Why did Microsoft skip Windows 9?

[Mobius Enigma]

  On 30/09/2014 at 18:26, .Neo said:

They're names. Not version numbers. Windows 8 is actually version 6.2. I always thought that was funny when people were calling OS X releases "service packs" because Apple only raised the version number by .1. Microsoft has been doing the exact same thing since Windows Vista.

 

Actually, going back to NT 3.1 and Windows 3.0 the .1 iteration was common, and they were NOT considered service packs in the Windows world.

 

The reason people have called many of the OS X updates "Service Packs" is the specific and type of feature changes and the lack of underlying features to the core OS itself.  In the lifespan of OS X, there are three true "Upgrades".   Seriously go look at the update lists Apple would produce for their "200 New Features", if Microsoft detailed things at that level, Vista would needed a "15,000 New Features" page, and Windows 7 would have needed another "10,000 New Features" - and it was not a major update to Vista.

[Active.]

  On 30/09/2014 at 19:08, Stoffel said:

who cares what it is called? As long as it's good we shouldn't really care I guess

yet we're all more affected by marketing than we'd like to admit...

[Mobius Enigma]

  On 30/09/2014 at 18:37, Frank B. said:

Kernel versions of NT-based Windows versions:

 

Windows NT 4.0 = 4.0

Windows 2000 = 5.0

Windows XP = 5.1

Windows Server 2003 and XP x64 = 5.2

Windows Vista = 6.0

Windows 7 = 6.1

Windows 8 = 6.2

Windows 8.1 = 6.3

Windows 10 = 6.4

 

Just to be clear, part of the reason the 6.x version remained is for compatibility and crappy 3rd party developers that ONLY look for the 6 in the version.  (Why is: IF VER >= 6 so hard to code for some developers?)

 

In the life of NT, Windows 7 has one of the biggest kernel jumps and would easily warrant 7.x versioning if Microsoft was going on true changes to the OS.

[stevenoz]

Microsoft copies Apple again.

 

So now we have PC OSX.

[+FloatingFatMan Subscriber¹]

  On 30/09/2014 at 18:39, simplezz said:

Nein Nein! :rofl:

 

Neun, actually. :p

[Mobius Enigma]

  On 30/09/2014 at 18:57, Andre S. said:

Purely hypothetical ideas:

 

Because they plan multiple minor releases and releasing Windows 9.5 and Windows 9.8 would be confusing.

Because they want to distance themselves from Windows 8.

 

Because some people think that Windows 8.1 is Windows 8 + 1.

 

Because this is the last major version of Windows to get a number and they don't want to be stuck one number behind Mac OS X.

 

I'm going to have to agree that it is a mix of things, and there is a good argument that a big reason is it avoids all confusion with the non-NT Win9x era.

[DemonicHawk]

  On 30/09/2014 at 18:57, Andre S. said:

Because they plan multiple minor releases and releasing Windows 9.5 and Windows 9.8 would be confusing.

 

This is probably the best (most logical) reason I've seen so far.

[Woelfel]

I have the answer...and it lies within this picture. The devices that Windows 10 will support is 10.

 

 

 

The picture has 10 different devices:
1. IoT (internet of things)
2. phone
3. phablet
4. mini tablet
5. tablet
6. 2 in 1 devices
7. laptop
8. desktop
9. Xbox
10. PixelSense

[nyolc8]

They will rename it to Bing Windows, then they will rename it to MSN Windows. And then they will release Doors 10.

[Dashel]

Because its a play on words.

[Sofiane Merouani]

Here is a funny trivia 

 

I remember an article from Paul Thurrott, Windows' expert, way back in 2009 when Microsoft was dog-feeding Windows 7 under the helm of the beloved Steven Sinofsky. Thurrott made a reference to Windows  Branchmarking Index where he said that somehow Microsoft elevated the branchmarking index to 9 was akin to Spinal Tap's Nigel changing his amplifier?s volume level to extend to 11. "Why don't you just make 10 louder and make 10 be the top number, and make that a little louder?," director Marty DiBergi asks Nigel in the classic movie "This is Spinal Tap." "These go to 11," Nigel insists, after mulling it over. Exactly.

 

Now, I think they are doing the same with Windows 10. :) 

 

Sofiane.

[.Neo]

  Quote

But Microsoft went instead with Windows 10 because they wanted to signify that the coming Windows release would be the last "major" Windows update. Going forward, Microsoft is planning to make regular, smaller updates to the Windows 10 codebase, rather than pushing out new major updates years apart. Windows 10 will have a common codebase across multiple screen sizes, with the UI tailored to work on those devices.

http://www.zdnet.com/microsoft-christens-the-next-version-of-windows-as-windows-10-7000034196/

 

So for the years to come you'll get Windows 10, Windows 10.1, Windows 10.2, Windows 10.3, Windows 10.4 I'm going to laugh so hard if it's actually true! :laugh:

[surreyguy]

Windows 10 has a great ring to it over Windows-9.

And I'm guessing that they're hedging their bets on it being a must have OS given the absolute bulldozing they've had over Windows 8.

I think it works well. Just hope it lives up to the hype now.

[Mugwump00]

This would make Windows 10 ready for Windows 1.0's 30th anniversary? Neato.

 

Apologies if anyone's already said that, I'm on-the-hoof...

[MorganX]

Who cares? As long as it's better than what came before. And it looks like it will be.

[.Neo]

  On 30/09/2014 at 19:11, Mobius Enigma said:

Actually, going back to NT 3.1 and Windows 3.0 the .1 iteration was common, and they were NOT considered service packs in the Windows world.

 

The reason people have called many of the OS X updates "Service Packs" is the specific and type of feature changes and the lack of underlying features to the core OS itself.  In the lifespan of OS X, there are three true "Upgrades".   Seriously go look at the update lists Apple would produce for their "200 New Features", if Microsoft detailed things at that level, Vista would needed a "15,000 New Features" page, and Windows 7 would have needed another "10,000 New Features" - and it was not a major update to Vista.

The core of OS X underwent major chances: From software accelerated to hardware accelerated. From PPC to Intel. From 32 bit to 64 bit. From single core to multicore (Grand Central Dispatch). Then there's also Spotlight. Memory management saw overhauls. New technologies like Core Animation were introduced and many, many other new APIs added over OS X' lifespan. There were several moments were Apple streamlined the OS removing legacy bulk. So claiming there's been a lack of new underlying core features and changes is just plain nonsense. Some OS X releases were end-user oriented (Panther, Leopard, Lion, Yosemite for example), others targeted at the system's core (Puma, Tiger, Snow Leopard, Mountain Lion).

 

It's kinda sad how people are still trying to downplay the above just so they can continue along with their "Service Pack" argument. 

[Max Norris]

  On 30/09/2014 at 20:00, .Neo said:

It's kinda sad how people are trying to downplay the above just so they can continue along with their "Service Pack" argument.

Shoot people still say that? Haven't seen it in quite a while myself, thought that silliness disappeared. Both OS's changed names over point releases, nothing new.

[Ice_Blue]

Scenario One

 

Customer walks into a Microsoft store:

 

"I want to buy a copy of Windows".

 

Store clerk:

"For personal or business use?"

 

Customer:

"Personal".

 

Clerk:

"Okay, here you go. Windows 10".

 

---------------------------------------------------------

 

Scenario Two

 

Customer does a Google search for "Buy latest Windows".

 

Amazon is the first result of many.

 

Customer sees "Windows 10 $39.99"

 

Customer clicks add to cart.

 

----------------------------------------------------------

 

In either of these scenarios, do you think the customer would really care what version came before?

 

And you, dear reader:

Do you believe you will be saying to yourself in the future:

 

"Man, this blows. I wonder how Windows 9 would have been?"

 

 

Mountains, molehills etc.

 

This is a non-issue.

[+DDG3595 Subscriber²]

  On 30/09/2014 at 18:24, bankajac said:

_{You guys know of any other software that skipped version numbers?}

DirectX jumped to version 5 from 3 back in the day.  Microsoft never released DirectX 4 even though it was developed internally.

[Xerino]

Think about it from Windows 98 on, 98 good, ME crap, 2000/XP good, vista crap, 7 good, 8 crap, 8.1 good, 9 would been the crap build so they decided to skip it all together and give us Windows 10 instead... just a theory

[+Warwagon MVC]

Because they wanted to get as far away from 8 as possible.

[.Ruby]

I'm think I'm obsessed with sequences.

 

I feel uneasy about them going to 10 like that. It makes me think MS is stupid enough to think people are too stupid to count.

[+Random Stranger Subscriber¹]

  On 30/09/2014 at 20:32, ReptileX said:

I'm think I'm obsessed with sequences.

 

I feel uneasy about them going to 10 like that. It makes me think MS is stupid enough to think people are too stupid to count.

 

yeah... but what about XP, 3.11, 2000, ME, VISTA...       were people (or you) counting then?

holy crap, windows 2000.... must be 1999 versions before that one :rofl:

 

 

 

and not to defend MS here, i think it is an absolutely weird and random decision to name Windows 9 - Windows 10....  :huh:  but, surely, they know something i don't. 

[Dermot]

Windows NT Kernel version mapping at the water cooler..

Major Version : 6

Minor Version: 4

6+ 4 = 10

lets call it Windows 10 :woot:

[Ian W]

  On 30/09/2014 at 20:26, warwagon said:

Because they wanted to get as far away from 8 as possible.

Then why didn't Microsoft just name the operating system Windows Threshold and be done with it? "10" as a number isn't far from "8." Furthermore, the new operating system retains the most of the UI elements introduced in Windows 8, albeit in modified forms, so I doubt that the negative reception of Windows 8 was a contributing factor.