[danwdoo]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Here's an Engadget review: http://www.engadget.com/2015/07/28/windows-10-review/
(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)

This reasoning doesn't hold any credibility to me. Programmatically (which is the only way this would possibly matter for program compatibility) Windows 10 is version 10 (though earlier in the beta it was 6.4) But Windows 8 was only 6.2 Windows 95 was actually 4.0. There is no 'function' that would return Windows 95, 98 or 10 that could have broken anything and there has never been a windows 9.x. Names such as 95, 98, or 10 are purely marketing labels and are completely independent of the true OS version number. They could have just stuck with the 6.4 version or even gone to 9.x and called it Windows 9 and there would not have been any problems at all.