3 ms·
There’s also no reason that the public facing name has to be the same as the internal name. They could have called it Windows 9 and internally reported it as an
by Gigachad 1y ago
There’s also no reason that the public facing name has to be the same as the internal name. They could have called it Windows 9 and internally reported it as anything in the apis.
Its basically standard in software to do this when the actual name for something comes out near the end or changes often so you don’t have to update all the code to reference the new name.
- bigfatkitten 1y ago> There’s also no reason that the public facing name has to be the same as the internal name. They could have called it Windows 9 and internally reported it as anything in the apis. This is what they were doing at the time anyway. Windows 7 was 6.1, Windows 8 was 6.2, Windows 8.1 was 6.3.
- rezonant 1y agoAnd still to this day, where Windows 11 is for instance version 10.0.26100
- djxfade 1y agoThis is what Apple did when they finally dumped the OS X branding. macOS 15 also reports as 10.15.
- hshdhdhj4444 1y agoThe concern was about apps from the 90s. Those were very poorly written apps. They very well could simply have been using APIs that returned the consumer oriented names. These are custom apps running on a specific set of computers in places like banks, stores, government offices around the world, etc.