Well they kept that flippin' quiet!
Their purchase of Minecraft created more head-lines than the launch of a new version of their bread and butter software.
Wut?
Has there been a nine?
Looks like they're renaming 9 as 10.
[url] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-29431412 [/url]
They lost Windows 9 down the back of the sofa!
Awwwww, but nine would have been the usable one.
Trying to catch up with OSX naming scheme, obvs.
Going to be an interesting sell trumping one of you main features being one you took out several years ago.
jinx.
I want nine goddam it :@
it's been so badly received by the testers they though it best to give it an even version number.
Great quote from the guy from Forrester consultancy in that BBC article:
"For Microsoft to continue to be able to get the best and latest technology in the hands of the enterprise workforce all over the world, it has to have a vehicle to do that - and Windows 9 is its best shot."
Lols
Does this mean that the next version s a Spinal Tap themed 11? If so, I am waiting....
Looks more like 8.2 than 10. I mean, I like it, but it's not a quantum leap, is it?
Unless there's cool stuff under the covers.
I absolutely love the MS design theme. It makes MacOS look shit and old fashioned.
molgrips - Member
I absolutely love the MS design theme. It makes MacOS look shit and old fashioned.
God I hope that's a joke.
Do like MS counting skills.
8+1=10
Windows Phone 9 is coming out this year, so Microsoft are aiming to launch version 10 for all platforms next year. Like Jamie says above, another example of Microsoft playing catch-up. I lost faith in Windows Mobile years ago and will never return....but I am happy with Windows 8.1 - once you get used to [ignoring] the Metro interface, it's rock solid.
@DJ if you like 8.1 there is no reason you won't like WP. Things like the people hub work very well across my work PC, my Surface 2 and phone, if I log into a website on my phone and ask it to remember the password when I log in on my desktop it remembers and if MS can deliver universal apps and even tighter integration it will be very good indeed...
Will Windows 10 actually have [u]Windows[/u], rather than full screen apps?
Well Windows 8 did so I don't see why not.
God I hope that's a joke.
No it's an opinion, I'm allowed to have it 🙂
I lost faith in Windows Mobile years ago and will never return
Foolish. WP 7 was shit, always was - WP8 is completely different. Companies can fix things you know, look at Apple. MacOS used to be a joke.
@Greybeard-yes both Modern UI apps and traditional desktop software will run in user scalable windows.
I am probably going to run the developer preview as of today so I'll let peeps now what I think.
Good luck, it's not out til tomorrow I just checked 🙂
Do like MS counting skills.8+1=10
Well Intel once had a CPU that struggled to calculate properly - remember that? One for the old timers!
only with floating point calculations iirc, and it was deterministic too.
multiple desktops apparently. wonder how long before Linux copies that feature? 😉
Marketing sticking their oar in i guess. Windows 7 is really Windows 6.1
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-gb/library/windows/desktop/ms724832(v=vs.85).aspx
Windows 95 was release 4 I suppose and ME 4.x
[i]Wut? [/i]
This !
I'm still using 3.1, the diskettes for which I rediscovered in the house, recently.
molgrips - Member
I absolutely love the MS design theme. It makes MacOS look shit and old fashioned.
😆
You will stand in that corner shouting at us won't you 😆
[i]You will stand in that corner shouting at us won't you[/i]
No way, he'll be busy trying to either decypher the cryptic error messages windows is so good at creating or working out how to get that flippin metro UI to go away.
Windows 95 was release 4 I suppose and ME 4.x
Windows 95 was release 5 if each had their own. W3.1 was really Windows 4, they cocked up the numbering. But Windows 7 etc follows the NT numbering, which is different; they're two different families of OSes which were merged around the Windows ME / 2000 era. So we had NT4, Windows 2000 (NT5), XP (NT5.1 and 5.2), Vista (NT6), W7 (NT6.1), W8 (NT6.2) and W8.1 (NT6.3). Confused yet?
working out how to get that flippin metro UI to go away.
I like it.
[i]I like it.[/i]
I knew you would, you being the Uber Contrarian, innit.
[img] 
[/img]
Cougar - ModeratorWindows 95 was release 4 I suppose and ME 4.x
Windows 95 was release 5 if each had their own. W3.1 was really Windows 4, they cocked up the numbering. But Windows 7 etc follows the NT numbering, which is different; they're two different families of OSes which were merged around the Windows ME / 2000 era. So we had NT4, Windows 2000 (NT5), XP (NT5.1 and 5.2), Vista (NT6), W7 (NT6.1), W8 (NT6.2) and W8.1 (NT6.3). Confused yet?
Yes, yes very 😕
It was so much easier when the OS was in ROM.
I knew you would, you being the Uber Contrarian, innit.
I'm not just saying that to be contrary, I really do like it. I can't be the only one, the people who created it must also like it.
molgrips - Member
look at Apple. MacOS used to be a joke.
I assume you mean OS9. It lacked protected memory and premptive multitasking, yes. It wasn't a terrible OS to use though. A lot of good features in there.
[i]It wasn't a terrible OS to use though. A lot of good features in there.[/i]
It's going to kick-off, we just know it will.
😉
[i]the people who created it must also like it. [/i]
But they're Americans who think Fahrenheit is a really neat way of measuring temperature so not to be trusted 😉
[i]But they're Americans who think Fahrenheit is a really neat way of measuring temperature so not to be trusted[/i]
And their gallons are smaller!
I assume you mean OS9
I mean whichever one wouldn't play videos on my mate's Mac unless you turned off virtual memory. Slick outfit that was 🙂
It wasn't a terrible OS to use though. A lot of good features in there.
It was a terrible OS to support in a business tho. My worst memories of supporting end user networking issues revolve around that horror of an OS. Put it this way, walking around the Wella building in Basingstoke looking for the idiot who had removed their BNC connector was far more entertaining than backporting individual networking components on MacOS.
Thank you for traumatising me with flashbacks to the horrors of Thin Ethernet and no cable testers. I'm going for a lie down.
atlaz - MemberIt was a terrible OS to support in a business tho. My worst memories of supporting end user networking issues revolve around that horror of an OS. Put it this way, walking around the Wella building in Basingstoke looking for the idiot who had removed their BNC connector was far more entertaining than backporting individual networking components on MacOS.
Yep, TCP/IP was a total nightmare. Problematic starting in System 7 and never really fixed. Clusterfsck springs to mind. Half arsed LDAP support as well.
molgrips - Member
I mean whichever one wouldn't play videos on my mate's Mac unless you turned off virtual memory. Slick outfit that was
Technical nightmare no doubt. Again though, compare it 98SE and ME and it's not looking so bad.
The problem was the copland project and it's predecessors failed, so the underpinnings of the OS were massively out of date. That meant the new features had to be added atop the old system software which was really unsuitable.
I still wish they'd use BeOS rather than NeXT as the underpinnings of OSX though. 8)
On the subject of new OSeses, I just the minute got around to installing the latest beta of OSX Yosemite, seeing as it's due for release soon....
Oh....my....god 🙁
