So the new Windows 10 is the Old Windows 7 married to Windows 8, they should have called it Windows 15 (7 8=15), they can't add. I would prefer they just abandon Windows 8 completely and go back to Windows 7. I have a Windows 7 machine and like it fine and I also have a Windows 8 laptop and Hate Hate Hate it. I don't want any of Windows 8 married with Windows 7. I have a touch screen device that works an iPad, I have no desire to use Windows touch, I have a touch screen on my Windows 8 laptop and I wish I could disable it, I point to the screen without even touching it and it goes off following some link, it bugs the heck out of me. I can not find anything on that machine, I pin the programs I use to the task bar and just give up on finding anything else in that stupid Metro start menu.
So the solution to a failed product is to kludge it together with a successful product and hope no one will notice that you skipped a number?
The names and numbers are relatively irrelevant - more of a marketing thing than anything else - and under the covers it will likely remain something along the lines of build 14.889.11344revision37
Windows, Windows 2, Windows 3, Windows 3.1, Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows 2000, Windows ME,Windows XP, Windows Vista, Windows 7, Windows 8, Windows 8.1.
MS have no idea about order and numbering, they have released more than 10 versions and call their latest one Windows 10????
Windows, Windows 2, Windows 3, Windows 3.1, Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows 2000, Windows ME,Windows XP, Windows Vista, Windows 7, Windows 8, Windows 8.1.
MS have no idea about order and numbering, they have released more than 10 versions and call their latest one Windows 10????
If you look at their build numbers (or whatever), you’ll see why they numbered them the way they did.
Apple really should not have released 10.10. They should have used this opportunity to create a new brand for their Mac OS, not necessarily 11, but a complete departure from the old way of doing things.
Windows 8: Good idea, terrible execution. Seems like the way this whole project was managed is design by committee. Once it was done, marketing probably had no idea how to educate people how to use it. The result is just a colossal lump of software no one can really optimally use.
The funny thing is, MS had the opportunity to start from scratch with Windows RT. No baggage of legacy code there, but instead they tried to mimic the desktop. Trying to design an interface that will look like it will do something when it really won't (fake desktop that will not run x86 apps) is just plain idiotic IMHO. All I can do is shake my head and smile by all this backpedaling.
Comments
From the Verge Q&A:
Q: Now it's Windows 10, will we see future versions named after big cats?
11:01:46 AM PDT
A: Probably not.
WAIT A MINUTE.
No one has made a Seven ate Nine joke yet?!
This just tells you that the whole is LESS than the sum of its parts.
Maybe the next one will be called
Windows San Andreas Fault
Two steps forward, three steps back.
So the solution to a failed product is to kludge it together with a successful product and hope no one will notice that you skipped a number?
The names and numbers are relatively irrelevant - more of a marketing thing than anything else - and under the covers it will likely remain something along the lines of build 14.889.11344revision37
Windows, Windows 2, Windows 3, Windows 3.1, Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows 2000, Windows ME,Windows XP, Windows Vista, Windows 7, Windows 8, Windows 8.1.
MS have no idea about order and numbering, they have released more than 10 versions and call their latest one Windows 10????
If you look at their build numbers (or whatever), you’ll see why they numbered them the way they did.
Seriously, running a hybrid OS is not the best thing to do. No one will be happy. Again.
Oh, and the next update will be called 10.1 (Big Cat), and 10.2, and eventually it's Windows X eh? Wonder where that came from
Windows 10.3 (Copy cat), 10.4 (Scaredy Cat), ...
I think you meant "7 of 9"
They should call it Windows ZERO.
ADVERTISING IN THE START MENU!
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
Windows 10 event: Maybe 40 people...
Apple Yosemite event: Tons of people...
Apple should crank it up to 11
Apple really should not have released 10.10. They should have used this opportunity to create a new brand for their Mac OS, not necessarily 11, but a complete departure from the old way of doing things.
If you look at their build numbers (or whatever), you’ll see why they numbered them the way they did.
And they think this is going to save them from the Star Trek Movie Syndrome...
Yeah… Operating System Ten. That's the ticket. Now, what snappy acronym could we use: OS----something. It will come to me soon.
I'm gonna' wait for WindowsXXX ...
Windows 8: Good idea, terrible execution. Seems like the way this whole project was managed is design by committee. Once it was done, marketing probably had no idea how to educate people how to use it. The result is just a colossal lump of software no one can really optimally use.
The funny thing is, MS had the opportunity to start from scratch with Windows RT. No baggage of legacy code there, but instead they tried to mimic the desktop. Trying to design an interface that will look like it will do something when it really won't (fake desktop that will not run x86 apps) is just plain idiotic IMHO. All I can do is shake my head and smile by all this backpedaling.