justincase wrote:What I don't get Webunny is this: If you don't think that Windows 9x is the reason that Microsoft decided to skip Windows 9 then why do you care so much that you have to try to convince everyone else that it can't be true? (rhetoric)
And please don't drag me in as if something I said supports your position. As they chose the name "Windows 10" they obviously wanted to stick with a number for this version, so calling it "Windows Nine" could easily have been discounted for breaking the theme that they're currently using.
Also it has been pointed out elsewhere that the English "Nine" sounds very similar to the German "Nein", which means "No", so the possibility of losing a large portion of German buyers by trying to sell them "Windows No" may also have had something to do with their decision.
(similarly the "Chevrolet Nova" sold poorly in Spanish speaking areas, this has sometimes been attributed to the fact that it sounds much like "Chevrolet no va", which basically translate to "the Chevrolet won't go")
Adding the fact that Windows 1-3.11 were 16-bit and don't need to be checked for, and the fact that the two 9x versions both do not support a number of things that Windows NT 3.1 and newer did support makes 'starts with "Windows 9"' a fairly common misuse of the available API's, and any other 'starts with "Windows x"' misuse pretty unlikely, the possible exception being 'starts with "Windows NT"', but seeing as Windows NT supported more things than Windows 9x, and that it's pretty unlikely that Microsoft will choose to go back to calling their OS's "Windows NT x" anyway, this is not nearly as likely to be checked for in this way, and even if it does end up being a concert it is pretty unlikely that it will cause the kinds of issues that having a new version of Windows called "Windows 9" could.
Another thing that just crossed my mind is that Microsoft already doesn't seem to know how to count, so perhaps they're saving the "Windows 9" name for later, e.g. when the NT kernel version (eventually) actually reaches 9.x, you never know.
Note - I'm not saying that any of this is actually why, or not why Microsoft went from Windows 8.1 to Windows 10. Only that these are possibilities.
Also: can we PLEASE get back on topic?
Has anyone here used the Windows 10 Technical Preview? What kinds of bugs have you come across?
How well does the multiple desktops feature work?
If we're talking about 'possibilities' then let me be short: in an endless universum, everything is possible.
I never talk about possibilities, since it's a fruitless endeavour. I talk about likelihoods. And it's more likely than not, that the consideration of marketing was the prime reason why they skipped from win8 to win10 than anything else.
Trying to convince? You start with a false premise. I'm not trying to convince anything or anyone, I'm merely debating the value of the counter-arguments given, and I find them lacking. I'm not for or anti-MS, so I don't care one way or another about what people are convinced of, I only care about the logic of the arguments given. Note that I never said it's 'impossible' that MS didn't have *any* other consideration, I'm saying that it's not very likely it would be the main reason for it, trumping the obvious and rather in-your-face fact of it being foremost a marketing-stunt. It's MS itself that uses it as marketingstunt, so why ignore the most likely reason, to go for a far weaker 'explanation'?
As for dragging you into this: I do no such thing. I'm using your argument, which is something else. I use valid arguments, whether they are from me or another. You are free to be involved or not be involved in the debate, it's fully up to you, and I can't 'drag' anyone into anything who doesn't want to be dragged in. However, an argument that is valid can be used, whether the author likes that or not. The counterargument that maybe Germans would think it means 'nein' and MS lays awake because of that, borders on the ludicrous, so I give that a very, very low likelihood.