Why did Microsoft skip Windows 9?

[Praetor]

pretty much the same reason IPv5 isn't here.

[123456789A]

Wouldn't sell in Germany with a name of Windows 9.

[Defcon]

It doesn't matter.

 

What truly matters is the output of winver :D

[Praetor]

To cross the road... oh wait.

[drdrew]

I think it is because most non-geeks think that Windows 7 is the latest Windows operating system and don't even realize there is a Windows 8 or 8.1. Windows 10 not only sounds more like a milestone but also seems like it is several versions away from 7 that the lay-person might turn their head and pay it mind.

 

MS wants people to realize there is advancement past 7 and they feel that this is the best shot to do it. If Windows 9 is great and 10 stinks (as has been the trend lately with odd/even versions), then a solid milestone # like 10 will be a letdown. This let's MS reverse course, stop the trend, and create enough separation from 7 for everyone to give 10 a look and consider the upgrade.

[.Ruby]

That was different, everyone was hyped for the new millinium :/

 

  On 30/09/2014 at 20:50, Earthworm_Jim said:

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.

[macoman]

Someone said in this thread that Windows 8.1 Update 1 and 2... It's pretty much Windows 9.

[.Ruby]

I find it cool that MS didn't give up on their vision for Longhorn, this is what Windows 10's feature set encompasses.

[Defcon]

  On 01/10/2014 at 03:33, ReptileX said:

I find it cool that MS didn't give up on their vision for Longhorn, this is what Windows 10's feature set encompasses.

I think not. Longhorn was much much more visionary! WinFS itself is 10x cooler than anything done in consumer OS's.

[T3X4S]

1.) Windows 3.1
2.) Win95
3.) Win 98
4.) Win 2000
5.) Win Me
6.) Windows XP
7.) Windows Vista

8.) Windows 7
9.) Windows 8
10.) Windows 10

[Bamsebjørn]

Looks too much like Windows 9x...

[(Account no longer active)]

Microsoft OS X.

[COKid]

  On 01/10/2014 at 03:48, T3X4S said:

1.) Windows 3.1

2.) Win95 (Y)

3.) Win 98

4.) Win 2000 (Y)

5.) Win Me

6.) Windows XP (Y)

7.) Windows Vista

8.) Windows 7 (Y)

9.) Windows 8

10.) Windows 10 (Y)

Fixed.

[Quillz]

Or you could do...

 

NT 3.1 = Windows "1"

NT 3.5 = Windows "2"

NT 4.0 = Windows "3"

NT 5.0 (2000) = Windows "4"

NT 5.1 (XP) = Windows "5"

NT 6.0 (Vista) = Windows "6"

NT 6.1 (7) = Windows "7"

NT 6.2 (8.0) = Windows "8"

NT 6.3 (8.1) = Windows "9"

NT 6.4 (10) = Windows "10"

 

I've always followed this route. Not sure how Microsoft actually arrived at Windows 7, but at least using this path, there was a Windows 9, it just wasn't marketed as such.

[BajiRav]

  On 01/10/2014 at 04:38, COKid said:

Fixed.

Windows 98 was pretty good IMHO

[123456789A]

  On 01/10/2014 at 02:28, Praetor said:

To cross the road... oh wait.

 

To cross the threshold?

[cork1958]

  On 30/09/2014 at 18:00, mram said:

Thoughts?  I have a guess at least ...

 

They really really wanted to distance themselves from Windows 8.

 

:D

 

They probably realized Windows 9 was going to be just as big a piece of crap as Windows 8!!

[Mazhar]

I think Microsoft is taking the "numbers" too seriously. I mean Windows 10 is such a lousy name for a fantastic OS. Come on Microsoft, forget the numbers bring some new strategy, I think just Windows would be fine.

[badb0y]

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

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

 

firefox?

[satysin]

Windows 10 is a bit of a weird name but then it wouldn't be Microsoft if they learnt how to name a product well ;)

 

I think Windows One could have worked with all their current One brands. Using the fact they already released Windows 1.0 30 or so years ago is weak, the first Xbox was essentially Xbox 1 yet they still used the name in a much closer time frame. Weird.

 

As for the new features shown. Some are cool like the 4 app snap but the virtual desktops look a bit meh compared to what you can do on most Linux DE and OS X. Hopefully they will refine it during the tech preview.

 

I had to laugh that they thought mentioning that Ctrl+V now works in cmd is something to boast about. Part of the problem is that Windows never really cared for the command line whereas OS X picked up a whole host of lovely UNIX utilities when they switched to using a UNIX base system. People say we should move beyond the command line but there isn't anything better available for automation on any platform. Text is a natural way for us to process data which is why the command prompt works so well.

[Julius Caro]

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. 

  On 30/09/2014 at 18:34, vcfan said:

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

 

 

 

which is exactly what OS X does, since apple decided to keep the 'X' version even after the 12th iteration. So now we have "OS ten" and "Windows ten". and we can expect both to stay with those names for years to come.

 

  On 01/10/2014 at 01:50, Enron said:

Wouldn't sell in Germany with a name of Windows 9.

 

out of curiosity, why not?

[Quillz]

I've warmed up to Win10. Now that I better understand why they called it that, it works. Still would have just preferred "Windows" or "NT 6.4," but whatever. It's not a big deal.

[Eladk :3]

  On 30/09/2014 at 18:00, mram said:

Thoughts?  I have a guess at least ...

 

They really really wanted to distance themselves from Windows 8.

 

:D

because seven ate nine

[neufuse Veteran]

  On 30/09/2014 at 18:31, rfirth said:

The average consumer doesn't know, nor care, that Windows 8 was actually version number 6.2.

 

And actual tech people understand why it's 6.2.

yeah, because those of us who write hardware drivers don't want to have to write new versions to get it locked to the major version number... one of the annoying issues we ran across when Vista incremented it to version 6... all new drivers for those who version locked it, and in a few cases version lock is a good thing to do

[Rigby]

The very first version of Windows NT was 3.1, it's all just marketing.