this post was submitted on 07 Feb 2024
1632 points (99.3% liked)

Programmer Humor

19821 readers
846 users here now

Welcome to Programmer Humor!

This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!

For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.

Rules

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 59 points 10 months ago (9 children)

Can't call it Windows 9

But that actually made sense! They care about backwards compatibility.

For those not in the know: some legacy software checked if the OS name began with "Windows 9" to differentiate between 95 and future versions.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 10 months ago

The reason they checked that it started with "Windows 9" was because it worked for "Windows 95" and "Windows 98"

[–] [email protected] 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It makes sense why they did it, but their messed up versioning was the cause to begin with. You should always assume Devs will cut corners in inappropriate ways.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 10 months ago (1 children)

They'll cut corners the more the shittier APIs and ABIs you provide

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

The API is fine. It returns the internal version number (which is 4.0 for Windows 95), not a string. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/api/winnt/ns-winnt-osversioninfoexa. There's no built-in API that returns "Windows 95" as a string.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

An often repeated urban legend that has no basis in reality. Software checking the version of Windows gets "6.1" for Windows 7 and "6.2" for Windows 8. The marketing name doesn't matter and is different.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

some legacy software checked if the OS name began with "Windows 9" to differentiate between 95 and future versions.

This is a myth. Windows doesn't even have an API to give you the marketing name of the OS. Internally, Windows 95 is version 4.0 and Windows 98 is 4.1. The API to get the version returns the major and minor version separately, so to check for Windows 95 you'd check if majorVersion = 4 and minorVersion = 0.

Edit: This is the return type from the API: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/api/winnt/ns-winnt-osversioninfoexa

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Maybe it's a myth, but it sure sounds plausible. The software that checks the "Windows 9" substring doesn't even have to exist for this to be reason they chose to skip to version 10 — they just had to be concerned that it might exist.

Sure, maybe there's no C function that returns the string, but there's a ver command. It would be trivial to shell out to the command. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ver_(command)

This doesn't prove anything, but there are a TON of examples of code that checks for the substring. It's not hard to imagine that code written circa 2000 would not be future proof. https://sourcegraph.com/search?q=context:global+%22%5C%22windows+9%5C%22%22&patternType=keyword&sm=0

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

but there are a TON of examples of code that checks for the substring

oh

oh no

There's code in the JDK that does that??

I really wish I didn't see that.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Yup!! Never look under the hood in software, you'll just be disappointed ☹️

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I've been a software developer for 20 years and this comment is too real. Some days I'm amazed that any software even works at all.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Having worked in both food service and software, I encourage you not to visit the kitchen of any restaurants you enjoy either.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

Please don't show me how the sausage is made

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

And for the same reason they went straight from ~~2.1~~ 3.x to 5.0 when they renamed .Net Core to just .Net. Versions ~~3.x and~~ 4.x would have been too easy to confuse (either manually or programmatically) with the old .Net Framework versions that were still in use, especially for Desktop applications.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Dotnet core 3.x exists

Dotnet core 4 never existed because they wanted to make it the mainline dotnet... That means framework is retired and everything is now the slimmer multiplatform runtime.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

Oh yeah right, I totally forgot 3.x.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Strange argument... how does that prevent checks versus Windows 7, 8 and 1* all of which would be less than 9.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Because it checks if the version starts with the string "Windows 9*", not wether the number is less than 9.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

This is a myth - code that checks the version number uses the internal version number, which is 4.0 for Windows 95.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I was about to say that most apps should check the NT number but then I remembered that until XP it wasn't common to run a NT system, but then I remembered NT 4 existed basically in the same timeframe as 95 did, and even if the argument went to "it's a 9x application", shouldn't these OSes at least have some sort of build number or different identifier systems? Because as I said NT systems were around, so they would probably need a check for that

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

Some programs just didn't work on NT though. A lot of installers were more OS specific back then.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

Eh. I think Microsoft should have let that break so the spaghetti code finally gets fixed