› ›

"2.0"

AnonusAnonus
in General
Why do things have to be "X 2.0" now? Why can't they just be 2?

Stop trying too hard to be hip, columnists.

Comments

  • Princess AlicePrincess Alice
    You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
    What's ironic is that a lot of actual software products stopped doing the ".0" thing at some point

    e.g., "Windows 7", not "Windows 7.0"
  • glennmagusharveyglennmagusharvey
    There's no actual point (no pun intended) to ".0" unless you're doing version numbers.
  • Princess AlicePrincess Alice
    You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
    Now I'm just thinking about how USB 3.0 was retroactively renamed "USB 3.1 Gen 1" when they wanted to consolidate the standards documents.
  • BeeBee
    Well, my company's putting out a .0 version this week.

    Of course, it's been a very long time coming and involves platform migration and significant improvements at pretty much every level, so it kind of warrants it.
  • Unknown_EntityUnknown_Entity
    Harley Quinn said:

    What's ironic is that a lot of actual software products stopped doing the ".0" thing at some point


    e.g., "Windows 7", not "Windows 7.0"
    because 7.0 would be a lie when it's actually 6.1 :p
  • Princess AlicePrincess Alice
    You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
    I figured someone would say that.

    You know what I find odd? Window 8 was 6.2, but Windows 8.1, despite basically just being a service pack for 8, bumped the number to 6.3.

    Of course, 10 is 10.0 because someone finally realized there was no need to play this game anymore...
  • BeeBee
    It also skipped 9 for admittedly very good compatibility reasons.
  • Princess AlicePrincess Alice
    You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
    They claim it was for compatibility reasons, but I don't know if we can definitively rule out anti-Cirno prejudice.
  • TreTre
    image
    I'd genuinely be surprised if anyone at Microsoft even knew who Cirno was.
  • glennmagusharveyglennmagusharvey
    Harley Quinn said:

    They claim it was for compatibility reasons, but I don't know if we can definitively rule out anti-Cirno prejudice.

  • Unknown_EntityUnknown_Entity
    All those programs that checked for "Windows 9" to determine if they were on Win9x or not tho.
  • Princess AlicePrincess Alice
    edited 2015-10-23 04:50:55
    You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
    Tiny said:

    I'd genuinely be surprised if anyone at Microsoft even knew who Cirno was.

    You know who develops software? Nerds. All they need is a few weeaboos on staff...


    Unknown_Entity said:

    All those programs that checked for "Windows 9" to determine if they were on Win9x or not tho.

    Raymond Chen once told the story of programs having compatibility problems with early development releases of Windows 95. Why? Because this was how they checked the Windows version (paraphrased in shitty pseudocode):

    IF major_version < 3 OR minor_version < 1 THEN PRINT "This program requires Windows 3.1 or later."

    ...so when they tried to set the version number to 4.0, all these programs that had this especially dumb version check assumed they were running on an older verison of Windows.

    The solution? Report the version number as 4.95!
  • CalicaCalica
    Sup bitches, witches, Haters, and trolls.
    remember nanami madobe?
  • BeeBee
    I have to admit that for all their other idiocy, Windows has gotten pretty darn good about compatibility stuff like that.

    I remember the 3.1 days, when you'd buy speakers and it was a 50/50 shot if it would ever actually work because nothing came with its own drivers.
  • lee4hmzlee4hmz
    edited 2015-10-23 15:32:03
    ⚠ THIS MACHINE KILLS FASCISTS
    There's been a similar problem rcently with Windows 7/8/10 and 64-bit drivers; some older stuff just isn't supported in 64-bit mode. 32-bit drivers won't work in 64-bit mode, but neither will 16-bit code (some really old 3.1/95 programs) or things that need direct I/O access (same; those didn't work even on 2000 or XP).
  • Sredni VashtarSredni Vashtar
    “I'm surprised. Those clothes… but, aren't you…?”
    Unknown_Entity said:

    Harley Quinn said:

    What's ironic is that a lot of actual software products stopped doing the ".0" thing at some point


    e.g., "Windows 7", not "Windows 7.0"
    because 7.0 would be a lie when it's actually 6.1 :p
    Oh, hey, it's the Webmaster of IJBM just randomly here! I am slightly confused!
Sign In or Register to comment.