Quote:
Originally Posted by kennyc
(one thing the reviewer says it that he doesn't know any reason they skipped windows '9' - but there is actually a very good technical reason which he apparently isn't aware of) |
I'm not sure I buy that reason. It's far more typical (and correct) to check the version number than the name, and so much has changed that could break compatibility since those days, that I cannot believe whatever small fraction of still running legacy code that, 1, is coded like that, and, 2, might possibly be negatively affected by it, and, 3, is mission critical, and 4, can't be easily patched, would even be a blip on the operational, much less marketing, radar.
Nope, I'm not buying it.