What you don’t get is you can’t take away the version history of a given program and expect it to just work without constantly explaining things. There’s a reason there’s not windows 9 - because too many people wrote compatibility checks checking if the version started with “Windows 9” to distinguish 95 and 98 from the NT line back in the day and having an actual Windows 9 could have broken things.
Granted, Windows 2 is much older and it would be unlikely, but why do you insist of risking something at all when there are better ways?
You could have just said, oh, if there already was a version 2, let’s just call it “Windows Gen2” instead of getting belligerent.
I’m not debating the literal version history of Windows or pretending compatibility issues don’t matter. My point always was from the beginning, conceptual. It’s about drawing a line and imagining a clean break from legacy systems, like starting from a Gen2 OS with no baggage.
If that idea still isn’t clear, that’s fine because clearly we are talking past each other at this point. I’ve explained it multiple ways to you, and I’m not interested in continuing this when you clearly refuse to even attempt to look past the current versioning system of windows… Which clearly makes me wrong somehow, even though it’s a hypothetical situation…
Last thing…
“You could have just said, oh, if there already was a version 2, let’s just call it “Windows Gen2” instead of getting belligerent.”
That’s not what I meant at all… It doesn’t matter if version two exists in my hypothetical situation or windows 9 or 22 even…
If you started a whole new operating system based on new technologies… And called it windows 2 not Windows 2.0
Look at it this way no one got confused when overwatch two came out and thought it was just overwatch path 2.0
What you don’t get is you can’t take away the version history of a given program and expect it to just work without constantly explaining things. There’s a reason there’s not windows 9 - because too many people wrote compatibility checks checking if the version started with “Windows 9” to distinguish 95 and 98 from the NT line back in the day and having an actual Windows 9 could have broken things.
Granted, Windows 2 is much older and it would be unlikely, but why do you insist of risking something at all when there are better ways?
You could have just said, oh, if there already was a version 2, let’s just call it “Windows Gen2” instead of getting belligerent.
I’m not debating the literal version history of Windows or pretending compatibility issues don’t matter. My point always was from the beginning, conceptual. It’s about drawing a line and imagining a clean break from legacy systems, like starting from a Gen2 OS with no baggage.
If that idea still isn’t clear, that’s fine because clearly we are talking past each other at this point. I’ve explained it multiple ways to you, and I’m not interested in continuing this when you clearly refuse to even attempt to look past the current versioning system of windows… Which clearly makes me wrong somehow, even though it’s a hypothetical situation…
Last thing…
“You could have just said, oh, if there already was a version 2, let’s just call it “Windows Gen2” instead of getting belligerent.”
That’s not what I meant at all… It doesn’t matter if version two exists in my hypothetical situation or windows 9 or 22 even…
If you started a whole new operating system based on new technologies… And called it windows 2 not Windows 2.0
Look at it this way no one got confused when overwatch two came out and thought it was just overwatch path 2.0