Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2016 April 4
| Computing desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < April 3 | << Mar | April | May >> | April 5 > |
| Welcome to the Wikipedia Computing Reference Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
April 4 edit
What happened to Windows 9? edit
Did Microsoft simply skip the number or was a development project for Win9 aborted before a releasable product emerged? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- 2016 and 2017 were a strange two years.
- Seriously, though, that article does link to another article that explains why. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, that was an entertaining read. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- http://9gag.com/tv/p/a9r1Nw/microsoft-logic-skipping-windows-9-and-going-straight-to-windows-10-world-war-5 The Quixotic Potato (talk) 13:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Microsoft skipped Windows 9 because 7 8 9.
- Alternative theories:
- Because that would interfere with their goal of having the most inconsistent version numbering system in history. We went from Windows 3.x to versions named after years, like 95 and 98, then with just word or abbreviation names, like Vista and XP, then back to version numbers, but without the decimal, like 7 and 8. Next maybe they should try letters, like Windows K, and then maybe switch to Roman numbers, like Windows XII. StuRat (talk) 18:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Windows 1, 2, 3, 3.1415, 95, 98, Millennium Edition, 2000, XP, Vista, 7, 8, 10, K, XII, α, β, ג, Δ, ج, MMXXXVIII, Windows 41.9 The HOCK!, 7FB, 2043, 3773, 13323, 2210200, 11111111011, Windows Apocalypse Edition (technological singularity destroys man in a violent revolution). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- For people who don't want to read through a bunch of bad jokes and anti-Microsoft nonsense, the most likely reason is that a lot of third-party software checks for Windows 95/98 by checking whether the version starts with the digit 9. It's plausible on its face, and it's "confirmed" here, though they are only reporting a rumor and there's no proof that they actually work for Microsoft. -- BenRG (talk) 00:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Hillary Clinton and Benghazi edit
(Moved by StuRat to the the Humanities Desk) --69.159.61.172 (talk) 01:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
won't run on this PC edit
On my new (Dell Inspiron) I get messages (I suppose from Windows 10) that certain apps "won't run on this PC." Is this because Microsoft wants to claim all the turf? What can I do about it? --Halcatalyst (talk) 22:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- There are all sorts of possible reasons:
- A) Doesn't run on the Windows platform. Apple and Linux apps, for example.
- B) Doesn't run on Windows 10. Maybe that app is only supported up to Windows 8, for example.
- C) 32-bit versus 64-bit problem. That is, it expects one architecture, and you have the other.
- D) App expects hardware you don't have, like a CD drive.
- I do agree that the message could be far more specific, though. If you list the apps that give this message, maybe we can help figure out the problem. StuRat (talk) 00:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Can you give more details about the error message? A 64-bit version of Windows will not run a 16-bit program and a 32-bit version of Windows will not run a 64-bit program. But a 64-bit version of Windows should run a 32-bit program. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:57, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- It is common for 32-bit programs to fail on 64-bit systems. They are written to require various 32-but libraries that are only 64-bit versions on the OS. It is possible to install both 64 and 32-versions of all the libraries, but that doesn't always happen. So, the 32-bit program fails. A common solution is to release programs in both 32 and 64-bit versions. 199.15.144.250 (talk) 12:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)