Drunken Monkey
Author Level
People can't count these days
[video=youtube;84NI5fjTfpQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84NI5fjTfpQ[/video]
[video=youtube;84NI5fjTfpQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84NI5fjTfpQ[/video]
Windows 10
- Thread starter Drunken Monkey
- Start date
From the features mentioned there, it looks like some nice upgrades, I like the ability to easily have 4 different windows open, very handy for me as I have to work on a lot of different applications at once, and also a great way to make better use of screen space on higher than 1080p displays.
So there is a good chance I will update to Windows 10 on my main PC once its fully released. In the mean time it also gives me a reason to fix the second PC and load it onto that!
So there is a good chance I will update to Windows 10 on my main PC once its fully released. In the mean time it also gives me a reason to fix the second PC and load it onto that!
DeadEyeDuk
Superhero Level Poster
Well the thing is, before Windows 8 we had Windows 7, but before that we had Vista, and XP (and ME LOL), and 2000, and 98 and 95 (am sure I missed some
)Point being, with only 2 numbers to work with (7 and 8), there is no evidence of any sort of sequential numbering other than from presumptions from the consumer!
I'm surprised they went with 10 too, but only because I thought they might bother to get creative again (even Vista is more interesting than just a number!)
So there
DED
High hopes for this, 8 went in the necessary direction despite getting the execution all wrong.
Much like 7 was a more refined version of Vista, hopefully this will improve on 8 and deliver the best possible experience appropriate to the device you're using.
And even though 8 is already a speed demon it would still be nice to see some further improvements on the performance front, too.
Much like 7 was a more refined version of Vista, hopefully this will improve on 8 and deliver the best possible experience appropriate to the device you're using.
And even though 8 is already a speed demon it would still be nice to see some further improvements on the performance front, too.
Androcles
Rising Star
I was waiting for someone to say that because I really didn't want to make such a corny joke
Great minds think alike it would seem lol
Androcles
Rising Star
6.1 is the development version number, it's not Windows 6.1 named 7, it's version 6.1 of Windows 7, basically there were 6 major and 46 minor update, research and development stages before it was released to the public.
Androcles
Rising Star
Well the thing is, before Windows 8 we had Windows 7, but before that we had Vista, and XP (and ME LOL), and 2000, and 98 and 95 (am sure I missed some
Point being, with only 2 numbers to work with (7 and 8), there is no evidence of any sort of sequential numbering other than from presumptions from the consumer!
I'm surprised they went with 10 too, but only because I thought they might bother to get creative again (even Vista is more interesting than just a number!)
So there
DED
Yes you missed some and no there wasn't only 2 numbers to work with, in fact 95, 98, XP, ME (2000) and Vista were the exceptions not the rule
Windows 1.01
Windows 1.03
Windows 1.04
Windows 2.0
Windows 2.10
Windows 2.11
Windows 3.0
Windows 3.1
Windows NT 3.1*
Windows for Workgroups 3.11*
Windows 3.2
Windows NT 3.5*
Windows NT 3.51*
Windows 95
Windows 96 (unreleased and redesigned as 98)
Windows NT 4.0*
Windows 98
Windows 2000*
Windows ME
Windows XP (and professional x64))
Windows Vista (home, business, enterprise and ultimate)
Windows 7 (home basic, home premium, professional, enterprise, ultimate and thin)
Windows 8 (and pro and enterprise)
Windows 8.1 (and pro and enterprise)
Windows 10 (???)
* denotes NT based versions of Windows which were basically slimmed down and refined versions of the next Windows in the list specifically for office and business use.
Last edited:
Androcles
Rising Star
You're missing Windows RT off there
I don't really class RT as a windows to be honest as it's an ARM based architecture, it's like saying MacOS is a version of UNIX, it is but only at the very base level.
On the whole, I love 8, and look forward to further refinement and improvements with 10.
I'd class NT as a different OS series to the DOS/9x series; XP onwards are all derivations of NT (as was 2000).
Yes, Windows 7 was never actually based on the "real" version number of Windows software. Although Vista was 6 (with XP being 5.1, 2000 being 5, then NT being before that), 7 is actually 6.1, 8 is 6.2, 8.1 is 6.3, and who knows what 10 will really be...
I'd class NT as a different OS series to the DOS/9x series; XP onwards are all derivations of NT (as was 2000).
Androcles
Rising Star
According to my friend who is a UI designer for Microsoft UK, the numberings they refer to them at Microsoft are like this:
Apparently the reason they were grouped like this and chosen this way is because at MS they didn't class many of them as individual versions, more like updated versions of the previous, for example they viewed XP as an improved Millennium and 2000 as the NT equivalent of ME etc. with Windows 7 as an improved rework of Vista and so forth, which is why we seem to have missing numbers and strange ordering etc.
- Windows development version 1
Windows 1.01
Windows 1.03
Windows 1.04 - Windows development version 2
Windows 2.0
Windows 2.10
Windows 2.11 - Windows development version 3
Windows 3.0
Windows 3.1
Windows NT 3.1
Windows for Workgroups 3.11
Windows 3.2
Windows NT 3.5
Windows NT 3.51 - Windows development version 4
Windows 95
Windows NT 4.0Windows 98 - Windows development version 5
Windows 2000
Windows ME
Windows XP (and professional x64) - Windows development version 6
Windows Vista (home, business, enterprise and ultimate)
Windows 7 (home basic, home premium, professional, enterprise, ultimate and thin) - Windows development version 7
Windows 8 (and pro and enterprise)
Windows 8.1 (and pro and enterprise)
Apparently the reason they were grouped like this and chosen this way is because at MS they didn't class many of them as individual versions, more like updated versions of the previous, for example they viewed XP as an improved Millennium and 2000 as the NT equivalent of ME etc. with Windows 7 as an improved rework of Vista and so forth, which is why we seem to have missing numbers and strange ordering etc.
Last edited:
Androcles
Rising Star
Probably unfinished versions that were never released. With this jump from 8.1 to 10, there's probably a developer version in there that will never be released, for example years ago I had the pleasure of viewing a pre-release of Windows 96 which was never actually released to the public, it was meant to be released instead of 98 and was almost finished (was closer in design to ME than it was to 95 or 98 having all the explorer/browser integration that ME has), but they decided the changes were too much and scrapped it to develop 98, only to pick up the pieces later in their designs for ME.
Last edited:
Everyone knows and loves service packs right. When I think back, service packs are those huge OS updates that make everything better, in one way or another. Even Windows 7, as amazing as it is. Has a service pack now. So what about Windows 8? Windows 8 has such a negative aura around it, they named the Window 8 service pack... Windows 9! So it's not a new OS it's just an updated Windows 8. It's all PR.
ubuysa
The BSOD Doctor
Yes, this is born out by the version number for both Windows 7 and Windows 8 being 6.x. I don't understand the intricacies of the Windows kernel but it does sort of look like Win7 and Win8 are really major extensions of Vista rather than radically new versions. Perhaps that's why they've gone to Windows 10, to make a clean break. Hopefully the version number will be 10 on this one?!
Windows 8 has a service pack, it's called Windows 8.1.
As for 9 (or 10) being similar to 8 rather than a whole new OS, this is nothing new. In fact most if not all versions of Windows build on the previous version. 8 has a lot in common with 7, but adds the new WinRT API. XP was 2000 with various UI changes. Each version adds lots of features here and there, but it's still the same OS. New versions of Windows usually have "negative auras", whether it's from hardened Windows users disliking change, or from people who are actually really Apple or Linux fans. Today's loved XP got the same treatment on release
But yes, marketing new versions gives a chance for people to think "ah, it's better now", even when not much actually changes.