me as a CEO. The new CEO is just that not innovative.

Guest said:
Trying to compete with OS X (10). That's the main reason, 9 is less than 10, not good for marketing. But soon OS X will go to 11

 

[Guest]

Too lazy coding result must rename Windows to Doors at last.

 

[Guest]

This is a weird story, as WIndows internal version numbers rarely match the name of OS. For example, Windows 8 is version 6.3 and if you do a programmatic version check that's what you'll get.

 

[Kibaruk]

Microsoft has broken compatibility of older applications with every OS release. What makes this any different. It is appalling to think that Windows 9x is still a topic of compatibility today.

This is simply false.

By that exagerated and false exacerbation (Redundance appart) you are saying that every devepoler so far has had to code everything again and again after XP, after vista, after 7, after 8 and so on and so on.

I haven't had any troubles so far with my software, except by a single application (A game that was "indie").

 

[EEatGDL]

Windows 10 was suppose to be 128-bit OS! Well 64/128-bit now without Windows 9 they just gone over that to Windows 10. I fee a Windows 15 will be next. They need to use a different name. Windows EX!

WTF?! Is that sarcasm or what, I don't see any near-future 128-bit microprocessor. And why would we need now a 128-bit architecture -it is clear that the internal vectors are a lot wider than 64 bits for improved fetching, but that doesn't mean the buses and registers should grow overall.

 

[cliffordcooley]

This is simply false.

I didn't say all, stick that false statement on something that is actually false. Every OS upgrade, there has been applications that only worked with the previous OS. What the hell do you think they started the compatibility feature for?

I haven't had any troubles so far with my software, except by a single application (A game that was "indie").

And you have tried them all! That's an unlikely story.

 

[Nobina]

The other Guest was spot on and this guest also think that's the reason... Keeping up with OS X (Roman Numeral for 10). Microsoft needs not chasing other company around like friggin' loser and start innovating and start leading. You'll never be a leader if you following other companies around. Just do something different or do something you'll be successful at for the last 3 decade... geez. They should just hire me as a CEO. The new CEO is just that not innovative.

Guest said:
Trying to compete with OS X (10). That's the main reason, 9 is less than 10, not good for marketing. But soon OS X will go to 11

You really think anyone cares about the number? If OS X is 10 and Windows is 9 it is automatically worse? OS X will go to 11, so what? Who gives a ****?

 

[Jad Chaar]

Definitely a weird reason but makes sense.

 

[Teko03]

"all modern versions of Windows report themselves as Windows 6.x, despite being named with a higher number. Windows 8.1, for example, is actually labeled as Windows version 6.3 by the OS"

By that logic calling the new version "Windows 10" makes even less sense!! ...if the above statement is true, a new OS could be called anything - I.e. "Windows 9", but just report itself internally as say Windows version 6.4!!!

The best reasoning for the naming scheme is:

Windows Vista = 6.0
Windows 7 = 6.1, 6+1 = 7
Windows 8 = 6.2, 6+2 = 8
Windows 8.1 = 6.3 = 9 (so technically this was 9, which would explain the "skip")
Windows 10 = 6.4, 6+4 = 10

 

[Raoul Duke]

The best reasoning for the naming scheme is:

Windows Vista = 6.0
Windows 7 = 6.1, 6+1 = 7
Windows 8 = 6.2, 6+2 = 8
Windows 8.1 = 6.3 = 9 (so technically this was 9, which would explain the "skip")
Windows 10 = 6.4, 6+4 = 10

and all that numerology I suppose hides some secret meaning that we can all speculate on,
I agree with Nobina, I quote "so what? Who gives a ****?"

 

[Joe Penn]

Trying to compete with OS X (10). That's the main reason, 9 is less than 10, not good for marketing. But soon OS X will go to 11

Trying to compete? Why would a company with 85%+ market share even worry about a company with < 10% market share?

 

[Guest]

After reading the story, and all that has been replied, I am even more confused. The whole 128bit theory of re-naming to win 10 really makes no sense, the competing with apple OS X "10" does. As for it presumably running 128bit, I finally have 64bit programs running 5 years after I purchased my computer, so why worry about 128bit?? I would have to believe the real truth would be, Microsoft still will not admit how horrible windows 8 itself was, and that 8.1 was nothing more than a bandage for a gaping wound, So they "Microsoft" are trying their best to distance themselves from a big mistake and renew customer confidence, as they did with Windows Vista, then created Windows 7!!!!