Hacker News Reader

Comment by Eyas | Hacker News Reader

This feels embarrassingly cringe-worthy. Did they just skip a number for no reason?

What's wrong with Windows 9? Too simple?

My guess is that they skipped 9 to demonstrate just how much better than Windows 8 this release will (they hope) be. And I must say, as a bit of marketing I think it's not bad -- it (and the release of 8.1) really makes you feel like they take the criticisms of Windows 8 very seriously. It remains to be seen, of course, whether they can put that into practice.

Also 7 8 9.

My guess is that they skipped 9 to demonstrate just how much better than Windows 8 this release will (they hope) be. And I must say, as a bit of marketing I think it's not bad

Like Slackware Linux, which went straight from 4.0 to 7.0 ;).

Ha. I've love to see them backpedal on this.

'We were wrong to jump right to 10, but wanted to show how much beyond 9 we are. So instead:'

Introducing Windows 911

Putting the same Windows on all devices is a pretty amazing achievement. From a marketing point of view, it seems logical to stamp it with a milestone version number too. Particularly one with a little distance from 8...

I doubt its the going to be the "same" Windows on all devices considering all the different device architectures involved. At best they'll all feel the same which is great but would probably be just as much of a hassle from a developer point-of-view.

"As part of that, the company has reiterated its commitment to creating a single app Store across all of its devices.

Windows 10 will work across all form-factors and as such, developers will only need to code once but they’ll be able to target any device."

http://www.neowin.net/news/windows-10-one-app-store-across-a...

the WinRT architecture is using .net (more or less) so developing for different type basically only requires different inputs and displays. everything else is more or less exactly the same

Actual quote from the presentation: "It wouldn't be right to call it Windows 9."

He skated right past the why, though

Rumors on the internet[1] suggest that Microsoft is moving to a more incremental update cadence, and, correspondingly, there will never be another major version release of Windows. If that's the case, I'd wager they didn't want to be stuck "a version behind" Mac OS X forever.

[1] http://www.zdnet.com/windows-threshold-and-cadence-how-fast-...

Perhaps it's too similar to Windows 95 and 98?

This actually could be it. Too much legacy code that checks for "Windows 9*".

This hypothesis is supported by this redditor's comment, who is apparently an MS dev: http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/2hwlrk/new_windo...

Also supported by this code search, which turns up a few classes in the JDK using this sort of check: http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/2i14ny/if_osnam...

If they're skipping why not just fast forward to Windows 2014 (or 15).

That would keep up with SQL Server 2014 and Visual Studio, etc.

Really, what they need to go is get some inspired sequel names from the guys at Capcom or ArcSys Works. I'm not sure about Windows 10, but I'd upgrade to Windows 9 Super Turbo HD Remix or Windows Chrono Phantasma in a heartbeat.

Maybe they are just trying to convince all the "what I have is good enough" people that they are getting behind? Microsoft does have a huge legacy problem. XP has the second largest market share.

I honestly liked the fact that they skipped the Odd number 9.

Window 9 ? Reminds me of Windows 98. Windows 10 does seem much better.

They probably want to distance themselves as much as possible from the massive flop that has been.

What part of it was cringe-worthy particularly?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com