Windows 10; thoughts?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-01-2015, 10:18 PM
RE: Windows 10; thoughts?
I was forced to move to 8 to get decent hardware when buying my laptop. 7 was superior to 8 in every way, but I was forced to either use it, or use inferior hardware. 10 looks better than 8 (or 8.1), but worse than 7. I will probably upgrade after it has been out almost a year to work out the bugs, glitches, etc. I'd still rather have 7 though. Some of you may be thinking, 'Why not just 'downgrade' to 7? Well, the short answer is the drivers for the hardware is not fully compatible with 7.

Also, where the fuck did 9 go?

There was Windows 1.0, Windows 286/386, then most of us *ahem* experienced users were introduced to Windows with 3.1, then Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows 2000/Millennium, Windows NT, Windows XP, Windows Vista, Windows 7, Windows 8/8.1, and then Windows 10. I'm beginning to think they are getting their numbers from one of those powerball machines.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Dark Light's post
23-01-2015, 01:45 AM
RE: Windows 10; thoughts?
Windows 9 was skipped because there was both Windows 95 and 98. There may be old code that checks for the version "Windows 9*"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-01-2015, 02:24 AM
RE: Windows 10; thoughts?
(23-01-2015 01:45 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  Windows 9 was skipped because there was both Windows 95 and 98. There may be old code that checks for the version "Windows 9*"

Interesting; hadn't heard of that reason.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-01-2015, 06:42 AM
RE: Windows 10; thoughts?
(23-01-2015 01:45 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  Windows 9 was skipped because there was both Windows 95 and 98. There may be old code that checks for the version "Windows 9*"

That sounds like a bogus story; most applications would be more likely to check the internal OS version number which differs from the name.

Windows 95 = 4.0
Windows 2000 = 5.0
Vista = 6.0
Windows 7 = 6.1
Windows 8 = 6.2
Windows 8.1 = 6.3
(yes, it is really that screwy and gets even worse if you need to identify the various server versions as well)

I haven't verified 10 yet but it supposedly actually makes the internal version number match again which may be the only sensible thing they've done in a long time.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-01-2015, 08:27 AM
RE: Windows 10; thoughts?
(23-01-2015 01:45 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  Windows 9 was skipped because there was both Windows 95 and 98. There may be old code that checks for the version "Windows 9*"

I've heard the same thing, but from someone who tends to tell otherwise unbelievable stories. Also, presumably, that would have fucked Windows 98 up if it was referencing Windows 95 stuff. From my understanding, 95 and 98 are fairly divergent, with 95 being based on NT and 98 not.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-01-2015, 08:31 AM (This post was last modified: 23-01-2015 08:44 AM by Chas.)
RE: Windows 10; thoughts?
(23-01-2015 08:27 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  From my understanding, 95 and 98 are fairly divergent, with 95 being based on NT and 98 not.

No, Windows 2000 was the merging of the NT kernel with the 98 GUI and PnP (Plug and Play).

The last release of NT was 4.xxx; the nWindows 2000 internal revision is 5.0 - all of the subsequent internal release numbers are direct descendants of this.

The Windows 3/95/98 kernel was euthanized.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
23-01-2015, 08:43 AM
RE: Windows 10; thoughts?
They probably just thought Windows 10 sounded more impressive, and wanted to imply parity with OSX, which has been at version 10.x for almost 14 years.

If we came from dust, then why is there still dust?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-01-2015, 11:07 AM
RE: Windows 10; thoughts?
If its free...

[img]

via GIPHY

[/img]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-01-2015, 01:28 PM
RE: Windows 10; thoughts?
(23-01-2015 08:31 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(23-01-2015 08:27 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  From my understanding, 95 and 98 are fairly divergent, with 95 being based on NT and 98 not.

No, Windows 2000 was the merging of the NT kernel with the 98 GUI and PnP (Plug and Play).

The last release of NT was 4.xxx; the nWindows 2000 internal revision is 5.0 - all of the subsequent internal release numbers are direct descendants of this.

The Windows 3/95/98 kernel was euthanized.

[Image: f9e.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-01-2015, 01:42 PM
RE: Windows 10; thoughts?
(23-01-2015 01:28 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  
(23-01-2015 08:31 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, Windows 2000 was the merging of the NT kernel with the 98 GUI and PnP (Plug and Play).

The last release of NT was 4.xxx; the nWindows 2000 internal revision is 5.0 - all of the subsequent internal release numbers are direct descendants of this.

The Windows 3/95/98 kernel was euthanized.

[Image: f9e.gif]

Of course, there was also this:

[Image: 20080130213659!Windows-cement.jpg]

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: