- Feature Articles
- CodeSOD
- Error'd
-
Forums
-
Other Articles
- Random Article
- Alex's Soapbox
- Announcements
- Best of…
- Best of Email
- Best of the Sidebar
- Bring Your Own Code
- Coded Smorgasbord
- Mandatory Fun Day
- Off Topic
- Representative Line
- News Roundup
- Editor's Soapbox
- Software on the Rocks
- Souvenir Potpourri
- Sponsor Post
- Tales from the Interview
- The Daily WTF: Live
- Virtudyne
Edit Admin
Well, it could actually be done after version 100...
Admin
Does Firefox still exist?
Admin
I present you Windows 9. Not. For allegedly the same reasons.
Edit Admin
What's unclear is whether it's a fix for goofiness in Firefox 1.X, 10-19, or 100-139...
Admin
jQuery, so probably 1x versions
Admin
Somewhat apocryphal, but this is supposedly why there wasn't a version 9 of Windows - old code was assuming versions starting with"Windows 9" are 95 or 98.
Edit Admin
Since the current version of FF is 139, that condition has been true for a while, and will continue to succeed for several years (new major releases come out about every month).
Edit Admin
Don't think it a problem. Just looked up the property in the jQuery documentation and it says it was removed in jQuery 1.9. The current version is 3.something.
Admin
I'm leaning strongly towards that being apocryphal. They could just make the internal version string literally anything else, Windows Nine, Windows IX, or even something quick and dirty Windows _9. The fact that it wouldn't parse as a number didn't prevent them from releasing XP or Vista, so that's non-argument. I find it hard to believe they'd change the product's whole branding over something so easily workarounadble.
Admin
I came here to mention this. It's not officially confirmed to be true, but enough seemingly knowledgeable people have reported it that I'd guess that it is. Which is funny and sad in equal measure.