Microsoft won't give Windows new version numbers after 10


I’m using Netscape Navigator 0.9


Sounds smart. Incremental updates are the way to go. This false hype of “remaking” it every few years just leads to core features that are based on needs that probably have already changed, and kicking modifications and important fixes down the road to the “next” release instead of dealing with them now.


As a way to differentiate themselves from Macintosh.


As long as they increment the kernel version in a sane and consistent fashion, I’ll be happy. That hasn’t been the case so far.

I haven’t checked the latest builds, but some of the CTP’s had Windows 10 at 6.3. Win7 was 6.1, Win8/Server 2012 was 6.2, and so forth, hearkening all the way back to the NT days (Windows NT 4 was kernel version 4). I was told at //BUILD/ that the kernel rev will eventually be 10 for Win10, completely skipping 7, 8 and 9. lol.


Actually they stopped branding version numbers after Windows version 3. Windows 95, 98 and 2000 were year based, and then XP and Vista were just names. And then they were back to version branding with 7, 8 and 10. So, probably years next? Then names, then back to version numbers.


It’s amazing what you have to do to perverse backwards compatibility [edit: meant to say preserve, but perverse works rather well]. Some fun reading…

1 Like

Mozilla begged me to let it install Firefox 37.0.2 yesterday on one of my four computers.


Well aware. This is why today the 64 bit system folder has ‘32’ in the name, and the 32 bit system folder has ‘64’ in the name. Compatibility has to be engineered to serve the dumbest programming mistakes.

The stupid games they played with kernel versioning with x64 builds benefited nobody. For example, based on kernel versions, XP64 looked just like Server 2k3 x64. Same story with the 64 bit Vista, Win7 and Server 2k8, R2.


My KayPro won’t play nice with it.


But you still need to persuade your customers to buy the next version, otherwise you will go out of business. Microsoft would love to have every windows user on subscription, but so far they have made their money by selling new versions as new products every few years.

This means they will have to come up with yet another way to market new windows versions.

1 Like

According to the linked article, Microsoft is already making most of their OS money on new PC sales. It sounds like they are really not going to try to get me to buy a new version every couple years

Yep, with OSX going free, I think the writing was on the wall there. They have a lot of other ways to get money from me than charging me for keeping my OS secure and up-to-date.

Microsoft is not about greed. It’s about innovation and fairness.
Bill Gates

I laugh my ass off every time I see that one!


One assumes they’ll continue hiding all the fucking buttons and menus, however. Just incrementally rather than all at once.


So as someone who understands this, you also know that versions are useless and you test features, not versions.

Versions aren’t for end users. They are for build systems. (Rhetorical question, not aimed at you). What is the version of your car? Nobody knows. Does your 2010 model have the same alternator as another of the same make and model? Nobody knows.

Every other industry has figured this out. You measure features not labels.


I think your whole comment is not aimed at my whole series of comments, actually.

I’m making grumbling noises about the build systems not being totally sane, and incidentally, it might be nice if they match the product naming convention.

Users will still need to be able to communicate in support situations what OS version they are on. Whether that means Windows Peanut Butter Cookie, or something else, I hope they make it easy for users to know and remember that detail.

1 Like

You are correct, it is not. It is narrowly aimed at the criticism of system folder names and kernel versions.

Knowing Microsoft, it’ll probably happen both ways. And all the update will say is “Install this update to resolve issues in Windows” and you’ll have to go out somewhere else to find the knowledgebase article if you want any actual useful detail about what it’s going to do.

Not isolated to Microsoft, of course. I hate how I can have Firefox or Thunderbird decide to update itself and I suddenly come back to an entirely different UI. That sort of thing presented the exact same way as any invisible incremental change is an abomination.


I am so contrarian today: no it isn’t. I don’t like change either. But if a model T was my daily driver and it got switched from like eighty four clutches to paddle shifters, I would grouse for seven days. Then love it.