same shit that they did with windows 98, it was supposed to be the last windows based on the 9x kernel (on top of MS-DOS) if it wasnt for windows me (it was also based on the 9x kernel windows 98 used)
Once Vista was patched it was better than XP once it was patched. Early days of XP and Vista weren't that good but no one acknowledges how XP was. Anyhow, I've never had major problems with any of them, not even ME.
Vista ran fine on high end hardware it was just ahead of its time. Windows 7 was litteraly a carbon copy of vista but with less visuals so essentially Windows 7 could be called vista Light
If you ignore the "marketing names", the _real_ Windows version numbers make *way* more sense: Windows 95 = version 4.0 Windows 98 = 4.1 Windows Me = 4.9 Windows 2000 = 5.0 Windows XP = 5.1 Windows XP x64 Edition = 5.2 Windows Vista = 6.0 Windows 7 = 6.1 Windows 8 = 6.2 Windows 8.1 = 6.3 Windows 10 "betas" = 6.4 Windows 10 = 10.0 Windows 11 = 10.0 Yes, Windows "11" is still version 10.0 This shows how similar Vista/7/8/10 really are behind-the-scenes.
@@Power_2564 As someone who used Vista for a really long time I honestly never understood the hatred for it, I never had problems with it, to me it just seemed like a version of 7
@@-pyrosef- based on the shitty laptop version - all that windows 11 seemed to do was destroy the start menu and replace it with some convoluted trash.
I'm still not over the whole "windows 10 is the last version of Windows you'll ever need to buy!" followed by "oh nevermind, here's windows 11 hihi". That first statement surely drove a lot of sales for windows 10. Feels like a lawsuit could be appropriate here. They falsely advertised a product as being a "perpetual license".
Yeah, I remember when I first heard that. I immediately knew they'd end up backtracking and make another version. It really has to do with the business model of most Silicon Valley companies. You gotta have some "New" and "Exciting" thing to show to the shareholders and consumers... Same shit as before. The only direction the tech market seems to be going to is Little Tikes. Oversimplified, useless shit with no purpose
more like "here is windows 11 and it won't offically run on old-ish processors despite the fact that they are more than powerful enough to perform daily tasks and even game. so you are gonna have to buy a new PC when we stop supporting windows 10."
Microsoft never made an announcement like that. It was literally one chopped up quote from one guy who might've been on the team and all the media outlets rolled with it.
@@Holy_Hobo while it's true it came from an employee, when the media asked Microsoft for comments, they 100% backed that employee and agreed with what he said... so what are we supposed to believe??
@@therealbenji You'd be surprised. I've seen class action lawsuits succeed with way less leverage. In the US? Probably not, but in other countries, like Canada, advertising and consumer protection laws are VERY strict.
@@BurnedNoodle well it still counts as a release of windows, whether it’s for businesses or not, also NT 4.0, 3.51 and 3.5 (pretty much identical) and NT 3.1 are also releases of windows, along with windows 8.1 AND windows 3.1, so windows 10 would really be the 17th version of windows.
As a programmer I've always heard this theory that in plenty of old software, W95 and 98 were identified as "Windows 9%", and Windows 9 would fall into that same expression with the wildcard, causing all sorts of unexpected bugs.
@@rosiefay7283 Except it does? Although I just gave a random wildcard in my example, and I don't even have any idea how windows version was checked in old software, and it depends on which language or library you're using.. Many if not most wildcards match 'zero or more characters', which fits the bill here. In your defense, this is probably just an urban legend, so it's not supposed to make perfect sense if you think too hard about it.
@@rosiefay7283 A wildcard also matches an empty value, so it would match. But regardless, one of the easier ways to check if it is a 95 or 98 OS, is by doing a "StartsWith("9")" check, which would also be true for Windows 9.
Here's a copy paste of one of my comments: That makes no sense since the kernels, hell the entire architecture is fundamentally different. Windows 9x used a monolithic DOS kernel while Windows 10 uses the NT kernel a hybrid kernel ripped off from IBM's OS/2. We can easily debunk this pathetic so called "theory" because Windows ME exists, and no the compatibility issues came from DOS functionality being removed from the user. Now if we are talking about modern applications being confused that's even dumber since applications have been written with NT based operating systems since Windows Vista, and even if somehow some idiot made a program that would get confused then Microsoft could've just changed the version number to something others than 9 which it wouldn't likely be anyways, not to mention that of a program like that poorly made wouldn't be likely be able to run anyways.
@@Leonard_MT You forget something: A normal user program don't care for your Kernel! All handles with Windows are done via API commands. Which means the programmer must only assure, that his program calls the right API. And since Windows 1 it has been always the case that a program that can run on for example Windows 3.11 can also run on 95, XP etc., as all API commands for example introduced in Windows 95 can still be addressed with Windows 10, they would most likely just start newer codes in the dlls. When for example you want that a program opens the control panel, that works since 95 with the same API calls, but the window that opens will look different (as it would start the actual version of the control panel). So when you wanted to have a test in your program if the Windows OS is young enough = has the API routines you needed only to check for the minimum spec = has the user Windows 9% and not Windows 3.11 running. Don't forget, that was in a time when NT wasn't used outside of offices and XP = giving the normal people OS a name wasn't yet a thing. Nowadays of course programmers do more intelligent tests like checking for the build no or nt kernel version, but we talk about the 1990s. At that time checking for your Program running in Windows 95 instead for a specific build number was much faster (and also the computers much slower, so even 5% faster routines could be significant). And yes, it was for example for installation programs important to know if they run on 95 or 3.11, as even stuff like configuration files were stored differently, Windows 3.11 only had .ini files as a choice, while Windows 95 introduced the registry file. So when you had your installation program made to store stuff in the registry, the program needed Windows 95 to run and had to check before installation if it's running on Windows 95. Also it was easier to check if the OS Handle is "Windows 9%" then as testing if the 32bit routines work - in fact there was no way to test it outside of making a huge addition and checking if the result is right, but that would take MORE time than just checking the OS handle which was stored as a constant in RAM all the time. When Windows 95 was found in that handle, the program knew that it was on a 32 bit OS. Perhabs you Zoomer should stop trying to teach us Millenials about how computing worked in the 1990s, because unlike you were already used our computers then for more than playing Neopets. Already the fact that you write that NT based computer programs have been programmed "since Vista" shows your bad knowledge - XP was already NT based and was before Vista.
@@bobbyjarsulic862 he said "tenth *consumer edition* of Windows" ... which excludes Window NT and Windows 2000. Windows 2000 was the successor to Windows NT (not to Windows 98), while Windows ME was - about at the same time- the successor to Windows 98.
No, some software would've confused it for 95 and 98; a lot of older software just checks for "Windows 9X" and it Windows 9 would've been flagged as a operating system from 1998.
They did a quick scan through open source libraries and noticed that code was scanning the windows version string, and if it started “Windows 9” they would assume they were running wintendo, i.e. Windows 95 or Windows 98, meaning tons of code would break. As you (probably) know, Microsoft’s only real priority is to not break existing code, so they skipped versions. But also- they definitely intended for Windows 10 to be an OS X and last for decades, but when Apple decided it wasn’t cool anymore, Microsoft immediately released Windows 11.
This theory makes no sense because "Windows 95" and "Windows 98" were marketing names and were not used in software code. The real version numbers used in code were 4.0 and 4.1 respectively.
@Elaine Benes Yeah? Browser identification in User-agent header anyone? Why do you thing Opera stuck on Opera/9.80 and started adding version/x.x.x token, and everyone else caught up with such "stupid" idea? I personally know and wrote a ton of apps that look at 'Windows 9' substring(yes, shit code, matching shit times).
They _did_ do 10X though. Also I'd imagine doing Windows X would attract much ridicule from Windows users and _especially_ Mac users. Microsoft already has a track record of cribbing from Apple - sometimes justified, sometimes for silly reasons - to the point where one of Apple's taglines for WWDC 2004 where they announced OS X Tiger was "Redmond, start your photocopiers."
@@sodaponeIt’s not like Apple is free from copying though. Basically every IOS version comes out with some “innovation” that was on Android devices multiple years prior.
On that topic, I found out that Microsoft never officially made the "last version of Windows" statement on Windows 10. Jerry Nixon did state this at the MS Ignite conference in 2015, but it wasn't an official Microsoft announcement, so maybe they WERE planning to keep going with Windows, and look where that has us now!
I remember when they proudly announced to the world that Windows 10 would be the last and definitive version of Windows, and that from that moment on, it would simply keep on receiving updates forever. Well that was a lie. They announced Windows 11 like nothing.
@@stitchfinger7678 Yes! "We said this, but we realised we had too many cool new things we needed to add so we made W11" would've been nicer to hear rather than us having to question our own memory and learn *not* to believe everything they say
It's all about Apple. MacOS was 10.x.x for many many years and MS simply wanted to be on the "same level" and also wanted to stick to 10 forever like Apple. When Apple suddenly startet to increase the main version to 11 MS of course had to follow suit. PS: the same reason Xbox numbering is such a mess. The second iteration would be Xbox 2 vs. PS 3. So they went "360" and from then on just.. lost oversight ;-
@@janhofmann3499 there is no doubt there are patterns, but people always keep insisting it's just one thing, the only thing we can be pretty sure about is that it has nothing to do with development, they called it build `10240` and that's only because they already hit 9000 with 8.1
Actually, Microsoft had a t-shirt with a binary print on it, and it said (if you decode the binary into dec into ascii) "Windows 10, because 7 8 9" :D kind of funny.
Apple did it to signify the start of a new generation of Apple design. The 8 was the regular iPhone 7 successor and the skipped number between 8 and 10 signified the huge gap between the 2.
I knew as soon as they advertised it as "the last version of Windows" but didn't call it just "Windows"that it wasn't actually the last version of Windows
@@Slevin-Kelevra yeah and 98 is rebadged 95 by your logic edit: well technically windows 7 was just windows 6.1 and 6 was vista but that would mean that 98 would be a bit of a 95.1
I was noticing the lag of win vista too, so, to have normal naming: win 95 should be 4th, win 98 should be 5th, win millennium edition should be 6th, win xp should be the actual win 7, win vista should be win 8, they should win 7 actually have called win 9, win 8 would then be win 10, 8.1 could then have been 10.1 or 11, and yes, win 10 would be 11 or 12, and now win 11 could have been 12 or 13. Anyway didn't apple with the iphone skip number 9 too? And samsung skipped s11 to s19...
@@largewallofbeans9812 Windows 7 is litteraly a carbon copy of Vista but without all the visual upgrades Vista had which made it perform like ass on shit hardware. Vista was THE OS back in the day for gaming pc's and high end rigs. Yeah ofcourse it ran like ass on a Pentium dual lmao. Windows 7 is just vista light...
I asked a representative where windows 9 was when they visited my university years ago. He said that windows 9 wasn't released to the public, they upgraded again to 10 and released that. I asked why they didn't just call THAT version windows 9, and call the other one 8.2. He moved to the next person for questions.
That sounds too much like giving the people what they want, rather than the steaming heap ms wants us to use. At this point a couple distros of linux make more sense than any of that schist storm.
There actually was a plan to make windows 10 the last windows and keep on with manor updates, therefore it should later only be called „windows“ without a number, I remember someone said that in an interview. But they threw the plan by side.
Yes, Dell and other manifacturers were against it. Because they want to sell new computers. It's like with Android and IOS: Don't believe the BS that the new version of them is needed practically. As Linux is modular, they could implement ANY security feature they want into existing Android and I-OS versions. They just don't update their OS but upgrade them to force you to buy a new phone because they make it so that you cannot upgrade with your specific phone to a newer version.
It is actually partially because of the 95/98 thing. Because of backwards compatability, programs that checked 95/98 as the version simply looked for a 9 in the version ID, instead of specifying further than that. So as far as some programs would be concerned 95, 98, and 9 would all be the same system to them.
Windows 7 WAS Vista rebranded... at the end of Vista's life with all the updates, it was pretty much the same software... Vista's name was just dragged through the mud by the time they actually fixed everything.... So they renamed it...
@@midnite59 Many ways is a huge overstatement, overall the changes are very minor and most of the differences are only performance based. Vista was good from the beginning, it was just too hard to run on the average computer at the time. Windows 7 was both lighter and came out 3 years later so despite being nearly identical to Vista it was loved.
I already heard the theory about being confused with '95 and '98, but that it was about software that was incompatible with those OSs. It would check for 'Windows 9' in the OS description and fail to launch if those characters were detected.
Yes that's the one I read too. While you're supposed to check for os version, some scripts would check for windows 9*, and it would break a ton of scripts for businesses which are a big part of windows sales, as to why it was 10 instead of a name like vista or xp, I think it's because it was competing with osx.
Here's a copy paste of one of my comments: That makes no sense since the kernels, hell the entire architecture is fundamentally different. Windows 9x used a monolithic DOS kernel while Windows 10 uses the NT kernel a hybrid kernel ripped off from IBM's OS/2. We can easily debunk this pathetic so called "theory" because Windows ME exists, and no the compatibility issues came from DOS functionality being removed from the user. Now if we are talking about modern applications being confused that's even dumber since applications have been written with NT based operating systems since Windows Vista, and even if somehow some idiot made a program that would get confused then Microsoft could've just changed the version number to something others than 9 which it wouldn't likely be anyways, not to mention that of a program like that poorly made wouldn't be likely be able to run anyways.
@@Leonard_MT says the person that hasn't worked with legacy code from 20 years ago. There's batch files that have been written to work on windows xp and 98 if for example you have active directory. There's also industrial machinery that runs on 98 and xp. Yes it's bad code, but it's code that works and saying to management "ah yes we need 10 days downtime to clean up the legacy code and it will probably have new bugs for no benefit to the profit." Doesn't work.
@@satibel Yes, that Leonard Guy is just a Zoomer thinking he knows anything about computing in the 1990s. He don't understand that especially in work environment such old programs often run (damn, at a radio station they still used CoolEdit 3, a program from 2000, in the year 2018, because they didn't wanted to pay for the Adobe yearly license, and that program, as it was originally written for Windows 98, was a pain to install for the IT guys...)
The real reason is that several (usually legacy) programs check the version of Windows that they’re running on to check if it’s compatible, and if it sees a “9” it would be likely to confuse it with 9x and not start.
Java 1.7 and earlier do this - if the OS name begins with "Windows 9" then it assumes you are on Windows 9x. They could have fixed this with the AppCompat system, but then they would have to find every other app that does this.
@Diogenes_Lantern. Apparently they consider 7 neutral- and I was wrong, the supposed "unluck number" is no 4. Personally, it is all in vain since 'luck' and its concept does not exist.
Windows developer here who was in the early meetings. It also helps that the version numbering helps with not being an issue with older version checks.
@@richmahogany1 Is it a situation where the software would check to see if the OS name includes “Windows 9,” so as to include both Windows 95 and Windows 98?
@@landrypierce9942 Something like that as I recall. As the OP said, "checks" which could be performed in different ways. Might say "do this if OSid=Win9*"
@@xandit really? That's a Win10 version thou isn't it? Correct me if I'm wrong, I think one of my clients builds was H22 , performance was on another level, high end build that was thou
Excluding the bloat and nostalgia of growing up with other Windows editions, I think Windows 10 is my favorite Windows. It’s just so perfect. Took everything from Windows 7, made it more sleek, added extra features and bam… THE most comprehensive Windows to date. It even had the Metro tiles without being intrusive.
The urban legend I heard back then was that there was underlying code that had "Windows9" and/or "Win9" be a secret constant to refer to specific ways to handle stuff from the Windows 9x era.
I buy this more than any other explanation. Most importantly it doesn't have to be Microsoft code, because they could just fix that themselves, it's more likely to be that it could break random 3rd party code.
@@GumSkyloard it's not quite that simple. There are win32 APIs to get version numbers but they have changed over time, and they are not consistent between 9X and NT, so you can't e.g. call the API that was added in Windows 2000 to get the version number for 9x, but you might me running a 9x application under compatibility mode in NT. The problem is not really software written for Windows 9.0, it's software written for 95/98, and then running on 9.0. Also even if there is a good way to do it, some developers will always do hacky things with strings. It's a similar idea to y2k, but why even risk it? It's not worth causing issues just to have a continuous version number. And it tends to be old but critical software that has these issues, like stuff that runs in hospitals. My brother works in a hospital where they can't test your blood if you're over 100 because it uses 2 digit years, despite the fact thats not how computers store numbers.
They apparently designed Windows 10 to be the most modular version of Windows so it could be upgraded in parts without breaking anything, but they realized that it couldn't work that way forever because they didn't account for hardware support that couldn't be added into Windows 10 with a simple update.
10 was for longevity then we got good hardware and 10 just couldn't take advantage of it and so we got 11 for future proofing it's still 80% windows 10 so like 10.5?
Nah, the real reason is that 9 sounds like NEIN in German and it means NO. So having "Windows" next to a word that represents rejection seemed like a very bad idea. However, 10 in Spanish is also pronounced like "ten" and it means "have it" or "take it" and that obviously was a much better idea.
Windows 8 8.1 are not bad, its pretty much identical to win 7, which is arguably the best operating system in history, along with XP. Just ask any PC gamer.
@@kalzindor803 the problem with 8 (that ms tried to fix with 8.1) was the UX, it's the reason win10 went back to a start menu, it felt like a tablet. I'm sure the performance was OK, arguably the same as 7's probably.
Thats what they said but it was nonsense. The code that was doing that was the same code that had a list of all the windows names, it didn't automatically pick up new ones, so they could update it at the same time.
The story I heard about Win10 was because of the bad name Win8 had gathered for itself and introducing 10 as 9 was going to sound like an incremental upgrade from the 8 in people's ears, somewhat not being a good PR for them. So 10 was supposed to build itself in people's minda as a clean slate and dissociate themselves from 8. Makes sense to me than Linus's explanation. More especially given that he mentioned 10 to be the 10th release by axing Vista from his list
The theory I always heard that made the most sense was that Microsoft was going for Windows One, in line with the Xbox One, to be a general all in one station for generally everything computers. However when the Xbox One came out to scathing opinions, they just added the zero and called it 10 to avoid connecting the dots.
Windows 10 was the last Windows you would ever need to buy.. few years later the sales tanked.. so "here is 11.. buy it NOW" . Micro$oft only cares about money and do not care about promises made.
@@Glethil yea for OEM, I had a retail win7 .. that "free upgrade to 10" made my retail license an OEM license so I bought a retail license since they said win10 would be the last one they would ever release, it would just be patched and updated when needed. So I coughed up money for it. IF I would go for 11, which ... I won't anytime soon ... I would go for a retail version again. My system is a continuous evolving PC which is not great for OEM versions.
I mean, technically, Windows 10 is the last major version of Windows. Windows 11 was basically just a Windows 10 reskin at launch that ended up getting more features.
I still remember back in the day when Windows 11 wasnt really a thing. Instead it was just supposed to be a feature update (nicknamed sun valley IIRC) that would just give windows 10 a little facelift and a few more refinements. Welp that announcement didnt age well
doesnt make sense since the legacy software checks the NT version anyways, and 9x is based on dos so its not compatible on NT versions of Windows (except on 32 bit versions using NTDVM)
@@josephfoster473my school uses the office programs. Switching to only linux wouldn't work as the web versions aren't complete and wine compatibility with those apps isn't the best. Also, in my experience, using ubuntu, random bugs needing a restart are much more common than on windows. But that's only in my experience. In short, I don't think linux's desktop experience is quite there yet for the average consumer, specially for work or school.
@Joseph Foster the main issue with Linux is app compatability. and for gamers, it's basically not a very viable option due to touchy compatability overall with games. but linux is a great platform for basic computer purposes, like Libre office and web browsing and movie players ect. I have both windows and Linux for this reason.
The reason is because internally the 95/98 version identification techniques would break with a windows 9. They'd implemented the evergreen release model years before. So Linus is wrong on this one.
I wish they'd stuck with W10, I know backwards compatibility will continue to be a non issue and that updating is free but there was just no need to bring out W11, all the new features could work in W10 if they wanted.
They needed to update the hardware requirements. They can't just decide to suddenly block all windows 10 users with old PCs from getting new updates. By creating Windows 11, they allow many users to benefit from the new security features, while still giving people with old PCs a while before they need to upgrade.
I agree with this idea, but with every feature update raising the number. So the 2021 Win10 feature update should have been called Windows 11, the 2022 update should have been Windows 12, and so on. This is perfectly in line with iOS, Android, and macOS all raising the number every year. Edit to clarify: the system requirements would remain the same across Windows versions with my concept.
It's actually because of the millennium bug. There are still code that would do things if windows version number begins with a 9, they are intended for 95 and 98, but would trigger for windows 9 as well.
Here's a copy paste of one of my comments: That makes no sense since the kernels, hell the entire architecture is fundamentally different. Windows 9x used a monolithic DOS kernel while Windows 10 uses the NT kernel a hybrid kernel ripped off from IBM's OS/2. We can easily debunk this pathetic so called "theory" because Windows ME exists, and no the compatibility issues came from DOS functionality being removed from the user. Now if we are talking about modern applications being confused that's even dumber since applications have been written with NT based operating systems since Windows Vista, and even if somehow some idiot made a program that would get confused then Microsoft could've just changed the version number to something others than 9 which it wouldn't likely be anyways, not to mention that of a program like that poorly made wouldn't be likely be able to run anyways.
Here's a copy paste of one of my comments: That makes no sense since the kernels, hell the entire architecture is fundamentally different. Windows 9x used a monolithic DOS kernel while Windows 10 uses the NT kernel a hybrid kernel ripped off from IBM's OS/2. We can easily debunk this pathetic so called "theory" because Windows ME exists, and no the compatibility issues came from DOS functionality being removed from the user. Now if we are talking about modern applications being confused that's even dumber since applications have been written with NT based operating systems since Windows Vista, and even if somehow some idiot made a program that would get confused then Microsoft could've just changed the version number to something others than 9 which it wouldn't likely be anyways, not to mention that of a program like that poorly made wouldn't be likely be able to run anyways.
@@Leonard_MT And your copy pasta is wrong everywhere. Perhabs you Zoomer should learn that in the 90s the programmers often used the function to check for the OS handle to find out if the OS is an 32 bit OS. Because it couldn't be tested with a different method. And no, it's not about "is the CPU 32 bit compatible", every CPU that can run Windows 95 or even 3.11 is 32-bit (as Windows 3.11 is only running on 80386 or newer), but Windows itself was 16 bit only with 3.11 or older. So to assure that your Windows 32 bit APIs work properly you needed to check if you are on Windows 95. And no, NT wasn't important in that time, as NT and 95-software were developed individually, as they were running on different kernels. Only when Microsoft ditched the DOS kernel the programmers were forced to switch to the more complicated to program for NT kernel. And they did it reluctingly, what you can see by the fact that many programs that came out 2001-2003 were still using Windows 98 code and used the compatibility mode of XP to run on the NT kernel.
@@SirAlph4 no unless i get a new PC, my 6 year old laptop “can’t” run windows 11, even though the intel core i7 7700HQ it has would probably run it just as well as it does on windows 10 ok bypass upgraded to Windows 11 don’t need Linux anymore but still gonna try it out
@win7best, I'm disgusted that now all you see is W11 being promoted despite many complaints. They dropped the ~$139 W10 last year. Now I've seen "W10 Retail $299." I've seen some "licenses" being sold for under $100 tho, I'm wondering if those are actually "OEM" which MS says they don't offer support for...
IIRC it was also because some bad programs simply just read the OS version, and just assumed that "Windows 9" would meant "Windows 95 or Windows 98, either of them."
Here's a copy paste of one of my comments: That makes no sense since the kernels, hell the entire architecture is fundamentally different. Windows 9x used a monolithic DOS kernel while Windows 10 uses the NT kernel a hybrid kernel ripped off from IBM's OS/2. We can easily debunk this pathetic so called "theory" because Windows ME exists, and no the compatibility issues came from DOS functionality being removed from the user. Now if we are talking about modern applications being confused that's even dumber since applications have been written with NT based operating systems since Windows Vista, and even if somehow some idiot made a program that would get confused then Microsoft could've just changed the version number to something others than 9 which it wouldn't likely be anyways, not to mention that of a program like that poorly made wouldn't be likely be able to run anyways.
I hope so. As the rule is that only every second Windows OS is good, many of the professionals refuse to go to Windows 11. And as Linux is heading up fast thanks to Valve in becoming Windows software compatible, who knows if in 2025 when the Windows 10 support time ends most people could just switch to Linux with Steam support.
Microsoft at this point might as well be cursed. They are cursed to always have a "Good, Bad, Good, Bad" upon every product release. Historically, it's always been where they jump between "Good" and "Bad" I was hoping they would break this pattern with windows 11, based on how pissed off people in this comment section are, and the personal issues i've been having with windows 11, I suppose that wasn't the case.
@@acmenipponair I think when windows 10 ends support most people will just continue using windows 10 anyways, just like what happened with windows XP when it ended support
It wasn't because Windows 9 would've been easy to confuse with 95 or 98, but because programmers are lazy and apps used to have checks if the OS was Windows 9*, and Windows 9 would have triggered that, so more modern apps with these checks wouldn't run.
In the world of technology, there is no such thing as a last version. Windows 11 is out now but I give it like 5-6 years before they announce Windows 12 or whatever they decide to call it.
From what I understand, MS called it Windows 10 because they considered it to be the 10th version of Windows NT since NT 3.1 (before that it was IBM OS/2 1.0 and 2.0). Their logic: 1. Windows NT 3.1 2. Windows NT 3.5 3. Windows NT 4.0 4. Windows 2000 5. Windows XP 6. Windows Vista 7. Windows 7 8. Windows 8 9. Windows 8.1 10. Windows 10 Not sure of some of the logic, but that's what I've been told. NT kernel versioning doesn't even follow it.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 86 | คู่เอก "คมเพชร vs ชาติพยัคฆ์"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/m3q_dRYDuU8/mqdefault.jpg)
I did not realize it’s been over SIX YEARS since windows 10 came out holy shit
Yeah, damn. I was really thinking he was about to say somewhere closer to 3 years. Time flies
It turns 8 in two months
@@Hypnodog_Time flies
Because it hasn’t been 6, it‘s 8!!!
They said it was 6 when Windows 11 was announced
It came out in 2015. It’s 8 years
Microsoft in 9 years “windows 20 will be our last version”
Windows 21:
More like in 20 years
@@vaisakh_km I’m just saying like if Microsoft released a new version every one year
"introducing Windows Infinity... +1"
I think they're doing a windows every 3 years again... so 30 years.
@@jarehelt “it will be our last version, believe us”
I thought it was because 7 ate 9.
Here before it blow up
Nice
best explanation so far, thanks
Once upon a time in our solar system we couldn’t make do without 9 but Pluto’s not a planet now so eight’ll do fine ♫
About to say.
"Windows 10 is the last major version of windows"
"Windows 11 enters the chat"
same shit that they did with windows 98, it was supposed to be the last windows based on the 9x kernel (on top of MS-DOS) if it wasnt for windows me (it was also based on the 9x kernel windows 98 used)
poop im in - Windows 12
"The last *MAJOR* version of windows" means 11 is not a major update.
Windows 11 users: 😭😭😭
Terraria be like
one reason i hate 11 and will not use it ever
Theories: *makes sense*
Actual reality: *weird marketing BS*
Seems like that's how it always is lol
These marketing graduates are stealing a living. Imagine needing a college degree so you can name the sequel of "Predator" to "The Predator".
Seems like all the smart people DON'T work in marketing... 😂
@@LRM12o8The smartest person is the one who came up with the idea of going to college for marketing
Samsung also made this thing, now it is s23
I love how we all collectively agree to ignore Vista's existence
hahaha yes it isn't even on the list shown in the video :-D
At work we referred to Windows 7 as "Vista.1"
Once Vista was patched it was better than XP once it was patched. Early days of XP and Vista weren't that good but no one acknowledges how XP was. Anyhow, I've never had major problems with any of them, not even ME.
Vista ran fine on high end hardware it was just ahead of its time. Windows 7 was litteraly a carbon copy of vista but with less visuals so essentially Windows 7 could be called vista Light
If you ignore the "marketing names", the _real_ Windows version numbers make *way* more sense:
Windows 95 = version 4.0
Windows 98 = 4.1
Windows Me = 4.9
Windows 2000 = 5.0
Windows XP = 5.1
Windows XP x64 Edition = 5.2
Windows Vista = 6.0
Windows 7 = 6.1
Windows 8 = 6.2
Windows 8.1 = 6.3
Windows 10 "betas" = 6.4
Windows 10 = 10.0
Windows 11 = 10.0
Yes, Windows "11" is still version 10.0
This shows how similar Vista/7/8/10 really are behind-the-scenes.
seeing that windows 7 isnt the 7th windows but its 8th is just painful
Is actually the 9th because Linus hates vista and forgot about it
It actually was! It had the 7xxx build numbers.
@@N3xlow Vista? what is that?
@@sunder739It's one of the most hated Windows Version that came after Windows XP in 2007
@@Power_2564 As someone who used Vista for a really long time I honestly never understood the hatred for it, I never had problems with it, to me it just seemed like a version of 7
"Windows Nein" is also a fun theory
What's the theory??
@@Mister_ClipsterNein windows
@@Mister_Clipster in Germany "nein" means "no", so "windows nine" would sound like "no windows"
glad to meet another man who makes terrible "nein" jokes
@@Mister_Clipsterin german, nein means no, essentially implicating that there are no windows rather than windows nine.
Now look at how they push the hell out of 11 to us 🗿
And yet it wont install on my system as it doesn't like my CPU.
@@rinzler9775 dont worry its horses shit anyway
@@cuevak3160 it installs on an old shitty laptop I have - bit wont accept my high end gaming system.
@@rinzler9775trust us.. you don't want it
@@-pyrosef- based on the shitty laptop version - all that windows 11 seemed to do was destroy the start menu and replace it with some convoluted trash.
I'm still not over the whole "windows 10 is the last version of Windows you'll ever need to buy!" followed by "oh nevermind, here's windows 11 hihi". That first statement surely drove a lot of sales for windows 10. Feels like a lawsuit could be appropriate here. They falsely advertised a product as being a "perpetual license".
Yeah, I remember when I first heard that. I immediately knew they'd end up backtracking and make another version. It really has to do with the business model of most Silicon Valley companies. You gotta have some "New" and "Exciting" thing to show to the shareholders and consumers... Same shit as before. The only direction the tech market seems to be going to is Little Tikes. Oversimplified, useless shit with no purpose
more like "here is windows 11 and it won't offically run on old-ish processors despite the fact that they are more than powerful enough to perform daily tasks and even game. so you are gonna have to buy a new PC when we stop supporting windows 10."
Microsoft never made an announcement like that. It was literally one chopped up quote from one guy who might've been on the team and all the media outlets rolled with it.
@@Holy_Hobo while it's true it came from an employee, when the media asked Microsoft for comments, they 100% backed that employee and agreed with what he said... so what are we supposed to believe??
@@therealbenji You'd be surprised. I've seen class action lawsuits succeed with way less leverage. In the US? Probably not, but in other countries, like Canada, advertising and consumer protection laws are VERY strict.
Well, Windows 10 being the "last" version aged like milk.
Has to be a marketing team to be that dumb
Here comes windows 12
@@sergiotricarico Even he knows that Vista was suck as hell
Idk if it's true but it might be because investors pressured them into making another software
It’s the last until they offer me literally no other option than to update
“Windows 10 was the tenth version of windows!!!”
Dies in vista.
Theory conveniently ignores Vista which was a big release and was more well-known than ME and 8.
7 was basically built on top of Vista.
“windows 10 was the 10th consumer edition of windows”
vista:
2000:
@@thepcuser5469 consumer editions unlike vista 2000 is for workstations
@@BurnedNoodle well it still counts as a release of windows, whether it’s for businesses or not, also NT 4.0, 3.51 and 3.5 (pretty much identical) and NT 3.1 are also releases of windows, along with windows 8.1 AND windows 3.1, so windows 10 would really be the 17th version of windows.
@@thepcuser5469 Linus was specifically talking about consumer versions tho
@@BurnedNoodle even then he forgot about vista, 8.1 and 3.1
As a programmer I've always heard this theory that in plenty of old software, W95 and 98 were identified as "Windows 9%", and Windows 9 would fall into that same expression with the wildcard, causing all sorts of unexpected bugs.
But "Windows 9" doesn't match "Windows 9%".
@@rosiefay7283 Except it does?
Although I just gave a random wildcard in my example, and I don't even have any idea how windows version was checked in old software, and it depends on which language or library you're using.. Many if not most wildcards match 'zero or more characters', which fits the bill here.
In your defense, this is probably just an urban legend, so it's not supposed to make perfect sense if you think too hard about it.
@@rosiefay7283 A wildcard also matches an empty value, so it would match. But regardless, one of the easier ways to check if it is a 95 or 98 OS, is by doing a "StartsWith("9")" check, which would also be true for Windows 9.
Here's a copy paste of one of my comments: That makes no sense since the kernels, hell the entire architecture is fundamentally different. Windows 9x used a monolithic DOS kernel while Windows 10 uses the NT kernel a hybrid kernel ripped off from IBM's OS/2. We can easily debunk this pathetic so called "theory" because Windows ME exists, and no the compatibility issues came from DOS functionality being removed from the user.
Now if we are talking about modern applications being confused that's even dumber since applications have been written with NT based operating systems since Windows Vista, and even if somehow some idiot made a program that would get confused then Microsoft could've just changed the version number to something others than 9 which it wouldn't likely be anyways, not to mention that of a program like that poorly made wouldn't be likely be able to run anyways.
@@Leonard_MT You forget something: A normal user program don't care for your Kernel! All handles with Windows are done via API commands. Which means the programmer must only assure, that his program calls the right API. And since Windows 1 it has been always the case that a program that can run on for example Windows 3.11 can also run on 95, XP etc., as all API commands for example introduced in Windows 95 can still be addressed with Windows 10, they would most likely just start newer codes in the dlls. When for example you want that a program opens the control panel, that works since 95 with the same API calls, but the window that opens will look different (as it would start the actual version of the control panel).
So when you wanted to have a test in your program if the Windows OS is young enough = has the API routines you needed only to check for the minimum spec = has the user Windows 9% and not Windows 3.11 running. Don't forget, that was in a time when NT wasn't used outside of offices and XP = giving the normal people OS a name wasn't yet a thing. Nowadays of course programmers do more intelligent tests like checking for the build no or nt kernel version, but we talk about the 1990s. At that time checking for your Program running in Windows 95 instead for a specific build number was much faster (and also the computers much slower, so even 5% faster routines could be significant).
And yes, it was for example for installation programs important to know if they run on 95 or 3.11, as even stuff like configuration files were stored differently, Windows 3.11 only had .ini files as a choice, while Windows 95 introduced the registry file. So when you had your installation program made to store stuff in the registry, the program needed Windows 95 to run and had to check before installation if it's running on Windows 95. Also it was easier to check if the OS Handle is "Windows 9%" then as testing if the 32bit routines work - in fact there was no way to test it outside of making a huge addition and checking if the result is right, but that would take MORE time than just checking the OS handle which was stored as a constant in RAM all the time. When Windows 95 was found in that handle, the program knew that it was on a 32 bit OS.
Perhabs you Zoomer should stop trying to teach us Millenials about how computing worked in the 1990s, because unlike you were already used our computers then for more than playing Neopets. Already the fact that you write that NT based computer programs have been programmed "since Vista" shows your bad knowledge - XP was already NT based and was before Vista.
I see that Linus completely wiped Windows Vista from his memory... Can't blame him to be honest.
He actually was in support of windows vista
You could replace me with vista I suppose. I don't recall me being that common.
just think you blaming vista more than ME bruh.
Vista was the fun windows!
@@therealbenji none of the nostalgia? can't relate. vista is super nostalgic to me, being born in the early 2000s
"Windows 10 was the 10th"
*coughs in Vista*
rip they didn't even include 2000, the OG between ME and XP🥲
@@bobbyjarsulic8622000 was professional. Me was the personal version.
@@bobbyjarsulic862 he said "tenth *consumer edition* of Windows" ... which excludes Window NT and Windows 2000.
Windows 2000 was the successor to Windows NT (not to Windows 98), while Windows ME was - about at the same time- the successor to Windows 98.
@edwardcapuyan0611_user-pc As far as I remember, Win. Vista was the successor of Windows XP and the predecessor of Windows 7.
"People don't confuse Windows 9 with Windows 95 or 98"
Microsoft thinks its consumers are a bunch of crayon eaters.
They really are though. The average person is an idiot.
No, some software would've confused it for 95 and 98; a lot of older software just checks for "Windows 9X" and it Windows 9 would've been flagged as a operating system from 1998.
He literally said that was a theory my dude. Maybe most MS consumers are not a bunch of crayon eaters but you definitely are.
@@legendlalo thats not what he said AT ALL. Your comprehension is terrible. Oh the irony.
Is because windows 95 and 98 are often refered to as windows 9X
They did a quick scan through open source libraries and noticed that code was scanning the windows version string, and if it started “Windows 9” they would assume they were running wintendo, i.e. Windows 95 or Windows 98, meaning tons of code would break. As you (probably) know, Microsoft’s only real priority is to not break existing code, so they skipped versions.
But also- they definitely intended for Windows 10 to be an OS X and last for decades, but when Apple decided it wasn’t cool anymore, Microsoft immediately released Windows 11.
This theory makes no sense because "Windows 95" and "Windows 98" were marketing names and were not used in software code. The real version numbers used in code were 4.0 and 4.1 respectively.
@@elainebenes7971he said version string
@@_E8400 what do you think I'm talking about? Version strings don't use marketing names.
I've yet to see any actual proof of this theory.
Yes, this. Every other explanation is for mentally impaired people. 9 would be confusing to programs, not to human beings.
@Elaine Benes Yeah? Browser identification in User-agent header anyone? Why do you thing Opera stuck on Opera/9.80 and started adding version/x.x.x token, and everyone else caught up with such "stupid" idea?
I personally know and wrote a ton of apps that look at 'Windows 9' substring(yes, shit code, matching shit times).
They totally wanted to have Windows X, like OSX for Apple. Then realized it was a dumb idea.
They _did_ do 10X though.
Also I'd imagine doing Windows X would attract much ridicule from Windows users and _especially_ Mac users. Microsoft already has a track record of cribbing from Apple - sometimes justified, sometimes for silly reasons - to the point where one of Apple's taglines for WWDC 2004 where they announced OS X Tiger was "Redmond, start your photocopiers."
@@sodaponeIt’s not like Apple is free from copying though. Basically every IOS version comes out with some “innovation” that was on Android devices multiple years prior.
They only realized that once macOS 11 came out, which I'm sure was a total coincidence...
But why not? It'll work well with their Xbox. Common WindowsX and Xbox. What's more compatible.
Someone in that boardroom took exactly 0.8 seconds to make a Windex joke so they had to scrap that name
On that topic, I found out that Microsoft never officially made the "last version of Windows" statement on Windows 10. Jerry Nixon did state this at the MS Ignite conference in 2015, but it wasn't an official Microsoft announcement, so maybe they WERE planning to keep going with Windows, and look where that has us now!
The Microsoft German team heard about Windows 9 and went "nein, nein, nein, nein, nein, nein, nein!!!" and just like that the product was cancelled.
I had enough of it... goodbye.
bye...buy....buy...buy
yes
I remember when they proudly announced to the world that Windows 10 would be the last and definitive version of Windows, and that from that moment on, it would simply keep on receiving updates forever. Well that was a lie. They announced Windows 11 like nothing.
Money talks
That's what gets me, there was no apology or even acknowledgement that they just torched their entire previous plan
@@stitchfinger7678 Yes! "We said this, but we realised we had too many cool new things we needed to add so we made W11" would've been nicer to hear rather than us having to question our own memory and learn *not* to believe everything they say
@@ehmzed You spelled "anything" wrong. 😉
They are even talking about Win12 now
It's all about Apple. MacOS was 10.x.x for many many years and MS simply wanted to be on the "same level" and also wanted to stick to 10 forever like Apple. When Apple suddenly startet to increase the main version to 11 MS of course had to follow suit.
PS: the same reason Xbox numbering is such a mess. The second iteration would be Xbox 2 vs. PS 3. So they went "360" and from then on just.. lost oversight ;-
People (including Linus) seem to think there can be only one single reason for a decision...
@@watcheths And some decisions seem to have no reasoning at all😉 But sometimes you can see patterns...
@@janhofmann3499 there is no doubt there are patterns, but people always keep insisting it's just one thing, the only thing we can be pretty sure about is that it has nothing to do with development, they called it build `10240` and that's only because they already hit 9000 with 8.1
It makes sense because Xbox one has the same energy as windows 10
Actually, Microsoft had a t-shirt with a binary print on it, and it said (if you decode the binary into dec into ascii) "Windows 10, because 7 8 9" :D kind of funny.
Windows Frieza Edition: "This isn't even my final form"
Apple also skipped 9 for iphones... there's more to this then Linus knows...
It's a conspiracy I tell you !
thast bescue mac os 9 was before mac os x and mac os x and ios are branches of it.
THE PLOT THICKENS
Apple did it to signify the start of a new generation of Apple design. The 8 was the regular iPhone 7 successor and the skipped number between 8 and 10 signified the huge gap between the 2.
Nine is a magic number
I knew as soon as they advertised it as "the last version of Windows" but didn't call it just "Windows"that it wasn't actually the last version of Windows
Linus skipped Windows Vista on his list lol
Win 7 is Win Vista rebadged they are both version 8. Similar to Win 8 & 8.1 being version 9.
@@Slevin-Kelevra yeah and 98 is rebadged 95 by your logic
edit: well technically windows 7 was just windows 6.1 and 6 was vista but that would mean that 98 would be a bit of a 95.1
@@Slevin-Kelevra but windows 1,2,3 are pretty same and 95/98
I was noticing the lag of win vista too, so, to have normal naming:
win 95 should be 4th,
win 98 should be 5th,
win millennium edition should be 6th,
win xp should be the actual win 7,
win vista should be win 8,
they should win 7 actually have called win 9,
win 8 would then be win 10,
8.1 could then have been 10.1 or 11,
and yes, win 10 would be 11 or 12,
and now win 11 could have been 12 or 13.
Anyway didn't apple with the iphone skip number 9 too? And samsung skipped s11 to s19...
@@largewallofbeans9812 Windows 7 is litteraly a carbon copy of Vista but without all the visual upgrades Vista had which made it perform like ass on shit hardware. Vista was THE OS back in the day for gaming pc's and high end rigs. Yeah ofcourse it ran like ass on a Pentium dual lmao. Windows 7 is just vista light...
I asked a representative where windows 9 was when they visited my university years ago. He said that windows 9 wasn't released to the public, they upgraded again to 10 and released that. I asked why they didn't just call THAT version windows 9, and call the other one 8.2. He moved to the next person for questions.
Maybe was an other longhorn version of windows as típicas Microsoft spaghetti code OS
The real reason was they didn't have the balls to make a true sequel to Win 7
When a Linux user thinks “distro” just means ‘version of an operating system’
"windows 7 2"
Win xp*
I miss Windows 7, my favorite version.
That sounds too much like giving the people what they want, rather than the steaming heap ms wants us to use. At this point a couple distros of linux make more sense than any of that schist storm.
There actually was a plan to make windows 10 the last windows and keep on with manor updates, therefore it should later only be called „windows“ without a number, I remember someone said that in an interview. But they threw the plan by side.
Yes, Dell and other manifacturers were against it. Because they want to sell new computers. It's like with Android and IOS: Don't believe the BS that the new version of them is needed practically. As Linux is modular, they could implement ANY security feature they want into existing Android and I-OS versions. They just don't update their OS but upgrade them to force you to buy a new phone because they make it so that you cannot upgrade with your specific phone to a newer version.
It is actually partially because of the 95/98 thing.
Because of backwards compatability, programs that checked 95/98 as the version simply looked for a 9 in the version ID, instead of specifying further than that.
So as far as some programs would be concerned 95, 98, and 9 would all be the same system to them.
I thought this was common knowledge
@@mrjameshendryhow's that common knowledge 😅 that doesn't read in the package ☺️
But actually 8.1 was the Windows 9 under a different branding. It had the 9xxx build numbers.
@@mrjameshendry what common knowledge? ain't everyone who dwell with computers are total nerds, you... nerd 🤓
The theory that says Windows 10 is actually the tenth operating System is wrong because you didn't mention windows Vista!
Windows 7 WAS Vista rebranded... at the end of Vista's life with all the updates, it was pretty much the same software...
Vista's name was just dragged through the mud by the time they actually fixed everything....
So they renamed it...
@@TheDeathmailYou are thinking of windows Mojave. 7 is different from vista in many ways, just not the design.
@@midnite59 Many ways is a huge overstatement, overall the changes are very minor and most of the differences are only performance based. Vista was good from the beginning, it was just too hard to run on the average computer at the time. Windows 7 was both lighter and came out 3 years later so despite being nearly identical to Vista it was loved.
Windows vista left the chat
I already heard the theory about being confused with '95 and '98, but that it was about software that was incompatible with those OSs. It would check for 'Windows 9' in the OS description and fail to launch if those characters were detected.
Yes that's the one I read too.
While you're supposed to check for os version, some scripts would check for windows 9*, and it would break a ton of scripts for businesses which are a big part of windows sales, as to why it was 10 instead of a name like vista or xp, I think it's because it was competing with osx.
Here's a copy paste of one of my comments: That makes no sense since the kernels, hell the entire architecture is fundamentally different. Windows 9x used a monolithic DOS kernel while Windows 10 uses the NT kernel a hybrid kernel ripped off from IBM's OS/2. We can easily debunk this pathetic so called "theory" because Windows ME exists, and no the compatibility issues came from DOS functionality being removed from the user.
Now if we are talking about modern applications being confused that's even dumber since applications have been written with NT based operating systems since Windows Vista, and even if somehow some idiot made a program that would get confused then Microsoft could've just changed the version number to something others than 9 which it wouldn't likely be anyways, not to mention that of a program like that poorly made wouldn't be likely be able to run anyways.
@@Leonard_MT says the person that hasn't worked with legacy code from 20 years ago.
There's batch files that have been written to work on windows xp and 98 if for example you have active directory. There's also industrial machinery that runs on 98 and xp.
Yes it's bad code, but it's code that works and saying to management "ah yes we need 10 days downtime to clean up the legacy code and it will probably have new bugs for no benefit to the profit." Doesn't work.
@@satibel Yes, that Leonard Guy is just a Zoomer thinking he knows anything about computing in the 1990s. He don't understand that especially in work environment such old programs often run (damn, at a radio station they still used CoolEdit 3, a program from 2000, in the year 2018, because they didn't wanted to pay for the Adobe yearly license, and that program, as it was originally written for Windows 98, was a pain to install for the IT guys...)
The real reason is that several (usually legacy) programs check the version of Windows that they’re running on to check if it’s compatible, and if it sees a “9” it would be likely to confuse it with 9x and not start.
Java 1.7 and earlier do this - if the OS name begins with "Windows 9" then it assumes you are on Windows 9x.
They could have fixed this with the AppCompat system, but then they would have to find every other app that does this.
Apple pulled a Microsoft by skipping 9
Did you also notice that Apple skipped iPhone 9…? I wonder if it was for the same reason (whatever that may be).
9 is just bad luck innit
Chinese/oriental culture myth
@@izaaak2817 ate it
@@boservant1693 I thought it was number 7?
@Diogenes_Lantern. Apparently they consider 7 neutral- and I was wrong, the supposed "unluck number" is no 4. Personally, it is all in vain since 'luck' and its concept does not exist.
Sounds like Apple, who stayed on OSX for 21 years.
That's nothing. I've been running X11 for 30 years.
@@TheSolidSnakeOil time to move to wayland, grandpa
@@hombrepepega3472 You'll have to pry X11 from my cold dead hands.
macOS 11.0 Big Sur came out in 2020.
Mac OS X 10.0 Cheetah came out in 2001.
@@MultiRobotnik Latest release 10.15.7 Security Update 2022-005[2] (19H2026) (July 20, 2022)
Windows developer here who was in the early meetings. It also helps that the version numbering helps with not being an issue with older version checks.
Sorry, can you elaborate on what exactly you mean by this?
@@landrypierce9942 Theoretically in certain instances of code or execution, the computer could confuse windows 9 with windows 95.
@@richmahogany1 Is it a situation where the software would check to see if the OS name includes “Windows 9,” so as to include both Windows 95 and Windows 98?
@@landrypierce9942 Something like that as I recall. As the OP said, "checks" which could be performed in different ways. Might say "do this if OSid=Win9*"
Yeah, that fits with what I heard when all this was happening.
They weren’t entirely wrong. Windows 10 is the last version…. For me. My next build is going to be Linux, and I’m never touching W11+
the urge to not make the 7 ate 9 joke
at least no one made a 9 11 joke
lmao why is my reply highlighted xD
10 was supposed to be the end, bill said it himself, the rest of the board fu*ed it up
And then shortly after 11 came out they released 22H2 which fucking nuked every computer I owned.
@@xandit really? That's a Win10 version thou isn't it? Correct me if I'm wrong, I think one of my clients builds was H22 , performance was on another level, high end build that was thou
@@SustainableGal yeah it was a windows 10 version.
Idk if my specs are great or anything but I run a 2070 Super, 64gb of RAM and a Ryzen 7 5700x
@@xandit wtf that's so weird your performance took a hit! That's still decent hardware, but what's your OS drive, is it an NVMe SSD?
@@SustainableGal 1tb ssd and a 4tb HDD
I'm over here still waiting on Longhorn updates.
They should've named it something wacky like Windows 100
Excluding the bloat and nostalgia of growing up with other Windows editions, I think Windows 10 is my favorite Windows. It’s just so perfect. Took everything from Windows 7, made it more sleek, added extra features and bam… THE most comprehensive Windows to date. It even had the Metro tiles without being intrusive.
Now 11 comes ruining everything and wanting our internet
The only annoying part is how every update changes setting around. Settings had been relatively tge same since Vista.
The urban legend I heard back then was that there was underlying code that had "Windows9" and/or "Win9" be a secret constant to refer to specific ways to handle stuff from the Windows 9x era.
I buy this more than any other explanation.
Most importantly it doesn't have to be Microsoft code, because they could just fix that themselves, it's more likely to be that it could break random 3rd party code.
It’s not a legend. It is the real reason
Bullshit. Windows 9 would be refered to in code as Windows 6.4, as that is its NT version number.
@@GumSkyloard it's not quite that simple. There are win32 APIs to get version numbers but they have changed over time, and they are not consistent between 9X and NT, so you can't e.g. call the API that was added in Windows 2000 to get the version number for 9x, but you might me running a 9x application under compatibility mode in NT.
The problem is not really software written for Windows 9.0, it's software written for 95/98, and then running on 9.0.
Also even if there is a good way to do it, some developers will always do hacky things with strings. It's a similar idea to y2k, but why even risk it? It's not worth causing issues just to have a continuous version number.
And it tends to be old but critical software that has these issues, like stuff that runs in hospitals. My brother works in a hospital where they can't test your blood if you're over 100 because it uses 2 digit years, despite the fact thats not how computers store numbers.
@@georgehelyar Well then if this is the case (it isn't) the application would crash anyways due to a nonexistent API call.
They apparently designed Windows 10 to be the most modular version of Windows so it could be upgraded in parts without breaking anything, but they realized that it couldn't work that way forever because they didn't account for hardware support that couldn't be added into Windows 10 with a simple update.
No, that can be added with updates.
It's all about making money. And driving users mad.
@@crackwitz
They don't even make more money doing that when each version of windows is free to all who have the hardware
10 was for longevity then we got good hardware and 10 just couldn't take advantage of it and so we got 11 for future proofing it's still 80% windows 10 so like 10.5?
They should have named it “Windows” if it was the last since every other would almost never be talked about
The real reason is that win 8 was so bad, they skiped 9 to make it seem as 10 was that much more advanced.
That seems very plausible, so I'm not sure if you're trying to make a joke or not.
@@lilox3690 It's a joke, but it's also what I think, not that we can ever prove it.
Nah, the real reason is that 9 sounds like NEIN in German and it means NO. So having "Windows" next to a word that represents rejection seemed like a very bad idea. However, 10 in Spanish is also pronounced like "ten" and it means "have it" or "take it" and that obviously was a much better idea.
Windows 8 8.1 are not bad, its pretty much identical to win 7, which is arguably the best operating system in history, along with XP. Just ask any PC gamer.
@@kalzindor803 the problem with 8 (that ms tried to fix with 8.1) was the UX, it's the reason win10 went back to a start menu, it felt like a tablet. I'm sure the performance was OK, arguably the same as 7's probably.
Couple years later:
"Windows 9: The Missing Link"
In the graphic shown Windows Vista is skipped, which would make Windows 10 the 11th version
Because Vista never existed, it was just a bad dream after XP
Vista is not a version, it's a virus
Didn’t “Project Mojave” prove that people would like Vista if they didn’t know it was Vista?
And 2000 was skipped, so it would be the 12th, oh, and 3.1 was skipped, so it’s now the 13th.🗿
@@lawrencedoliveiro9104 yes
You don't know how much I love your voice man
Wasn't it also was because there was legacy code looking at Windows 9 to reference the user being on Windows 95 and 98?
Nope. That's fictional. Windows 9 would be refered to as Windows 6.5 in code. Much like Vista was 6, 7 was 6.2, 8 was 6.3, and 8.1 was 6.4.
Thats what they said but it was nonsense. The code that was doing that was the same code that had a list of all the windows names, it didn't automatically pick up new ones, so they could update it at the same time.
@@GumSkyloard that’s cap, my brother works for Microsoft and he told me it’s internally referred to win9
@@johnarbuckle6775 Please grow up.
@@GumSkyloard my brother in Christ I am 35
I read a text where someone from Microsoft said that Windows 10 was simply so much better than Windows 8 so they "had" to call it Windows 10
The story I heard about Win10 was because of the bad name Win8 had gathered for itself and introducing 10 as 9 was going to sound like an incremental upgrade from the 8 in people's ears, somewhat not being a good PR for them. So 10 was supposed to build itself in people's minda as a clean slate and dissociate themselves from 8. Makes sense to me than Linus's explanation. More especially given that he mentioned 10 to be the 10th release by axing Vista from his list
Windows 10 will always stay in my heart
The theory I always heard that made the most sense was that Microsoft was going for Windows One, in line with the Xbox One, to be a general all in one station for generally everything computers. However when the Xbox One came out to scathing opinions, they just added the zero and called it 10 to avoid connecting the dots.
Windows 10 was the last Windows you would ever need to buy.. few years later the sales tanked.. so "here is 11.. buy it NOW" . Micro$oft only cares about money and do not care about promises made.
It’s crap too!!
Microsoft has gone soft. Pathetic how crap everything has become.
?? 11 was a free upgrade for those who already owned 10. Windows 10 was partially a free upgrade to 8 itself.
@@Glethil Incorrect, it's a free malware and downgrade for some people and a scam for others.
@@Glethil yea for OEM, I had a retail win7 .. that "free upgrade to 10" made my retail license an OEM license so I bought a retail license since they said win10 would be the last one they would ever release, it would just be patched and updated when needed. So I coughed up money for it.
IF I would go for 11, which ... I won't anytime soon ... I would go for a retail version again. My system is a continuous evolving PC which is not great for OEM versions.
Silly Linus. Everyone knows it's because 7 ate 9.
I mean, technically, Windows 10 is the last major version of Windows. Windows 11 was basically just a Windows 10 reskin at launch that ended up getting more features.
I still remember back in the day when Windows 11 wasnt really a thing. Instead it was just supposed to be a feature update (nicknamed sun valley IIRC) that would just give windows 10 a little facelift and a few more refinements.
Welp that announcement didnt age well
I heard the naming convention of the OS could confuse legacy software.
It would detect 95, 98 or 9X
doesnt make sense since the legacy software checks the NT version anyways, and 9x is based on dos so its not compatible on NT versions of Windows (except on 32 bit versions using NTDVM)
@@sharl1633 If written correctly, yes. But a lot of stuff was not.
@@sharl1633 that I do know, NT is a separate Kernal that all modern windows PCs uses
@@steeviebops true, very true lol
@@steeviebops It still wouldn't happen since quite a bit of NT software was incompatible with 9x thus negating the need for a version check.
When windows 10 becomes unsupported, I'm switching to Linux
Better yet - switch to Linux already. Or dual boot if you’re paranoid but Linux is just crazy good.
@@wza223-fo3mc What makes you believe I won't?
@@josephfoster473my school uses the office programs. Switching to only linux wouldn't work as the web versions aren't complete and wine compatibility with those apps isn't the best. Also, in my experience, using ubuntu, random bugs needing a restart are much more common than on windows. But that's only in my experience. In short, I don't think linux's desktop experience is quite there yet for the average consumer, specially for work or school.
@Joseph Foster the main issue with Linux is app compatability. and for gamers, it's basically not a very viable option due to touchy compatability overall with games.
but linux is a great platform for basic computer purposes, like Libre office and web browsing and movie players ect.
I have both windows and Linux for this reason.
Ok
Windows nine would sound like WINDOWS NEIN!
Which is WINDOWS NOOO! in German, which is so super fitting 😂
The real reason - Windows 8 was so horrible they wanted to bury it under what appeared to be two later versions.
Windows 8 is a sin in my religion
The reason is because internally the 95/98 version identification techniques would break with a windows 9. They'd implemented the evergreen release model years before. So Linus is wrong on this one.
okay I just made a comment asking about this because I had heard that it was at least partially the cause.
6 years later... That's simply Windows 10 but with a new refreshed skin.
Imo that's a good thing. Windows 10 matured to be quite reliable and stable for me
Nah, MS have realised they also forgot Vista and so corrected the count to 11 ...
I'm glad it is, win10 was fine, as long we aren't getting anything like whatever the fuck win8 was
Well, I think nobody would be mad about Microsoft actually stopping after Windows 10
they released Windows 9, but called it 8.1 because nobody liked 8's tiles first approach.
I wish they'd stuck with W10, I know backwards compatibility will continue to be a non issue and that updating is free but there was just no need to bring out W11, all the new features could work in W10 if they wanted.
They needed to update the hardware requirements. They can't just decide to suddenly block all windows 10 users with old PCs from getting new updates.
By creating Windows 11, they allow many users to benefit from the new security features, while still giving people with old PCs a while before they need to upgrade.
I agree with this idea, but with every feature update raising the number. So the 2021 Win10 feature update should have been called Windows 11, the 2022 update should have been Windows 12, and so on. This is perfectly in line with iOS, Android, and macOS all raising the number every year.
Edit to clarify: the system requirements would remain the same across Windows versions with my concept.
Microsoft has never ever said Windows 10 would be the last major Windows version. That was just what some tech guru said on a stage once.
lol 'some tech guru'. hes microsofts senior product manager and has been at microsoft for over a decade.
@@700gsteak At the time in 2015 he was a mere "Developer Evangelist" trying to hype the Microsoft Store for developers.
because the german marketing team would have to push a product essentially sounding like "windows nope".
I didn't have a pc or laptop between windows 7 and 10, so I thought I missed it lol
10 is way better than 11
And 7 is way better than 10
I still use 10.
@@KraljHD the most wrong opinion.
My computer forced me to update 😭
@@josephmother3720 more like correct, nothing beats Windows 7
And now they stop sending updates for "the last version of windows"
"Mom, can we have Linus Trovalds?"
"No Billy, we have Linus @ home"
Linus @ home:
Window 9 wasn't skipped. The name was hidden in the number 8.1 (8+1=9)
I agree with it only 59 percent
Bro i cant imagine how he could miss seven ate nine
It's actually because of the millennium bug. There are still code that would do things if windows version number begins with a 9, they are intended for 95 and 98, but would trigger for windows 9 as well.
BS, because MS wouldn't give a shit about breaking someone else's legacy code that was supposed to run on 15 years old OS.
This is bullshit
If that was a a problem they could have used the word nine in the code instead of the number to avoid that.
Here's a copy paste of one of my comments: That makes no sense since the kernels, hell the entire architecture is fundamentally different. Windows 9x used a monolithic DOS kernel while Windows 10 uses the NT kernel a hybrid kernel ripped off from IBM's OS/2. We can easily debunk this pathetic so called "theory" because Windows ME exists, and no the compatibility issues came from DOS functionality being removed from the user.
Now if we are talking about modern applications being confused that's even dumber since applications have been written with NT based operating systems since Windows Vista, and even if somehow some idiot made a program that would get confused then Microsoft could've just changed the version number to something others than 9 which it wouldn't likely be anyways, not to mention that of a program like that poorly made wouldn't be likely be able to run anyways.
@@Leonard_MT true
Interviewer count from 1 to ten
Me:counts from 1 to 8 ,skips 9 and says 10.
Interviewer:You are hired.
😂
No, it’s because registry searches for “Windows 9*” (to filter on 95 and 98) would also inadvertently hit Windows 9 as well.
Here's a copy paste of one of my comments: That makes no sense since the kernels, hell the entire architecture is fundamentally different. Windows 9x used a monolithic DOS kernel while Windows 10 uses the NT kernel a hybrid kernel ripped off from IBM's OS/2. We can easily debunk this pathetic so called "theory" because Windows ME exists, and no the compatibility issues came from DOS functionality being removed from the user.
Now if we are talking about modern applications being confused that's even dumber since applications have been written with NT based operating systems since Windows Vista, and even if somehow some idiot made a program that would get confused then Microsoft could've just changed the version number to something others than 9 which it wouldn't likely be anyways, not to mention that of a program like that poorly made wouldn't be likely be able to run anyways.
@@Leonard_MT And your copy pasta is wrong everywhere. Perhabs you Zoomer should learn that in the 90s the programmers often used the function to check for the OS handle to find out if the OS is an 32 bit OS. Because it couldn't be tested with a different method. And no, it's not about "is the CPU 32 bit compatible", every CPU that can run Windows 95 or even 3.11 is 32-bit (as Windows 3.11 is only running on 80386 or newer), but Windows itself was 16 bit only with 3.11 or older. So to assure that your Windows 32 bit APIs work properly you needed to check if you are on Windows 95. And no, NT wasn't important in that time, as NT and 95-software were developed individually, as they were running on different kernels. Only when Microsoft ditched the DOS kernel the programmers were forced to switch to the more complicated to program for NT kernel. And they did it reluctingly, what you can see by the fact that many programs that came out 2001-2003 were still using Windows 98 code and used the compatibility mode of XP to run on the NT kernel.
Windows 11 was unnecessary and im not going to upgrade
unnecessary but it does look nice
You will upgrade sooner or later
@@NotLemont Not at all.
@@SirAlph4 yeah cuz windows 10 will stop servicing 😔
@@SirAlph4 no unless i get a new PC, my 6 year old laptop “can’t” run windows 11, even though the intel core i7 7700HQ it has would probably run it just as well as it does on windows 10
ok bypass upgraded to Windows 11 don’t need Linux anymore but still gonna try it out
Yup, and i knew that Windows 8.1 is Windows 9, Because 8 + 1 = 9
That's not how math works!
Microsoft really said ‘it’s just a phase 😊’ 💀
Im pissed that windows 10 wasnt the last majour version of windows
@win7best, I'm disgusted that now all you see is W11 being promoted despite many complaints. They dropped the ~$139 W10 last year. Now I've seen "W10 Retail $299." I've seen some "licenses" being sold for under $100 tho, I'm wondering if those are actually "OEM" which MS says they don't offer support for...
Why
@@theawesomereal do yòu like corrupted drives and trash ui?
Windows 11 is bad. 10 was by far the best windows OS, after 7.
@@may21136 from a functionaltiy standpoint 10 was the best but for design 7 is the best
IIRC it was also because some bad programs simply just read the OS version, and just assumed that "Windows 9" would meant "Windows 95 or Windows 98, either of them."
Here's a copy paste of one of my comments: That makes no sense since the kernels, hell the entire architecture is fundamentally different. Windows 9x used a monolithic DOS kernel while Windows 10 uses the NT kernel a hybrid kernel ripped off from IBM's OS/2. We can easily debunk this pathetic so called "theory" because Windows ME exists, and no the compatibility issues came from DOS functionality being removed from the user.
Now if we are talking about modern applications being confused that's even dumber since applications have been written with NT based operating systems since Windows Vista, and even if somehow some idiot made a program that would get confused then Microsoft could've just changed the version number to something others than 9 which it wouldn't likely be anyways, not to mention that of a program like that poorly made wouldn't be likely be able to run anyways.
China is also VERY superstitious about the number 9 being an unlucky number/bad omen. That's a huge market to risk compromising.
Sure, but 9 is not an unlucky Chinese number. Quite the opposite…
Bro forgot Vista on the list 😭😭💀💀
What will they do when they get to 95 again?
Now Microsoft realize how much of a fail W11 is and is now planning on rolling out W12 ASAP.
I hope so. As the rule is that only every second Windows OS is good, many of the professionals refuse to go to Windows 11. And as Linux is heading up fast thanks to Valve in becoming Windows software compatible, who knows if in 2025 when the Windows 10 support time ends most people could just switch to Linux with Steam support.
Microsoft at this point might as well be cursed. They are cursed to always have a "Good, Bad, Good, Bad" upon every product release. Historically, it's always been where they jump between "Good" and "Bad" I was hoping they would break this pattern with windows 11, based on how pissed off people in this comment section are, and the personal issues i've been having with windows 11, I suppose that wasn't the case.
@@acmenipponair I think when windows 10 ends support most people will just continue using windows 10 anyways, just like what happened with windows XP when it ended support
It wasn't because Windows 9 would've been easy to confuse with 95 or 98, but because programmers are lazy and apps used to have checks if the OS was Windows 9*, and Windows 9 would have triggered that, so more modern apps with these checks wouldn't run.
microsoft:time to skip windows nine.apple:lets pull a microsoft and skip iphone 9
Still treating Window 10 as the "last" Windows OS. Really don't like how they went back on their word on this.
Simple:
Its because 7 8 9
Props to anyone who gets my dumb joke😂
Real ones know the truth.
7 ate 9.
Justice for 9
Impressive, now let's hear Paul Allen's theory
We all now the real reason was that 7 ate 9
In the world of technology, there is no such thing as a last version. Windows 11 is out now but I give it like 5-6 years before they announce Windows 12 or whatever they decide to call it.
The joke on the internet was:
“Windows 7 {ate (eight) } , 9 so that is why 10 emerged”
From what I understand, MS called it Windows 10 because they considered it to be the 10th version of Windows NT since NT 3.1 (before that it was IBM OS/2 1.0 and 2.0). Their logic:
1. Windows NT 3.1
2. Windows NT 3.5
3. Windows NT 4.0
4. Windows 2000
5. Windows XP
6. Windows Vista
7. Windows 7
8. Windows 8
9. Windows 8.1
10. Windows 10
Not sure of some of the logic, but that's what I've been told. NT kernel versioning doesn't even follow it.