Interesting. Why would people have written it to look at only the first character of the version in the first place? 98 vs. 95 would have hosed that already, wouldn’t it? Plus, why are people not using the decimal version number (2K = 5.0; XP = 5.1, Vista = 6.0, W7 = 6.1, etc.)? Why the heck would they go with the alpha name?
I don't really remember, but something like this: The main thing that was problematic with batches was DOS v. NT. Parsing was easier using word based (space delineated), because one had to assume DOS tools till one found out one had NT.
I don't remember exactly, but I DO remember a very long struggle trying to parse the version number assuming DOS. IIRC, DOS used a two word alpha name (Windows 98 [version]), NT4 used a two word alpha name (Windows NT [version]), but NT5 used one word (Windows [version])... So the only char you COULD test for was that '9'.
So generally speaking, VER and FIND was what was available (IIRC, FOR worked differently DOS/NT so it couldn't be used till you knew which one). Not much to work with. Once you knew which one, then you could do more.
Now, I know I could FIND for the precise version number right off the bat, but that is several more lines, when all I really needed to know is whether DOS or NT... which is where the lazy comes in. : )
As far as executables are concerned, I am too far away from BASIC and Pascal to even try to remember without examining some of that old code. But I DO know I would be suspicious that I had looked for 'Windows 9'.