4 ms·

I just don't understand anything that Microsoft seems to be doing lately. Random version numbers, a UI full of mismatched colors and a phone OS that has gone s

by dvcc 12y ago

I just don't understand anything that Microsoft seems to be doing lately. Random version numbers, a UI full of mismatched colors and a phone OS that has gone so far from its roots its just confusing. I mean sure they seem to be getting more dev friendly, but my god their end products are getting so far off track.

pavlov 12y ago
The random version numbers thing is more than 20 years old. The first version of Windows NT was numbered 3.1, and since then we've had: 3.5, 4.0, 2000, XP, Vista, 7, 8, 10 So "7" and "8" were anomalies in that they actually matched the indices in this sequence.
- trusche 12y ago
  Obligatory xkcd: http://xkcd.com/528/ http://xkcd.com/528/
- wvenable 12y ago
  This makes Microsoft consistent in its inconsistency but that is still not a good thing. When it comes to Windows, Microsoft appears to have only two values: strict adherence to backwards compatibility and changing everything else as much possible.
  - HCIdivision17 12y ago
    That's a funny quip, but a moment's reflection reminds me how shockingly incredible that is. The obsessive need to be backwards compatible combined with the pathological need to change (and by hopeful extension improve) must take a simply astonishing amount of manpower and ingenuity. I mean, usually the two seem mutually exclusive. I have no idea if it's worth it, but it's definitely an awe-inspiring machine. Getting Windows to function across so many platforms can only cubicly raise the difficulty of maintaining compatibility. If that's not the yawning abyss of a long-term tech support hell, I don't know what is.
- Macha 12y ago
  In addition, Windows 8.1: Microsoft Windows [Version 6.3.9600] (c) 2013 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. (NT was 3, NT 4 was 4, 2000 was 5, XP 6, Vista 6.1, 7 was 6.2 and 8 was 6.3)
  - brink2death 12y ago
    Actually, Vista was 6.0, 7 was 6.1, 8 was 6.2, and 8.1 was 6.3.
    - justinschuh 12y ago
      And XP was 5.1.
- laumars 12y ago
  NT 3.1 made sense because it was a compliment to Windows 3.x. Windows 2000 kind of makes sense too, since we had Windows 95 and 98. Or at least 2000 would have made sense if ME didn't exist. I always thought XP was an odd name though, but 10 is definitely the worst thus far because, rightly or wrongly, people have certain expectations with version numbering and Windows 10 break that (just look at how damning people were towards KDE because they had high exceptions from version 4.0 despite developers repeatedly warning users that it was still a beta and that the version number wasn't a statement about KDE's stability)
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > NT 3.1 made sense because it was a compliment to Windows 3.x. NT 3.1 was the rename of OS/2 NT after MS and IBM couldn't agree on what to do with OS/2. But it was a parallel release to the Windows 3.1. > Windows 2000 kind of makes sense too, since we had Windows 95 and 98. Or at least 2000 would have made sense if ME didn't exist. Me was the DOS-based successor to the Win 3.1 -> Win 98 SE line, 2000 was the NT-based successor to the Win NT 3.1 -> Win NT 4.0 line. Since 2000 wasn't a successor to 95/98, it can't really make sense because of them -- to the extent that the name indicates its the next in that line, that illustrates why it doesn't make sense rather than indicates that it does (though, IIRC, that was part of the intent -- 2000 did support more of the consumer features than NT 4.0 did and there was some initial indication that MS hoped that 2000 would be the convergence OS that XP became, and that Me was a result of MS realizing belated that that wouldn't work and that they needed a new consumer OS as a stopgap before the convergence OS landed.)
    - laumars 12y ago
      You're arguing against my points while going on to reiterate exactly what I posted - only less succinctly (I assumed it wasn't worth explaining the basics of each Windows release given that everyone on this forum should already be well versed on that subject). And FYI, ME (nor 9x) weren't DOS-based. They used DOS bootloaders, but their drivers bypassed DOS entirely. I'm not sure whether 3.x did the same (architecturally I think it did, but OS/2 could also run Win 3.x inside a DOS emulator)
- jvagner 12y ago
  Notice that no one talks of Microsoft as being the big Marketing machine it used to be.

by dvcc 12y ago

pavlov 12y ago

The random version numbers thing is more than 20 years old. The first version of Windows NT was numbered 3.1, and since then we've had: 3.5, 4.0, 2000, XP, Vista, 7, 8, 10 So "7" and "8" were anomalies in that they actually matched the indices in this sequence.

trusche 12y ago
Obligatory xkcd: http://xkcd.com/528/ http://xkcd.com/528/
wvenable 12y ago
This makes Microsoft consistent in its inconsistency but that is still not a good thing. When it comes to Windows, Microsoft appears to have only two values: strict adherence to backwards compatibility and changing everything else as much possible.
- HCIdivision17 12y ago
  That's a funny quip, but a moment's reflection reminds me how shockingly incredible that is. The obsessive need to be backwards compatible combined with the pathological need to change (and by hopeful extension improve) must take a simply astonishing amount of manpower and ingenuity. I mean, usually the two seem mutually exclusive. I have no idea if it's worth it, but it's definitely an awe-inspiring machine. Getting Windows to function across so many platforms can only cubicly raise the difficulty of maintaining compatibility. If that's not the yawning abyss of a long-term tech support hell, I don't know what is.
Macha 12y ago
In addition, Windows 8.1: Microsoft Windows [Version 6.3.9600] (c) 2013 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. (NT was 3, NT 4 was 4, 2000 was 5, XP 6, Vista 6.1, 7 was 6.2 and 8 was 6.3)
- brink2death 12y ago
  Actually, Vista was 6.0, 7 was 6.1, 8 was 6.2, and 8.1 was 6.3.
  - justinschuh 12y ago
    And XP was 5.1.
laumars 12y ago
NT 3.1 made sense because it was a compliment to Windows 3.x. Windows 2000 kind of makes sense too, since we had Windows 95 and 98. Or at least 2000 would have made sense if ME didn't exist. I always thought XP was an odd name though, but 10 is definitely the worst thus far because, rightly or wrongly, people have certain expectations with version numbering and Windows 10 break that (just look at how damning people were towards KDE because they had high exceptions from version 4.0 despite developers repeatedly warning users that it was still a beta and that the version number wasn't a statement about KDE's stability)
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > NT 3.1 made sense because it was a compliment to Windows 3.x. NT 3.1 was the rename of OS/2 NT after MS and IBM couldn't agree on what to do with OS/2. But it was a parallel release to the Windows 3.1. > Windows 2000 kind of makes sense too, since we had Windows 95 and 98. Or at least 2000 would have made sense if ME didn't exist. Me was the DOS-based successor to the Win 3.1 -> Win 98 SE line, 2000 was the NT-based successor to the Win NT 3.1 -> Win NT 4.0 line. Since 2000 wasn't a successor to 95/98, it can't really make sense because of them -- to the extent that the name indicates its the next in that line, that illustrates why it doesn't make sense rather than indicates that it does (though, IIRC, that was part of the intent -- 2000 did support more of the consumer features than NT 4.0 did and there was some initial indication that MS hoped that 2000 would be the convergence OS that XP became, and that Me was a result of MS realizing belated that that wouldn't work and that they needed a new consumer OS as a stopgap before the convergence OS landed.)
  - laumars 12y ago
    You're arguing against my points while going on to reiterate exactly what I posted - only less succinctly (I assumed it wasn't worth explaining the basics of each Windows release given that everyone on this forum should already be well versed on that subject). And FYI, ME (nor 9x) weren't DOS-based. They used DOS bootloaders, but their drivers bypassed DOS entirely. I'm not sure whether 3.x did the same (architecturally I think it did, but OS/2 could also run Win 3.x inside a DOS emulator)
jvagner 12y ago
Notice that no one talks of Microsoft as being the big Marketing machine it used to be.