[MP-Ryan]

http://gizmodo.com/windows-10-microsoft-skips-a-digit-with-latest-operati-1640805626

Namely, that being able to place all of your applications in Windows, to be moved about the screen as you please, is good, as is a unified user interface and the efficiency of the Start Menu and JumpLists!

I can now officially put off replacing the laptop until next year.

[Bobboau]

also: http://www.infoworld.com/article/2613504/microsoft-windows/microsoft-skips--too-good--windows-9--jumps-to-windows-10.html

note the date of the article

[karajorma]

I'm surprised they didn't call it Windows X and be done with it.

[MP-Ryan]

I'm surprised they didn't call it Windows X and be done with it.

Well, but then they'd have to clarify that Windows doesn't actually use Bash, so it doesn't need a security patch and....

[Ghostavo]

Why not Windows One?

You have Xbox One, OneDrive, and the whole "one OS" mantra going on, would it make too much sense?

[Mongoose]

It's like they *gasp* actually listened to people!

(hee I'm still an XP luddite take that MS)

[Klaustrophobia]

when the article leads off with "one OS for all devices" and the first thing i notice in the screen shots is the ****ing tiles, i'm not encouraged.  this is less bad, not good.

there's also the little bit buried in there where they refer to normal programs as "legacy apps."  yeah, they TOTALLY want to make a good traditional desktop OS.

[Nuke]

It's like they *gasp* actually listened to people!

(hee I'm still an XP luddite take that MS)

i want my win2k start menu back.

[Lorric]

There's some more info on this here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-29431412

And they actually asked why skip past 9, but the answer is ambiguous to say the least:

I asked Terry Myerson, the chief of operating systems at Microsoft, why the leadership had chosen the moniker Windows 10, rather than the more logical Windows 9.

He told me somewhat obliquely that it resonated best for what the company would deliver across the breadth of devices. Unifying a brand across all devices is key to Microsoft's vision.

But the Windows 10 name also symbolises that this will not be an incremental update, but something of a fresh start.

-----

(hee I'm still an XP luddite take that MS)

Across desktop PCs as a whole, only 13.4% currently run Windows 8 or Windows 8.1, according to research firm NetMarketshare.

By contrast, it says 51.2% are powered by Windows 7 and 23.9% by Windows XP, a version that is no longer supported by Microsoft.

XP is still kicking ass, even unsupported.

I wonder how well they'd do if they just released an upgraded, enhanced version of Windows XP...

[Klaustrophobia]

that was pretty much 7

[Mongoose]

I still like that the Windows 8 Lenovo laptop I put together for my brother for college had this piece of freeware pre-installed that almost perfectly recreated 7's Start Menu.  I guess they got tired of their own customers *****ing at them over MS's idiocy.

[Dragon]

Hmm, they say they want to release it as an update... I'd really love it if it could be installed over Windows 8 like Windows 7 could over Vista. I'm using 8 on my laptop, and while I don't know when exactly I'll be rebuilding my main computer, being able to install 8 as an interim measure would speed it up somewhat (otherwise, I'd wait for 10). Indeed, that's pretty much the reason I put with Vista on my main some time ago - it worked, and was upgradeable to 7, which I did after I got to uni (and thus got a free license from MS). Windows 8 isn't a bad system from a technical standpoint (my laptop is old-ish, but performs nearly as well as my main computer), it's just that the UI sucks.

[Nuke]

if 10 is just on the horizon i might end up skipping 8 entirely.

[Cyborg17]

With as much of a bad rep that 8 had gotten, I expected to hate it, too.  But once you get a good start menu, I've only got five small complaints, and it starts up so fast that it's worth it to me.  I don't even have an SSD for the OS and it's starting from off in only about a minute.  <15 seconds from sleep, 20 seconds from hibernate.

The five small complaints are:

The windows maximize if you try to move them off screen slightly, horrible idea for a shortcut. (although, I think I remember this feature from Vista or 7, I'm going by actual complaints, not just new stuff.)

8 goes overboard on the "is not responding" thing, where it used to be a telltale sign, it's now a lot less trustworthy.

Menus will pop up if you move to the far sides of the screen, but I never use them, never want to use them.

Changing the multiple log in pictures is annoying.

When actually starting/restarting the computer it goes straight to the Start Screen.


If 10 can fix those things, actually do intuitive things, and maintain the speed, I will be pretty happy. (although, I know I won't upgrade for a long time)

[deathfun]

It'll be a while before I end up using W10. Would've skipped W8 if I didn't get a Lenovo laptop (beauty of a machine it is, don't get me wrong)

By that time at any rate, it'll be W12 or something where they go two steps backwards again

[Dragon]

When actually starting/restarting the computer it goes straight to the Start Screen.

You can slash that one, actually. Just go into settings, somewhere in there is an option to boot directly to desktop. Set that, and you're good. Since I only use start menu for power options and system settings (both conveniently accessible through right-clicking on the "start" button), I actually found Win 8 to be a very good OS. It boots quickly and runs smoothly, and doesn't hog memory like 7 does (well, OK, the comparison might be flawed on that one because I'm using 64bit Win 8). Since I replaced most of the built-in functionality with 3rd party programs (even the Windows explorer - I'm using an antiquated version of Windows Commander for that), I could say that it can even be an improvement over 7 if set up right.

[Luis Dias]

7 ate 9, therefore 10.

[Phantom Hoover]

This looks like a hilariously convincing explanation. Programmers have assumed any Windows version starting with "Windows 9" is 95 or 98, so an actual Windows 9 would lead to widespread breakages.

[deathspeed]

I downloaded the ISO and will attempt to install it on a new partition and triple boot (XP, 7, 10).  If I get it to work, I'll post my thoughts after using it.

[jr2]

They really should have been using actual version numbers.

http://blog.aggregatedintelligence.com/2009/03/windows-version-numbers-and-why-windows.html

Windows 1.0      1.0
Windows 2.0      2.0
Windows 3.0      3.0
Windows NT      3.1
Windows 95      4.0
Windows 98      4.0.1998
Windows 98 SE      4.10.2222
Windows Millennium   4.90.3000
Windows 2000      5.0
Windows XP      5.1*
Windows Vista      6.0
Windows 7         6.1*

* even though these versions of Windows OS represented a major advancement in the technology, design, etc., the version number used was an increment over the previous version so as to preserve application compatibility with the older Windows version.