3 ms·

This is the Microsoft way. Take Vista and Windows 7. With Vista they tried something new. In Windows 7 they fixed it. In 8 they tried something new... and the c

This is the Microsoft way. Take Vista and Windows 7. With Vista they tried something new. In Windows 7 they fixed it. In 8 they tried something new... and the cycle continues. Personally I don't mind the start menu being fullscreen. What really bugs me is how I have 2 incompatible desktops. I have my desktop which I have had since Windows 95. I then have some weird application space and jumping between the two is really unintuitive. My bigger gripe is the name. Windows 10... It's PHP all over again. Windows 7. Windows 8. Windows 9? No.. far to logical. Lets call it 10. Perhaps because it is 10 years since 95? I don't know. Still feels wrong. Like PHP PHP 3 PHP 4 PHP 5 PHP 7...............

sgricci 12y ago
> Perhaps because it is 10 years since 95? Try 20 years since 95.
sremani 12y ago
95 -> 98 -> 2000 -> XP -> Vista -> 7 -> 8 -> 10 do you see anything logical in the entire progression. I kind of get it what they were saying from 8 to 10 jump, that we are making a leap with this version over the previous one - because of the whole "universal" unification of devices of various form factors. Unlike many people here, I do not know the "pulse of average people", so I really do not know how this will play out.
- buckbova 12y ago
  Win2000 was more for business and a successor of WinNT. WinME was the successor to Win98SE and it was absolute trash.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > 95 -> 98 -> 2000 -> XP -> Vista -> 7 -> 8 -> 10 do you see anything logical in the entire progression. Well, no, but the progression of the DOS-based line from 3.1 on is 3.x -> 95 -> 98 -> 98SE -> Me -> <end of line> The NT line is NT 3.1 -> NT 3.5 -> NT 4.0 -> 2000 (which was NT 5.0 in betas) -> XP -> Vista -> 7 -> 8 -> 8.1 -> 10 If you assume that the 2000 -> XP -> Vista series conceals two major and one minor version, then the rest of the numbers make sense (until 10).
nkron 12y ago
20 years since 95 :)
mappu 12y ago
PHP 6 was a real project, that a lot of people spent a lot of time working on (and writing books about). Just because the number was never used for a release doesn't mean it didn't exist.

sgricci 12y ago

> Perhaps because it is 10 years since 95? Try 20 years since 95.

sremani 12y ago

95 -> 98 -> 2000 -> XP -> Vista -> 7 -> 8 -> 10 do you see anything logical in the entire progression. I kind of get it what they were saying from 8 to 10 jump, that we are making a leap with this version over the previous one - because of the whole "universal" unification of devices of various form factors. Unlike many people here, I do not know the "pulse of average people", so I really do not know how this will play out.

buckbova 12y ago
Win2000 was more for business and a successor of WinNT. WinME was the successor to Win98SE and it was absolute trash.
dragonwriter 12y ago
> 95 -> 98 -> 2000 -> XP -> Vista -> 7 -> 8 -> 10 do you see anything logical in the entire progression. Well, no, but the progression of the DOS-based line from 3.1 on is 3.x -> 95 -> 98 -> 98SE -> Me -> <end of line> The NT line is NT 3.1 -> NT 3.5 -> NT 4.0 -> 2000 (which was NT 5.0 in betas) -> XP -> Vista -> 7 -> 8 -> 8.1 -> 10 If you assume that the 2000 -> XP -> Vista series conceals two major and one minor version, then the rest of the numbers make sense (until 10).

nkron 12y ago

20 years since 95 :)

mappu 12y ago

PHP 6 was a real project, that a lot of people spent a lot of time working on (and writing books about). Just because the number was never used for a release doesn't mean it didn't exist.