[Dragon]

So yes, it's 100% their fault. And I'm going to laugh about this for years, if not decades. "Hey, remember when Windows went straight from 8 to 10?"

No, it's not their fault. In fact, it's nice that they're being considerate about it. Apple would've just said "screw you" and deprecated many programs, probably depriving you of half the programs you used to use. Odd moronic programs? Try your browser in which you're writing it, because it likely uses Jawa, and if not patched, it'd likely crash due to Jawa trying to load 95/98 routines. It's the programmers' fault that they forced MS to do that, this method was never endorsed by anyone from MS (or any decent programmer, for that matter), either. Nobody would use Windows if it ditched backwards compatibility like this. Oh, and a function to get system name does have legitimate purposes, so you shouldn't say it shouldn't have been there in first place.

So, it's funny, but if they didn't do that, you'd probably be annoyed at them breaking stuff, and you'd likely ask "Why couldn't they just skip a number to avoid breaking those programs? They knew it's a widespread practice!".

[The E]

Dragon, modern browsers do not use Java. They use JavaScript, which despite the name is nothing like Java.

[karajorma]

It's absolutely their fault. I can't imagine Apple for instance ever doing anything remotely like this for this same reason. If their new versions of the OS or apps create backward compatibility problems, then either people move on or deal with it. And that's the best attitude for these things.

Remember that you're saying that on a forum which is most famous for updating but maintaining backwards compatibility with a 15 year old game.

That MS is having to ****ing change the name of their OS because some odd programmers were amazingly lazy 10 years ago is truly astounding. It reflects precisely on how ****ed MS is now that they can't afford to have some weird things happening with some odd moronic programs. They can't afford the small quakes here and there. And they can't afford them because people are just tired of MS shenanigans for decades now.

So yes, it's 100% their fault. And I'm going to laugh about this for years, if not decades. "Hey, remember when Windows went straight from 8 to 10?"

Oh I think it's hilarious that they've painted themselves into a corner in this way. But to be honest I'd rather that they did ensure as much backwards compatibility as possible than simply **** even a small percentage of their users over for something as dumb as the name of a version of their OS.

What I would blame MS for is being so moronic that they called the new OS Windows 10 and didn't realise that this would make them a laughing stock when people started asking why it wasn't called Windows 9.

[BritishShivans]

So yes, it's 100% their fault. And I'm going to laugh about this for years, if not decades. "Hey, remember when Windows went straight from 8 to 10?"

No, it's not their fault. In fact, it's nice that they're being considerate about it. Apple would've just said "screw you" and deprecated many programs, probably depriving you of half the programs you used to use. Odd moronic programs? Try your browser in which you're writing it, because it likely uses Jawa, and if not patched, it'd likely crash due to Jawa trying to load 95/98 routines. It's the programmers' fault that they forced MS to do that, this method was never endorsed by anyone from MS (or any decent programmer, for that matter), either. Nobody would use Windows if it ditched backwards compatibility like this. Oh, and a function to get system name does have legitimate purposes, so you shouldn't say it shouldn't have been there in first place.

So, it's funny, but if they didn't do that, you'd probably be annoyed at them breaking stuff, and you'd likely ask "Why couldn't they just skip a number to avoid breaking those programs? They knew it's a widespread practice!".

the internet was made by jawas

confirmed

[Phantom Hoover]

So yes, it's 100% their fault. And I'm going to laugh about this for years, if not decades. "Hey, remember when Windows went straight from 8 to 10?"

No, it's not their fault. In fact, it's nice that they're being considerate about it. Apple would've just said "screw you" and deprecated many programs, probably depriving you of half the programs you used to use. Odd moronic programs? Try your browser in which you're writing it, because it likely uses Jawa, and if not patched, it'd likely crash due to Jawa trying to load 95/98 routines. It's the programmers' fault that they forced MS to do that, this method was never endorsed by anyone from MS (or any decent programmer, for that matter), either. Nobody would use Windows if it ditched backwards compatibility like this. Oh, and a function to get system name does have legitimate purposes, so you shouldn't say it shouldn't have been there in first place.

So, it's funny, but if they didn't do that, you'd probably be annoyed at them breaking stuff, and you'd likely ask "Why couldn't they just skip a number to avoid breaking those programs? They knew it's a widespread practice!".

java on the web is super niche these days, so as usual you have no idea what you're talking about

[Luis Dias]

It might be niche, but a very important niche (IRS, government apps, program licence updates, etc., etc.).

I wonder if patching those programs is so hard to do, but still, wouldn't a better option be to have the build be something like 8.7, the name be something like "Windows Nine", and only in bitmaps and so on would it appear like "Windows 9"?

[Mongoose]

At the end of the day, does it really matter what the hell it's called?  If it's a good OS, awesome.  If it's terrible, then we'll all point and laugh and stay with 7.  Either way, it won't affect your average user, because they'll just use whatever came preinstalled on their store-bought system.

[Meneldil]

It might be niche, but a very important niche (IRS, government apps, program licence updates, etc., etc.).

Yeah, government organizations have a very disturbing Jawa fetish.

I wonder if patching those programs is so hard to do, but still, wouldn't a better option be to have the build be something like 8.7, the name be something like "Windows Nine", and only in bitmaps and so on would it appear like "Windows 9"?

Or some made-up word, like whatever comes after 'vista' in a large enough dictionary.

If it's terrible, then we'll all point and laugh and stay with 7.

Nah, it's in the 'flip' phase of the Microsoft's flip-flop model. I'll need to update my mom's old win xp business computers to it (lest Java stops updating on them, of course), so I'm hoping it'll be good.

[Dragon]

java on the web is super niche these days, so as usual you have no idea what you're talking about

As usual you're talking out of your backside (I'll leave your equally usual problem of missing the whole point to latch onto a relatively minor slip-up aside).

It might be niche, but a very important niche (IRS, government apps, program licence updates, etc., etc.).

Browsers run JavaScript (I sometimes mix up the two), but that doesn't mean Java is "super niche". It is niche, but you'll still run into it pretty often due to that niche being rather important. Breaking it would still mess up a some important sites, even if it wouldn't crash the browser itself. Besides, Java libraries are only one place you can find this kind of shoddy programming. I bet it's not the only place if MS decided to take it into account.

I wonder if patching those programs is so hard to do, but still, wouldn't a better option be to have the build be something like 8.7, the name be something like "Windows Nine", and only in bitmaps and so on would it appear like "Windows 9"?

We're talking government apps here. Getting government to fix anything is hard, at least where I live. "Windows Nine" could be a good idea, though. It's odd that MS didn't think of it (or maybe it did, and rejected it. Remember, they are a corporation afterall...). It'd avoid this problem while being less weird than skipping a number.

As for the build number, it's not really tied to "Windows number". IIRC, for Win 8.1, it was actually 6.3 (with Vista being 6, 7 being 6.1 and 8 being 6.2). Build number is what should have been used in the first place - it's the only proper way to identify which OS you're actually dealing with. And yes, it'd be really, really funny if the "next generation" Windows 10 gets a version number of 6.4...

[Lorric]

I can't imagine Apple for instance ever doing anything remotely like this for this same reason. If their new versions of the OS or apps create backward compatibility problems, then either people move on or deal with it. And that's the best attitude for these things.

Why do you say that, Luis? Isn't it better for a company to show consideration to their customers when they don't have to name it Windows 9 and create potential problems than just say well tough, we want to call it 9. ? Why do you think it's the better attitude?

Of course, skipping the number does make them look silly. They could have called it something else. If they can come up with Windows Vista they can come up with something else in the same naming style. They're not restricted to numbers. Then they can stick with the new convention or call the next one Windows 10 after that.

[An4ximandros]

It is easy to talk **** about how coding is simple and MS is stupid for this and a completely different thing to actually break the code and alienate half your market worldwide.

[MP-Ryan]

java on the web is super niche these days, so as usual you have no idea what you're talking about

I wouldn't call the overwhelming majority of government web services in North America "super niche."  Java is, unfortunately, a necessary evil at present.

[Klaustrophobia]

on a more general note, windows 10 will be nothing more than windows 8.1.1 to me until i see proof that it functions properly as a desktop operating system and i have the ability to NEVER see anything metro-related rear its ugly head.

[jr2]

If not, I'm sure there will be a program for that purpose (of nixing Metro).  Or you could just get your hands on the Server edition of 10, which will come with metro pre-nixed, I'm betting.    (7's Aero isn't on by default on Server 2008 R2, which is the Server edition of 7.)

[karajorma]

Maybe, but why would you pay for a broken OS that you have to upgrade with 3rd party applications to make it usable when Windows 7 works perfectly well.

[Edhotmetal]

I've been using windows 8 on my desktop for over a year and metro does not bother me in the least. I just don't use it. I don't know what the big deal is. On the other hand, metro is very useful on my tablet for simple tablet tasks like what anyone would do on an iPad. It's a lot better than an iPad in that I also get a desktop experience with office and full plugin support whenever I want.
At least it's not a memory hog like iOS.

In windows 10 you can remove the metro-apps in the start menu and be left with a start menu very similar to windows 7 or pin desktop apps there instead.

[Mongoose]

That's the thing though.  It's not that Metro on its own is such a horrible idea...it's that there was absolutely no choice given to desktop users on whether or not they wanted to interact with it.  The fact that you had to turn to third-party apps just to get a functioning Start Menu again was just ridiculous.  That alone will make 10 a massive improvement.

[Klaustrophobia]

Maybe, but why would you pay for a broken OS that you have to upgrade with 3rd party applications to make it usable when Windows 7 works perfectly well.

this.  i have no intention of changing from 7 to 10 on my desktop anyway, even if 10 is the most perfect OS ever made.  i'm only hoping 10 doesn't blow so i can finally get a decent new laptop.  although that's difficult in other areas too.  why the **** are smartphone and tablet displays consistently higher resolution than 15" laptops?  and what the hell happened to the trackpoint?

[Mongoose]

I know Lenovo's ThinkPad line still has the clit-mouse, but that's the last holdout I've seen.

[S-99]

I just wish ms didn't charge money for what they should have otherwise considered a test; being windows 8.  Windows 8 by now is just a developmental tangent for microsoft i believe. It'd probably strive in the area where touch screens are useful (and i was thinking kiosks and phones); but not by hyping up **** that doesn't apply to normal computer users.  It should have been a windows 7 add on.

It's all still windows vista anyhow.  But, the idea of subjecting veteran windows users to what 8 was...how could they not see the problems? The public is not as stupid as they think we are. It's not that no one knew how to use windows 8. ****ing around with it in a non-system trashing way and you'll figure it out pretty fast. It's that it's a stupid operating system to use. Luckily we live in the day where shell replacements for windows exist and can take a ****, and make it polished, but also no longer a turd.