Windows 10 Announced

[SteveG1988]

http://winsupersite.com/windows/microsoft-announces-windows-10

[hotdogPi]

It's the same Windows 8. Nothing changed, except the change from decimal to octal.

(just kidding)

[SteveG1988]

It's the same Windows 8. Nothing changed, except the change from decimal to octal.

(just kidding)

It is windows 8 with a more desktop friendly UI.

[vdeane]

he noted that this isn't an incremental release

What is MS smoking?  This is totally an incremental release, especially compared to 8.  Seriously, the number of differences between 8.1 and 10 is comparable to the amount of differences between vanilla XP and SP2.

[NJRoadfan]

Heh, an Alanland-ish post appeared on slashdot in response: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=5774369&cid=48029351

[algorerhythms]

I hear that in Windows 24, Microsoft will finally give in to public demands to bring back Program Manager.

[riiga]

"The command prompt is being updated to support universal keyboard commands and actions (like SHIFT selection and CTRL + C for Copy)."
Well, at least something good came out of it.

[vdeane]

I hear that in Windows 24, Microsoft will finally give in to public demands to bring back Program Manager.

Come to think of it, the start screen and Program Manager are eerily similar.  And to think my comparisons to Windows 2.0 came from the color scheme and full screen/split screen-only apps...

[Thing 342]

he noted that this isn't an incremental release

What is MS smoking?  This is totally an incremental release, especially compared to 8.  Seriously, the number of differences between 8.1 and 10 is comparable to the amount of differences between vanilla XP and SP2.

I have heard that the "real" reason for the skip of 9 was because of the number of older programs doing this:

Code Select Expand


if(version.startsWith("Windows 9"))
{
/* Windows 95/98 */
}


[vdeane]

Yeesh.  Using the kernel version would be more reliable, though those now look a little odd with the present naming scheme:
Vista: 6.0
7: 6.1
8: 6.2

[jeffandnicole]

If Windows went from 1 to 2 to 3 to 4...then 9 would follow 8. 

Since Windows has gone from 95 to 98 to 2000 to XE to 7 to 8 (and I'm sure I missed something there)...there's not much in the way of sequential numbering for them to worry about, and the public doesn't necessarily expect it either.

Windows 9 sounds like a system where you know there will be a Windows 10, so people may wait to purchase Windows 10.

Windows 10 is a nice round number, so it must be important, and more people must have it.

[JREwing78]

I go with the theory that Windows 7 ate 9.

[Laura]

Perhaps they went with 10 because it would cause a problem in coding with the 9 having already been used as part of 95 and 98?

ETA: pretty much this...(facepalm) 

he noted that this isn't an incremental release

What is MS smoking?  This is totally an incremental release, especially compared to 8.  Seriously, the number of differences between 8.1 and 10 is comparable to the amount of differences between vanilla XP and SP2.

I have heard that the "real" reason for the skip of 9 was because of the number of older programs doing this:

Code Select Expand


if(version.startsWith("Windows 9"))
{
/* Windows 95/98 */
}


[SteveG1988]

Perhaps they went with 10 because it would cause a problem in coding with the 9 having already been used as part of 95 and 98?

ETA: pretty much this...(facepalm) 

he noted that this isn't an incremental release

What is MS smoking?  This is totally an incremental release, especially compared to 8.  Seriously, the number of differences between 8.1 and 10 is comparable to the amount of differences between vanilla XP and SP2.

I have heard that the "real" reason for the skip of 9 was because of the number of older programs doing this:

Code Select Expand


if(version.startsWith("Windows 9"))
{
/* Windows 95/98 */
}


Yeah...That is actually a problem windows has had for a while. Vista "Compatability" Issues that 7 "Fixed" was due to this. basically Xp was windows 5.1, Vista was windows 6.0, 7 was windows 6.1, 8 is 6.2, Programs were looking at 5.x on vista. Internally tho windows 9x was windows 4.xx so the name of the OS itself doesn't matter, but it is a good point to bring up.

95=    4.00

98=    4.10

98se= 4.10.2222

Me= 4.90
NT 4=4.0

2000=NT5 (win 5.0)

Xp= 5.1

Server 2003=5.2

Vista=6.0

7=6.1

8=6.2

8.1=6.3

10=6.4 (so far)

[webfil]

I have heard that the "real" reason for the skip of 9 was because of the number of older programs doing this:

Code Select Expand


if(version.startsWith("Windows 9"))
{
/* Windows 95/98 */
}


We're lucky that no Windows versions were released between year 486 A.D. and year 1452. Windows 1024 would have created a real mess here.

[kkt]

Since Windows has gone from 95 to 98 to 2000 to XE to 7 to 8 (and I'm sure I missed something there)...

Well, you skipped over Windows ME, but I wouldn't say you were missing it....

[ET21]

Since Windows has gone from 95 to 98 to 2000 to XE to 7 to 8 (and I'm sure I missed something there)...

Well, you skipped over Windows ME, but I wouldn't say you were missing it....

I lived through Windows ME, but I never used a computer that had this OS (went from 95 to 98 to XP to Windows 7). What was ME?

[corco]

Since Windows has gone from 95 to 98 to 2000 to XE to 7 to 8 (and I'm sure I missed something there)...

Well, you skipped over Windows ME, but I wouldn't say you were missing it....

I lived through Windows ME, but I never used a computer that had this OS (went from 95 to 98 to XP to Windows 7). What was ME?

Windows 98 with a Windows 2000-like appearance package that fried hard drives.

[ET21]

Since Windows has gone from 95 to 98 to 2000 to XE to 7 to 8 (and I'm sure I missed something there)...

Well, you skipped over Windows ME, but I wouldn't say you were missing it....

I lived through Windows ME, but I never used a computer that had this OS (went from 95 to 98 to XP to Windows 7). What was ME?

Windows 98 with a Windows 2000-like appearance package that fried hard drives.

No wonder it was useless haha

[kkt]

Since Windows has gone from 95 to 98 to 2000 to XE to 7 to 8 (and I'm sure I missed something there)...

Well, you skipped over Windows ME, but I wouldn't say you were missing it....

I lived through Windows ME, but I never used a computer that had this OS (went from 95 to 98 to XP to Windows 7). What was ME?

Yeah, Windows 98 only it crashed even more often.  It was rushed out the door when Windows 2000 turned out to demand more expensive hardware than most consumers and small businesses were willing to pay for.  I remember something about additional features for media, but nothing that wasn't available in free addons for Windows 98.

Another explanation:  http://xkcd.com/323/

[Brandon]

I have heard that the "real" reason for the skip of 9 was because of the number of older programs doing this:

Code Select Expand


if(version.startsWith("Windows 9"))
{
/* Windows 95/98 */
}


We're lucky that no Windows versions were released between year 486 A.D. and year 1452. Windows 1024 would have created a real mess here.

We're just luck Microsoft isn't in charge of exit numbering somewhere.

"Let's see, exit 3.1 is followed by exit 3.5, by exit 95, then exit 98.  Now we have have exit ME and exit XP, followed by exit Vista.  Then, bizarrely, we have exits 7 and 8."

[SteveG1988]

Since Windows has gone from 95 to 98 to 2000 to XE to 7 to 8 (and I'm sure I missed something there)...

Well, you skipped over Windows ME, but I wouldn't say you were missing it....

I lived through Windows ME, but I never used a computer that had this OS (went from 95 to 98 to XP to Windows 7). What was ME?

Yeah, Windows 98 only it crashed even more often.  It was rushed out the door when Windows 2000 turned out to demand more expensive hardware than most consumers and small businesses were willing to pay for.  I remember something about additional features for media, but nothing that wasn't available in free addons for Windows 98.

Another explanation:  http://xkcd.com/323/

Real reason:
There were to be windows Neptune and Odyssey, two code names for NT based Pro/Home Operating systems. Neptune was to be the home version, odyssey to be the pro version. Microsoft merged the two teams onto the Whistler project, which became windows Xp.


Windows ME was a stopgap version.

[Pink Jazz]

Neptune was supposed to be the consumer version of 2000.  However, I am not sure if it would have fared any better than Windows ME in the marketplace.  With Windows ME, the main issue was instability due pushing the old DOS core too far.  However, had Microsoft released Neptune instead, the issues would have possibly been shifted from instability to incompatibility with consumer level software and hardware designed for Windows 9x.  This wasn't much of an issue for the release of 2000 for the business market since most were using Windows NT 4.0 which was already NT based.  However, to move from a DOS-based version to an NT-based version at the consumer level without compatibility layers would have opened up a lot of compatibility problems.  These compatibility layers were not included until the release of Windows XP.

By releasing Neptune, it could have been a pretty similar situation that Microsoft experienced with the upgrade from XP to Vista, as Vista was incompatible with a lot of software and hardware designed for XP.  Windows ME's problem on the other hand was not incompatibility with older software and hardware, but instability due to pushing the old DOS core too far.

[vdeane]

The history of Windows is weird.  It was originally a GUI for DOS.  This continued through Windows 1.0, 1.1, 2.0, 3.0, 3.1, and Windows for Workgroups 3.11.  Microsoft had created a standalone OS called OS/2 in collaboration with IBM, but when this relationship went sour, they revamped the product into Windows NT 3.5.  This line continued with NT 4.0 and NT 5.0 (more commonly known as Windows 2000).  The old DOS-based line continued with 95, 98, 98 SE, and then finally died with ME.  The NT line was then rebranded and continued with XP, XP SP2, Server 2003, Vista, Server 2008, 7, 8, Server 2012, 8.1, and 10.  Technically the product called "Windows" died long ago, but the name lives on.

[Pete from Boston]

I remember the early, pre-3 versions of Windows.  It was all but useless because software wasn't written to take advantage if it then.  I had to order a run-time version because I had purchased the game "Balance of Power," which bizarrely was released for Windows at a time when almost nobody had Windows. 

The day Windows 3.0 came out there was the kind of marketing and news wave that currently accompanies iPhone releases.  I remember being stunned that suddenly everyone was this interested in so clunky and limited a program, but of course, the clunkiness and limitation was changing.