Microsoft demos Windows 9, names it ‘Windows 10’

“Microsoft on Tuesday lifted the veil on the next version of Windows: Windows 10,” Nancy Blair reports for USA Today. “It represents the first step in a whole new generation of Windows, said Microsoft executive Terry Myerson. The company said it will focus on one Windows product family across devices. Its corporate users will find Windows 10 “familiar, compatible and productive,” Myerson said.”

“Yes, the company is skipping the ‘Windows 9’ moniker. Why skip ‘9?'” Blair reports. “‘When you see the product in its fullness I think you will agree with us that it is a more appropriate name,’ Myerson said.”

“Ahead of the event, researcher Forrester said the pressure is on for Microsoft to address the needs of its business customers given the sluggish adoption of Windows 8. ‘Only about 1 in 5 organizations is offering Windows 8 PCs to employees right now,’ Forrester analyst David Johnson said in a note,” Blair reports. “It left many consumers frustrated over the disappearance of the familiar Start button and desktop.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: 140930_windows_9_er_10They named it “10,” because even-numbered Windows versions suck even more than those with odd numbers and because Windows is an upside-down and backwards knockoff of Apple’s Mac, so Redmond’s merchants of dreck figured they might as well blatantly knock off Apple’s operating system name, too.

Windows 10. So great that, for its unveiling, Microsoft’s CEO Satya Nadella had to be in Asia on a business trip.

Good luck selling your warmed-over antiques, Rinkydinksoft. You’re gonna need it.

103 Comments

      1. To be fair historically, Apple “accelerated” its own OS numbering scheme a bit, so that the NeXT-based Mac OS could be version 10 (using the Roman numeral).

        Mac OS 8 had significant changes in the interface appearance (over System 7), so it deserved a major version number. However, after Mac OS 8.1, Mac OS 9 should have been Mac OS 8.2. Mac OS 9 did NOT deserve a major version number. That would have put the final release of the “classic” Mac OS at 8.4.1. And the new Unix-based Mac OS would have been Mac OS 9.

        Furthermore, Mac OS “10” should have reasonably become Mac OS 11 by now. After Tiger (10.4), Leopard would have been an appropriate release version for Mac OS 11. And the upcoming Yosemite would be a good Mac OS 12.

        But there seems to be marketing value in the number 10. 10 out of 10. A perfect 10. Etc. So, Apple wanted it too and wants to keep that version number around. And Microsoft apparently wants to tap into it as well.

        1. No Apple did not skip any versions. Lion was 7, Mountain lion was 8 and Mavericks was 9 and Yosemite is 10. Where do you see a skip in the numbers? Before Lion was Snow Leopard which was 6 and before that Leopard which was 5 before that Tiger which was 4. See any skips anyone? I don’t. So I’m afraid Ken1w you don’t have the facts at all. Before OSX was OS9 so still no skips. Microsoft is just a copycat like Samsung. They can’t do there own stuff so they just copy like Samsung. As long as they keep pushing that crappy tablet interface to desktop users nobody will want it period! And that fact that viruses, spyware, malware, are always attacking wiping out Windows all the time nobody wants to deal with it anymore.

          1. You seem to have a reading comprehension problem… 🙂 I did not say Apple “skipped” a version number. I said Apple “accelerated” the numbering scheme so that they could get through having a “Mac OS 9,” before Mac OS 10 (“X”), which is obviously what Steve Jobs wanted for his NeXT-based Mac OS. Re-read what I wrote more SLOWLY and carefully, and it will make sense… I have “the facts.”

            1. Ken, you should explain better as to the “acceleration naming” – yes, it is understood that UNIX and the roman numeral “X” and OSX became the famous name – well planned by the Apple team and Jobs. Yet OS9 was well polished and a significant change from OS8 – simply for the reason that OS9 had bridging and transitional applications to jump forward and back from CLASSIC and this new OSX system. With regards to the path by which blue box, yellow box and carbonizing apps paved the future. With this, one would re-think that Apple actually slowed OS9 down for a better experience to the OSX transition – and making it a smoother change – not accelerate it. Though, with Apple being in trouble, the idea of Steves return and OS9 introduced as not much of a difference from OS8 — naming really was irrelevant honestly – still spun and delivered with classic Jobs magic.

        2. By what measurement are you saying that OS 9 didn’t deserve a major version number?

          While it wasn’t visually much different from OS 8, it did have a lot going on under the hood and offered many new features… iTools, Sherlock 2, KeyChain, multiple user accounts, file encryption, personal file sharing, CD burning, file size support for over 2GB, software update, among the “50 new features” promoted.

          It was also a transitional OS allowing Carbon apps that ran on it as well as OS X, as well as being the OS than could run within OS X (Classic Mode).

          It seems to me that the huge jumps in Mac OS history would be 6->7 and 9->OS X, and while the jump from 8 to 9 wasn’t amongst the biggest, it was as big or bigger than the pre-7 upgrades.

          Also, if Mac OS 9 been called 8.2 as you suggest, that would’ve been hella confusing because a year and a half earlier Apple had already released 8.5.

          The lowest 1st decimal number they could’ve given OS 9 without conflicting chronologically is 8.6, but take a look at the updates from 8.0 to 8.5 – the upgrade to OS 9 is significantly larger than all of those put together.

          1. Because, previously, Apple kept the “System 7” name through many years and changes that were MUCH MORE extensive, in going from 7 (dot nothing) through 7.6.x. “7” (like “10”) is also a positive for marketing, and “System 7” sounds good. And it’s why Microsoft ALSO used it for “Windows 7” after the Vista fiasco.

            (And the Mac OS X (“10”) name has continued through many years and changes that are MUCH MORE extensive than anything that happened between Mac OS 8 and 9, TWO major release numbers over a relatively short period of time.)

            You are right about 8.5 (and 8.6). Thanks. I should have added that Mac 8.5 should have been called “8.2” (and 8.6 should have been “8.3”). That would make 9 (dot nothing) “8.4” and the last “classic” Mac OS would be something like “8.6.”

            However, despite my error, the fact that Apple skipped the incremental numbers between 8.1 and 8.5 just supports the FACT that Apple was speeding through the version numbers as fast as possible, to get through Mac OS 8 and Mac OS 9, so that the NEW Mac OS could be called “X.” If I had NOT “forgotten” about 8.5 and 8.6, I would have used it (skipping 8.2-8.4) to support my point… 🙂

            At least Apple thinks it through in advance, and makes it more subtle (not obvious to the casual observer). Microsoft just went from Windows 8 to Windows 10, with no explanation except, “it’s SO great that we skipped 9 entirely.”

            1. The problem is that you’re comparing OS 8 -> OS 9 to things that occurred in different times for different reasons. Apple kept System7 because of stagnation and issue dealing with various architecures. Again, if you compare the original Mac System 1.0 all the way through to System 6, you’ll see the 8->9 was way more substantial. System 7 was a significant update, but the dot releases after System 7 were mostly all fixes, patches, and support for new architecture.

              Everything changed with OS X, so comparing the update to 9 to any update after OS X doesn’t really make sense in saying Apple accelerated the numbering with OS 9.

              But take a look at any update to Mac OS prior to 9, and other than the update to System 7.0 and arguably 8.0 can you point to a more significant upgrade than OS 9? It’s a close 2nd or 3rd out of 9 releases in terms of significance of the upgrade. I think visually it was less than 8, but under the hood and in terms of new features more significant. How does that qualify as an acceleration?

              “However, despite my error, the fact that Apple skipped the incremental numbers between 8.1 and 8.5 just supports the FACT that Apple was speeding through the version numbers as fast as possible”

              They did the same thing with 7.1 to 7.5.

              And there were versions between 8.1 and 8.5, they were individual betas that were combined and then released as 8.5.

              The only time I think Apple accelerated their numbering was with 8.0, and only then because they wanted to end licensing for 7. However, even then, they focused visual features to distinguish the two more so than actual core features that we got with the upgrade to OS 9.

            2. Skipping numbers is not proof of intent to move things along. It’s proof that those intermediate and missing versions were eclipsed by events the public never was made aware of.

        3. Dear Ken1w,
          We had MacOS 8.0 (stable but slow on PowerPC), 8.1 (dito), 8.5 (the first with PowerPC-native Finder), 8.6 (the stablest system since 7.1), and then 9, 9.1, 9.2 (I still have all the CDs). So X was the logical NEXT step. MacOS 9 was a major update, introducing the key chain and carbon-based software.

          1. Compared to the changes that were introduced between System 7 (dot nothing) and 7.6.1, and the changes that continue to be introduced during the Mac OS X (“10”) run, everything that happened between Mac OS 8 (dot nothing) and 9.2 is relatively small. That’s why you are forced to point to things like “the first with PowerPC-native Finder” and “the stablest system since 7.1” as justifications for skipping versions 8.2-8.4, to go directly from 8.1 to 8.5. It’s just skipping some numbers so that we can get to Mac OS 9, so we can call the next MAJOR (entirely new) release “X.”

            It’s VERY obviously that Apple rushed through the version numbers between after 7.6.x and before 10 (dot nothing). That fact that you don’t see it just shows how clever and effective Apple was with its marketing, under Steve Jobs.

            1. I suppose the complete lack of any engineering storytelling since then about Apple rushing things along means nothing? There were so many things going on inside the company then to build out the dual OS strategy in a compatible fashion that there really wasn’t any “hurrying along” of much of anything. I’ll just say that your thesis that Mac OS version numbering was hurried along to get the company to 10/X is factually incorrect.

            2. “It’s VERY obviously that Apple rushed through the version numbers between after 7.6.x and before 10 (dot nothing). That fact that you don’t see it just shows how clever and effective Apple was with its marketing, under Steve Jobs.”

              This doesn’t even make sense. Jobs didn’t have anything to do with systems 7 – 8. That’s some pretty good marketing on Jobs’ part to get them to accelerate the numbering in his absence.

        4. My main point here is that Microsoft DOES copy Apple (all the time), but naming the next version of Windows “Windows 10” is a rather trivial example. Selecting the random name “Windows XP” immediately after Apple’s “Mac OS X” is a more obvious (and timely) copying example, for a Windows release name.

          Everyone, including Apple and Microsoft, sees the positive marketing aspects of the number “10” as part of a product name. “X” is also positive, so combining “10” and “X” to name it (a completely NEW release) “Mac OS X” (pronoused “Mac OS ten”) was a smart move by Steve Jobs. Microsoft also wants to use “10.” It would have been copying, if it was named “Windows X” and pronounced “Windows ten.” But just calling it “Windows 10,” is just Microsoft lamely skipping 9 without a logical explanation, to get to 10. It doesn’t even serve the purpose of “encouraging” customers to forget about the Windows 8 kludge. So, I’ll accuse Microsoft of being stupid with “Windows 10,” NOT of copying Apple.

        5. Mac OS 9 was deservedly a major release.
          Volume support for larger than 2GB, multiple user accounts (without ‘At Ease’), Keychain, 128 bit encryption in Finder, USB printer sharing, Unix volume support, CD burning from Finder, FontSync, USB printer sharing, integrated support for iTools, it also signaled the end of official support for Mac clones.

          Mac OS 9 also formed the bedrock of “Classic” mode in the earlier version of Mac OS X. Without it, the move to a modern OS would not have been as easy…

    1. Microsoft already copied that name with Windows “XP,” released in 2001 after Apple announced and released Mac OS X. If Microsoft really wants to make it more “familiar” to corporate users, it should be called “Windows XP2.”

  1. It is not “whole new generation”. It is the same old NT core with Windows 7 UI merged with Windows 8 UI.

    The first question users are going to ask is “How the hell in the Start menu I can switch the damn tiles off?”

  2. I have three Mac computers, one desktop and two laptops, and I love them. I use Windows in a virtual machine for necessary applications. I hope Microsoft gets their act together. Competition is good for everyone. Microsoft’s biggest problem was Ballmer. I don’t expect them to ever regain their former position but I want them in the mix.

    1. Warning:

      Don’t say anything positive about anyone other than Apple on this site, or your star count will be 2 or 3 at best.

      Apple = awesome
      Everyone Else = sucks
      Healthy Competition = bad

      BTW, it doesn’t matter if you preface your statement with “I love Apple”, or “I’ve been using Macs since 1984”. That just keeps you safe from being called a “troll”.

      1. Let’s face it, Bandit Bill, short for “that thieving Bill Gates son of a bitch”, the last thing a Mac user needs is a copy of Microsoft Windows no matter what number they use for it.

        1. lol as well. I love it.

          On a personal level, I’ve been hoping for M$ to “finally get it right” with each revision since Windows 95. I finally gave up in 2005 when Apple began offering the Mac mini (which runs slow, but flawlessly even today). I’ve since owned another mini, 2 iMacs, 2 iPads, a iPod Classic and an Apple TV. I’ve had zero issues with any of them. I love Apple.

          On a professional level, Windows still has its place (although not in my home). Apple has a long way to go in the business, manufacturing, engineering, design, automation etc. world. Businesses do more than run MicroSoft office.

          M$ would be better off doing something similar to what Apple did in 2000 by starting fresh and dropping support for OS 9. Windows 10, may as well be Windows 1.0. Start fresh, learn from the past and get it right this time.

          1. Well, I highly doubt Microsoft, or really anyone else, is any serious competition for Apple. Apple is on top where they have really always been. The “others” have just been leaching off the ignorant souls of the world for years now. Finally, for a few years now, the world has been waking up…….

            1. It’s not about competition, it’s about their place in the market. The roles have practically reversed.

              There was a time when you used a Mac because you had special needs. i.e. audio, video or print production and a PC was arguably a better general purpose computer. Now it’s the opposite. The Mac is a better general purpose computer but a PC is still often needed if you have special needs.
              ie.
              If you are running automation systems, process measurement and control systems, you are likely using a PC and running software like Delta V.
              If you have a crew of telco installers running around in their service trucks, you are not going to give them $1200+ laptops. They are going to get $300 laptops. They are going to be locked down and when they break, they are going to get another $300 laptop.

              Excel for Mac isn’t the same as Excel for the PC, nor is Word.

              Why do people need to be so narrow minded. It doesn’t have to be one or the other, nor does there have to be a winner or a loser.

              I guess geeks can only think in 0s and 1s.

              I’m glad there are plenty of high quality automobiles to choose from and I’m glad there are more affordable alternatives. Why can’t we have the same options with computers?

      2. I think you will find it is responses that give positive opinions on companies that have shamelessly ripped off others (especially Apple) that get one star…or those that mention Jesus.

        I’m sure most here would welcome healthy competition from an original company who innovates, takes user experience and security seriously and doesn’t steal. But to give anything positive to the draconian Microsoft or completely corrupt Samsung or perving Google is just not right.

        It’s like saying that rapist is a nice guy because he took his neighbours trash out…Microsoft Samsung Google – they are not good for anyone. Ever

  3. More pain for us that have to use win at work. Win 10 is so far out in the future, they will need win 9 to fix win 8 first.

    More trouble when trying to buy a personel machine to do business work. It’s going on 4 years being out of sync.

    Good thing my Mac is the best windows machine out there. Whatever they do, I’ll just create another virtual machine. Then when it’s time to kill it- it’s gone in a minute. 🙂 It really sucks to have to think this way. Thank god the Mac and Os x are so well built.

Add Your Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.