▲ 334 ▼ Microsoft might want to be making Windows 12 a subscription OS, suggests leak (www.neowin.net) submitted 2 years ago by meiko60@lemmy.sdf.org to c/technology@lemmy.ml 182 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 11 points 2 years ago (5 children) didn't they say windows 10 was going to be the last version of windows? hence why they jumped to the number 10 as it's nice and round. permalink fedilink source hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] AndrasKrigare@beehaw.org 14 points 2 years ago (1 child) I thought they jumped to it because ancient, poorly made software would check for Windows 9* to cover 95 and 98, and could now potentially catch windows 9 as well permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Moonrise2473@feddit.it 2 points 2 years ago Java was one of those poorly made software, but it seems stupid to program a check like that. What's the chance that after Windows 98, Microsoft would release Windows 99? The check should just used the version number. If Windows 95 was 4.0 and Windows 98 was 4.1 should have done the check as "4.*" as a future compatible version could have been 4.2 (win me was 4.9) while one with so many changes that it might need a newer version of the app could have been 5.0 (windows 2000) permalink fedilink source parent [–] WetBeardHairs@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 years ago I said it was going to by my last version of Windows. Coincidence? permalink fedilink source parent [–] Anticorp@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago Yes, but they've always been liars. permalink fedilink source parent [–] jose1324@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago No the company itself never said it permalink fedilink source parent [–] wander1236@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I'm pretty sure they used 10 because 7 was build 7xxx, 8 was build 8xxx, and 8.1 was 9xxx, making at least the initial versions of 10 10xxx. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Moonrise2473@feddit.it 1 point 2 years ago IMHO that's a coincidence of the build counter. 7 was 7600, 8 was 9200 and 8.1 was 9600. Then they changed how often they redo a build, so now it's over 23000 But at the time of win 10 release I saw on Twitter a screenshot of a decompiled ancient Java setup that did a check "if Windows 9*"... Can't find that again permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AndrasKrigare@beehaw.org 14 points 2 years ago (1 child) I thought they jumped to it because ancient, poorly made software would check for Windows 9* to cover 95 and 98, and could now potentially catch windows 9 as well permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Moonrise2473@feddit.it 2 points 2 years ago Java was one of those poorly made software, but it seems stupid to program a check like that. What's the chance that after Windows 98, Microsoft would release Windows 99? The check should just used the version number. If Windows 95 was 4.0 and Windows 98 was 4.1 should have done the check as "4.*" as a future compatible version could have been 4.2 (win me was 4.9) while one with so many changes that it might need a newer version of the app could have been 5.0 (windows 2000) permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Moonrise2473@feddit.it 2 points 2 years ago Java was one of those poorly made software, but it seems stupid to program a check like that. What's the chance that after Windows 98, Microsoft would release Windows 99? The check should just used the version number. If Windows 95 was 4.0 and Windows 98 was 4.1 should have done the check as "4.*" as a future compatible version could have been 4.2 (win me was 4.9) while one with so many changes that it might need a newer version of the app could have been 5.0 (windows 2000) permalink fedilink source parent
[–] WetBeardHairs@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 years ago I said it was going to by my last version of Windows. Coincidence? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Anticorp@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago Yes, but they've always been liars. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] jose1324@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago No the company itself never said it permalink fedilink source parent
[–] wander1236@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I'm pretty sure they used 10 because 7 was build 7xxx, 8 was build 8xxx, and 8.1 was 9xxx, making at least the initial versions of 10 10xxx. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Moonrise2473@feddit.it 1 point 2 years ago IMHO that's a coincidence of the build counter. 7 was 7600, 8 was 9200 and 8.1 was 9600. Then they changed how often they redo a build, so now it's over 23000 But at the time of win 10 release I saw on Twitter a screenshot of a decompiled ancient Java setup that did a check "if Windows 9*"... Can't find that again permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Moonrise2473@feddit.it 1 point 2 years ago IMHO that's a coincidence of the build counter. 7 was 7600, 8 was 9200 and 8.1 was 9600. Then they changed how often they redo a build, so now it's over 23000 But at the time of win 10 release I saw on Twitter a screenshot of a decompiled ancient Java setup that did a check "if Windows 9*"... Can't find that again permalink fedilink source parent