Gaming Microsoft Cannot Count

[DoggaDude]

I have proof that Microsoft can't count. In 1995, they created Windows 95, alright?

Then the next computer skips by 3 numbers, (because of the year) to 98.

But then, Microsoft said, "Fuck Numbers." when Windows XP and Vista came out. And then, the next computer drops all the fuckin' way down to 7. HOW THE FUCK TO YOU GO FROM 98, TO 7?!?!?? It's weird shit that doesn't make any sense! Where Is Windows 6? And then, they finally learned how to count, and made 8, and then 8.1.

And then they skipped to 10.

(I am highly aware of the numbers for the computers are In order of the year it was made)


But even though It's sorted through years, I have more proof they can't count!

Their first console was the Xbox. Get this, just Xbox. No Xbox one, It's the first Xbox, so they called it Xbox. Just, and only Xbox.

And then they said "Fuck It." And the next Xbox console was called:

Xbox 360.

How do you go from the first Xbox, TO THE 360TH XBOX?!?!?

EXPLANATION, PLEASE MICROSOFT!!!

And then, the next Xbox was called....

Xbox One.

I give up.

 

[retrogamefan]

Here are Windows releases in order :
1. Windows 3.1
2. Windows 95
3. Windows 98
4. Windows ME/2000/NT
5. Windows XP
6. Windows Vista
7. Windows 7
8. Windows 8/8.1
9. Windows 10

Microsoft chose to skip "Windows 9" due to conflict/confusion with '95/'98 in the general public...unfortunately alot of people in this world need to be spood fed.
Naming conventions don't necessarily need to follow numerically....

 

[r5xscn]

Here are Windows releases in order :
1. Windows 3.1
2. Windows 95
3. Windows 98
4. Windows 2000/NT
5. Windows XP
6. Windows Vista
7. Windows 7
8. Windows 8/8.1
9. Windows 10

Microsoft chose to skip "Windows 9" due to conflict/confusion with '95/'98 in the general public...unfortunately alot of people in this world need to be spood fed.
Naming conventions doen't necessarily need to follow numerically....

You forgot the legendary Windows ME.

 

[YOUCANTSTOPME]

I agree that the Xbox naming scheme was... silly to say the least. Xbox "One" for their 3rd iteration? Ya ok.

However, for the Windows naming, it's equally as silly to argue that "going from 98 to 7 doesn't make any sense", when obviously (as you are aware), 98 was a year and not a number.

 

[Originality]

You can make a similar argument for the Windows 10 updates. It’s supposed to be in year/month format, but they keep slipping. 1803 came out late, 1809 came out very late, 1903 came out more late, and now I hear lots of sites saying “don’t bother calling it 1909, just call it 19H2 and hope MS don’t jinx it”.

 

[osirisgothra]

Here are Windows releases in order :
1. Windows 3.1
2. Windows 95
3. Windows 98
4. Windows ME/2000/NT
5. Windows XP
6. Windows Vista
7. Windows 7
8. Windows 8/8.1
9. Windows 10

Microsoft chose to skip "Windows 9" due to conflict/confusion with '95/'98 in the general public...unfortunately alot of people in this world need to be spood fed.
Naming conventions don't necessarily need to follow numerically....

Well, to be completely frank, much of the core hasnt even changed since the 95/98 days, we still call CreateWindow the same way now as we did then, and the same libraries with the same stuff, most of it is just added libraries to the ball of wax. There really have only been a few major adjustments:
The jump from Windows 3.1(1) -> 95
The jump from 98->NT (purposely left out ME because it was a failure)
^This jump started a 'split', the servers started going toward 2000 and the workstation going to XP at this point it gets a bit complicated
NT was kinda a shot in the dark test to see what would happen, it was a catastrophy at first but they kept at it, and it ended up in 2000 (servers ran this mostly) and XP (desktops)
The fork gets bigger, XP SP2 was a pretty big jump behind the scenes whilest the counterparts of Server 20XX were going their separate ways.
...XP was a major success btw! *At this point the windows version is still 4*
The Jump from XP->Vista (another catastrophy) forcing a new version of the PE headers that wont run on XP
The Jump (Real One) of XP->7 (a success) <- we are at Windows version 5 now
The Jump from 7->10 (again, 8 and 8.1, failures) <- still at 5....?
Now, funny, but Microsoft ammended 10 to say 'version 10.blah' but it really is just version 6
So in the end does microsoft know how to count?
Answer: yes, but they dont want to

 

[osirisgothra]

I have proof that Microsoft can't count. In 1995, they created Windows 95, alright?

Then the next computer skips by 3 numbers, (because of the year) to 98.

But then, Microsoft said, "Fuck Numbers." when Windows XP and Vista came out. And then, the next computer drops all the fuckin' way down to 7. HOW THE FUCK TO YOU GO FROM 98, TO 7?!?!?? It's weird shit that doesn't make any sense! Where Is Windows 6? And then, they finally learned how to count, and made 8, and then 8.1.

And then they skipped to 10.

(I am highly aware of the numbers for the computers are In order of the year it was made)


But even though It's sorted through years, I have more proof they can't count!

Their first console was the Xbox. Get this, just Xbox. No Xbox one, It's the first Xbox, so they called it Xbox. Just, and only Xbox.

And then they said "Fuck It." And the next Xbox console was called:

Xbox 360.

How do you go from the first Xbox, TO THE 360TH XBOX?!?!?

EXPLANATION, PLEASE MICROSOFT!!!

And then, the next Xbox was called....

Xbox One.

I give up.

It seems your post might be misunderstood as being childish but you do have the right idea! (some do need to realize that yes, he is aware that 95/98 are dates, and the others are not, and yes he probably is aware that 360 means 'turnaround all the way, 360 degrees', microsofts way of saying 'its completely different' in one number) See my post below

 

[osirisgothra]

Here are Windows releases in order :
1. Windows 3.1
2. Windows 95
3. Windows 98
4. Windows ME/2000/NT
5. Windows XP
6. Windows Vista
7. Windows 7
8. Windows 8/8.1
9. Windows 10

Microsoft chose to skip "Windows 9" due to conflict/confusion with '95/'98 in the general public...unfortunately alot of people in this world need to be spood fed.
Naming conventions don't necessarily need to follow numerically....

They dont need to be, but you have to at least admit, the way they handled the version numbers was just wrong. Especially when you go into the actual version numbers from the OS in each of the above. Do that and you can't help but laugh, right?

 

[Gep_Etto]

Holy Triple Comment, Batman!

Regarding the skip from 8.1 to 10, what I've heard is that some programs would search if the Windows version starts with a 9 in order to see if they're running on Windows 95/98, so jumping straight to 10 was about keeping backwards compatibility. And that they ended the year numbering for PR reasons, though that really sounds like an excuse.

XBox naming is just sloppy. Sony has been doing sequentially numbered PlayStations since literally the first one. Nintendo has just been naming their consoles by throwing Scrabble tiles onto a sticky surface and shaking it (seriously, what the fuck is "Wii U" supposed to mean?). Microsoft seems to be trying to do both these things at once. "XBox 360" is fine, it evokes the image of a full circle, freedom to go in any direction, blah blah blah. But who numbers their 3rd gen release "One"?! And what's with Series X | S ? Two series but each only containing one item? Why S and X? Why not J and P or M and Q? If there's a next one, what will it be called? XBox Bliss?