I read a few articles about Microsoft calling its new Windows release "Windows 10" rather than Windows 9. Nobody mentioned what is probably the reason, and, although in the grand scheme of things it is hardly of earth-shattering importance, the fact that it wasn't mentioned makes me feel like I have to.
Nine is traditionally the number associated with endings. (Remember the Beatles song "Revolution Number 9", which is supposed to evoke the chaos at the end of civilization, or something.)
So Microsoft is afraid that Windows is on the way out, and they don't want to jinx themselves by calling it Windows 9. They don't want to publicize that being the reason, of course.
So there's a certain amount of cultural ignorance in the commentators not being on to it.
We now return to our regularly scheduled program.......
9, the number for endings
Moderators: NeilBlanchard, Ralf Hutter, sthayashi, Lawrence Lee
-
- *Lifetime Patron*
- Posts: 2269
- Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 9:09 am
- Location: Northern California.
Re: 9, the number for endings
they should have really called it Windows One. I mean if it is supposed to work on all your devices.. One would seem like the perfect name.
Re: 9, the number for endings
I wouldn't take seriously any superstition on numbers but maybe some people would. In China 9 is a good number, in Japan it's unlucky, you can't please them all.
To be really nitpicky, Windows version numbers are broken for many other reasons as well. There hasn't actually been a Windows release since Windows ME as Windows always used to be DOS based. What is now referred to as Windows is in fact Windows NT and they have just rebranded it to be sold as Windows, even though there are NT references throughout it.
Then you look at the releases as they were branded:
Windows 1.01 (so there never was a Windows 1.0 either, this is the second whole number they've missed!)
Windows 1.02
Windows 1.03
Windows 1.04 - this is getting into a pattern now
Windows 2.00 - OK, a major new release, a sensible number
Windows 2.10 - wait, why have we gone to 2.10? What makes this a bigger change than 1.01? Or are you just going to increment by 0.10 instead from now on?
Windows 2.11 - Now we've incremented by only .01 again!
Windows 3.00 - OK a major new release
Windows 3.1 - Why have we lost an extra digit? Are we now going for sensible point releases? Will we see 3.2 next?
Windows NT 3.1 - Now we have a whole new operating system that has picked up the same version number. Maybe this 'New Technology' OS will replace the old DOS based one.
Windows for Workgroups 3.11 - Wait, this makes no sense. Is this a whole different product? Surely if you want networking you would want Windows NT. This is just a case of facelifting Windows 3 until it farts.
Windows 3.2 - 中国只有简体
Widnows NT 3.5 - Maybe this time NT will replace the DOS based Windows. What happened to NT 3.2-3.4? Missing in action?
Windows NT 3.51 - Maybe THIS time NT will replace the DOS based Windows. And what happened to skipping several version numbers? Now we're just back to a 0.01 release!
Windows 95 - A new interface, but still polishing the DOS turd of a kernal. So now we're numbering by year, definitely more logical than the scatter gun naming we've had before. Version 4.0 underneath by the way.
Windows NT 4.0 - Good, a nice round number. Maybe THIS time NT will replace the DOS based Windows.
Windows 98 - So this is odd. NT 4 has a wonderful kernel and seemingly incomplete everything else and yet they're decided to put development effort into more turd polishing!
Windows 2000 - Oh no not more DOS... wait it's NT 5 nut with a different name! Finally a stable base for Windows. Maybe THIS time NT will replace the DOS Windows.
Windows ME - Oh wait, Windows 2000 Pro was far too expensive for home users. 'Millenium Edition'? Thats' pushing it a bit. It's hardly going to stand the test of time.
Windows XP - So this is Windows NT 5.1 then? What's with the name? Finally THIS time NT will replace the DOS based Windows.
Windows XP x64 - Not NT 5.1, actually NT 5.2. x64 means is a nonsense though, should be x86-64.
Windows Vista - Another change of naming scheme? What were they thinking?
Windows 7 - Back to a sensible naming scheme.
Windows 8
Windows 8.1 - Yeah, 8 was actually pretty bad.
Windows...... 10 - Why????
To be really nitpicky, Windows version numbers are broken for many other reasons as well. There hasn't actually been a Windows release since Windows ME as Windows always used to be DOS based. What is now referred to as Windows is in fact Windows NT and they have just rebranded it to be sold as Windows, even though there are NT references throughout it.
Then you look at the releases as they were branded:
Windows 1.01 (so there never was a Windows 1.0 either, this is the second whole number they've missed!)
Windows 1.02
Windows 1.03
Windows 1.04 - this is getting into a pattern now
Windows 2.00 - OK, a major new release, a sensible number
Windows 2.10 - wait, why have we gone to 2.10? What makes this a bigger change than 1.01? Or are you just going to increment by 0.10 instead from now on?
Windows 2.11 - Now we've incremented by only .01 again!
Windows 3.00 - OK a major new release
Windows 3.1 - Why have we lost an extra digit? Are we now going for sensible point releases? Will we see 3.2 next?
Windows NT 3.1 - Now we have a whole new operating system that has picked up the same version number. Maybe this 'New Technology' OS will replace the old DOS based one.
Windows for Workgroups 3.11 - Wait, this makes no sense. Is this a whole different product? Surely if you want networking you would want Windows NT. This is just a case of facelifting Windows 3 until it farts.
Windows 3.2 - 中国只有简体
Widnows NT 3.5 - Maybe this time NT will replace the DOS based Windows. What happened to NT 3.2-3.4? Missing in action?
Windows NT 3.51 - Maybe THIS time NT will replace the DOS based Windows. And what happened to skipping several version numbers? Now we're just back to a 0.01 release!
Windows 95 - A new interface, but still polishing the DOS turd of a kernal. So now we're numbering by year, definitely more logical than the scatter gun naming we've had before. Version 4.0 underneath by the way.
Windows NT 4.0 - Good, a nice round number. Maybe THIS time NT will replace the DOS based Windows.
Windows 98 - So this is odd. NT 4 has a wonderful kernel and seemingly incomplete everything else and yet they're decided to put development effort into more turd polishing!
Windows 2000 - Oh no not more DOS... wait it's NT 5 nut with a different name! Finally a stable base for Windows. Maybe THIS time NT will replace the DOS Windows.
Windows ME - Oh wait, Windows 2000 Pro was far too expensive for home users. 'Millenium Edition'? Thats' pushing it a bit. It's hardly going to stand the test of time.
Windows XP - So this is Windows NT 5.1 then? What's with the name? Finally THIS time NT will replace the DOS based Windows.
Windows XP x64 - Not NT 5.1, actually NT 5.2. x64 means is a nonsense though, should be x86-64.
Windows Vista - Another change of naming scheme? What were they thinking?
Windows 7 - Back to a sensible naming scheme.
Windows 8
Windows 8.1 - Yeah, 8 was actually pretty bad.
Windows...... 10 - Why????
Re: 9, the number for endings
If you speak out "9", it sounds like the german word for "no"
Windows "Nein"
Windows "Nein"