> 2o the human2 relea2ed the or1g1nal play2tat1on, r1ght? you th1nk they would name the 2equel con2ole the play2tat1on 2, r1ght? nope the 2EQUEL'2 the play2tat1on ONE after that2 the p22 no <
NO ZTOP WHY MUZT U BRING DIZ UP NOW MY DAYZ RUINED X( UR RITE I NEVER NOTICD WHY WOULD THEY DO THAT
> 1t2 l1ke 2k1pp1ng over a number 1n an operat1ng 2y2tem l1neup for no rea2on oh wa1t <
i mean computer's start counting at zero so i guess that might(???) be why but maaan if it aint still bullshit
There's actually a really good reason for that! And by "good" I mean "stupid but in a way that actually makes sense." The reason is that a lot of programs from the turn of the millennium didn't check the version number directly. They just checked the version STRING. So there's all this legacy code floating around that determines whether it's being run on Win95/Win98, not by checking whether it had a version number of 4.X, but by checking whether the version STRING had a 9 in it. You can probably see the issue here. As long as people are still using code from the 4.X era, you're not allowed to put 9 in the version string, because then it will assume it is being run on 4.X. Ergo, the version numbers jump from 6.3 to 10.0, and for marketing purposes (where they had to refer to 6.1 as "Win7" because the 6.0 release was heavily stigmatized, on account of people kept putting it on low-spec machines that couldn't handle it) they weren't allowed to use a version string of "9" for 6.3 so they just called it "8.1" instead.