|
To make the adjustment more sensible, I say we just remove the number 9 from the face of the planet. It sucked anyway.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Let's all switch to base-8 math. Screw you -9-!!!
My plan is to live forever ... so far so good
|
|
|
|
|
Since we've already used the digit '8' surely you mean base 9? 
|
|
|
|
|
In base 8 there is no number 9, same as there is no number 2 in binary.
My plan is to live forever ... so far so good
|
|
|
|
|
In base 8 there is also no 8. Hence, since we've already had Windows 8 base 8 doesn't work.
|
|
|
|
|
The topic discusses the number 9. In my view the number 8 is irrelevant in this context. But we can start using base-9 math if it will make you feel better.
My plan is to live forever ... so far so good
|
|
|
|
|
DJ van Wyk wrote: But we can start using base-9 math if it will make you feel better.
Well, he's right, the point of using base-8 was to remove the digit 9. Base-2 makes more sense since it is already an established base system extensively used and it doesn't have a 9 either. Computers don't have a 9 in their operating system, but that doesn't stop them from printing 9. We programmers seem to like base 10 so the program adjusts it to suit us dumb clucks on the other end of the screen.
What, you can't tell at a glance what 10110001001101 is?
If you can, wow, I'm impressed. I admit it, I can't. I can tell at a glance what 9 base 10 is in binary. In base 8, 9 (9 in base ten, hex, etc.) is 11.
Back to that long number 2^10 is 1024, so 1024+2048+8192+64+8+4+1=11,341 (That was assuming the string of 1's and 0's were a base 2 number.) I calculated the numbers on the left in my head but the final number used the calculator. Too lazy to drag out pencil and paper or finger math from memory. Shoot, I mention finger math and I remember it) I also can't write out the decimal number without looking up on the web what comes up after a trillion, but I know it's a hundred and one of them. I'd also have to look up the British names too, but I think a trillion is the first that diverges from American standard names.
Anyway, base 9 is the only base number that would display 9 as 10.
|
|
|
|
|
DJ van Wyk wrote: The topic discusses the number 9. In my view the number 8 is irrelevant in this context.
To be precise, the topic never discussed 9 except in the explanation of getting from version 8 to 10. The elephant in the room is that Microsoft's versions go from 8 to 10. Base 8 isn't a good explanation for that because then it should go from version 7 to 10 in that case. However, there isn't a really good explanation for Microsoft's naming conventions. Remember Windows 99? Well, if you're 15 or less, you wouldn't. (Maybe even 20 or less.) But that'd be a good explanation for the introduction of Windows 14, not 10.
Even the "explanation" lists version 10 twice in the series, so this really should be version 11 by its logic.
The best explanation is that Microsoft's naming convention is erratic and inconsistent. Don't expect it to make sense.
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, I don't remember Win 99, I do remember 96. I also remember Win 2000. So at one point their release names were associated to the year of release.
|
|
|
|
|
he probably means base 10, as in 8 + 1! 
|
|
|
|
|
Wait until Visual Studio (15)9 comes out, all octal and hex references will have been removed to enforce the MS paradigm.
|
|
|
|
|
So, when there will be base-9 notation support? 
|
|
|
|
|
Gosh, I hadn't thought it through that far. I'm sure it will be included in the VS (15)9 release - but perhaps someone with more free time than sense could bang a VS toolkit add-in together so we could get some early practice....
|
|
|
|
|
9 is, amusingly, a 4 anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
I thought it was because they wanted to avoid the possibility of Apple commercials with a frantic Hitler
yelling "Windows!!! Nein!!! Nein!!! Nein!!!"
|
|
|
|
|
Now that[^]... is the real reason!
|
|
|
|
|
I think the interwebs may have figured out the true reason, yes. Seems all to believable (and those code search results make it more believable). 
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
|
How can they be so sure that all ...
if(version.StartsWith("Windows 1"))
... code is already out of production 
modified 19-Nov-18 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
That's a damn good question you just raised here!  
|
|
|
|
|
The languages that included the .StartsWith method didn't exist until later. Also, the installers for those programs are all 16 bit installers and won't run on current versions of Windows.
|
|
|
|
|
they should name it windows me 10
.'\ /`.
.'.-.`-'.-.`.
..._: .-. .-. :_...
.' '-.(o ) (o ).-' `.
: _ _ _`~(_)~`_ _ _ :
: /: ' .-=_ _=-. ` ;\ :
: :|-.._ ' ` _..-|: :
: `:| |`:-:-.-:-:'| |:' :
`. `.| | | | | | |.' .'
`. `-:_| | |_:-' .'
`-._ ```` _.-'
``-------'/xml>
|
|
|
|
|
Just wondering ... seeing all the hype about it being SSSSOOOO "wonderful" ... did they think of it i.t.o. "It's a totally 'new' windows - like in Windows 2.0"?
...
And then realizing: "That's already been used"
...
And then some "brilliant" meeting participant "remembering" that "computers count in 1s & 0s" ... I can just imagine the sort of meeting (having had several of those myself - ending in me just hanging my head)
|
|
|
|
|
I thought that myself, but then I realized that Intel processors are little-endian. Which would make it "Windows One", surely?
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly! That's one of the reasons I'd have just hung my head in that meeting ... not worth shaking!
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
