Windows Kernel Version Bumped To 10.0

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Windows Kernel Version Bumped To 10.0

Posted by Soulskill on Friday November 21, 2014 @06:56AM from the at-least-it's-not-360.0 dept.

jones_supa writes: In Windows, the kernel version number is once again in sync with the product version. Build 9888 of Windows 10 Technical Preview is making the rounds in a private channel and the kernel version has indeed been bumped from 6.4 to 10.0. Version 6.x has been in use since Windows Vista. Neowin speculates that this large jump in version number is likely related to the massive overhaul of the underlying components of the OS to make it the core for all of Microsoft's products. The company is working to consolidate all of its platforms into what's called OneCore, which, as the name implies, will be the one core for all of Microsoft's operating systems. It will be interesting to see if this causes any software compatibility issues with legacy applications.

171 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Guffaw! So much overhaul it's FOUR better! by SeaFox · 2014-11-21 06:59 · Score: 5, Insightful

Neowin speculates that this large jump in version number is likely related to the massive overhaul of the underlying components of the OS to make it the core for all of Microsoft's products.
Really?
I think "make the version number match what the marketing dept wants" is the more likely reason.
1. Re:Guffaw! So much overhaul it's FOUR better! by SuricouRaven · 2014-11-21 07:03 · Score: 1
  
  Windows 7, Windows 8, Windows... oh, what is Apple up to now? What? WINDOWS TEN!
2. Re:Guffaw! So much overhaul it's FOUR better! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-21 07:08 · Score: 0, Interesting
  
  There was a very real and very technical reason for the jump. I mean really, why would anyone bother to copy Apple? Nobody cares about Apple anymore.
3. Re:Guffaw! So much overhaul it's FOUR better! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-21 07:16 · Score: 1
  
  There was a very real and very technical reason for the jump. I mean really, why would anyone bother to copy Apple? Nobody cares about Apple anymore.
  I agree. Ever since they tanked in the early 90s, I haven't looked back.
  As for me, I buy Mac products -OSX and iOS for me.
4. Re:Guffaw! So much overhaul it's FOUR better! by roc97007 · 2014-11-21 07:17 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  They actually had a good reason to skip 9. Too many third party products checked whether they were running on Windows 95 or Windows 98 by matching the string "Windows 9". It would have been the Microsoft version of the Y2K problem.
  
  --
  Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
5. Re:Guffaw! So much overhaul it's FOUR better! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-21 07:18 · Score: 0
  
  Yep... that. When we do not, in fact, see software "comparability" issues, we will know for certain that it's the same old shtick. For now, it's a safe bet to assume.
6. Re:Guffaw! So much overhaul it's FOUR better! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-21 07:22 · Score: 1
  
  That has nothing to do with the kernel version number.
7. Re:Guffaw! So much overhaul it's FOUR better! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-21 07:22 · Score: 0
  
  >"make the version number match what the marketing dept wants"
  I've had so many projects where this was the issue. Dev wants to increment the minor number because of all the changes and marketing flips out. On one project, they didn't want us to increment the build number and somehow do a "stealth" upgrade on deployed software.
8. Re:Guffaw! So much overhaul it's FOUR better! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-21 07:24 · Score: 0
  
  KERNEL version.
  Not Windows version string.
  They are not the same.
9. Re:Guffaw! So much overhaul it's FOUR better! by ArcadeMan · 2014-11-21 07:25 · Score: 1
  
  They ask Mr. Redenbacher and he told them to go ahead with 10.
  
  --
  Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
10. Re:Guffaw! So much overhaul it's FOUR better! by QuasiSteve · 2014-11-21 07:26 · Score: 2
  
  I don't know if it's marketing so much as it is dev support.
  Most end-users certainly wouldn't see the kernel version. Computer properties doesn't report the internal version, and certainly nowhere on regular branding would it make mention of it. What marketing material has Microsoft put out in the past that made mention of the kernel version (where that version wasn't equal to the product name anyway - e.g. 3.11)
  Some developers, on the other hand, would probably be quite annoyed if there's a version 7 kernel which doesn't match with Windows 7, a version 8 kernel which has nothing to do with Windows 8, and a version 9 kernel which seems awfully close to Windows 95/98.
  From that point of view, Microsoft should really have started this with Windows 7 - but Windows 10 is the next major opportunity to so after having to skip Windows 9 anyway.
  But for marketing - well they can call it whatever they want regardless of (kernel) version number anyway. Me / XP / Vista.
11. Re:Guffaw! So much overhaul it's FOUR better! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-21 07:27 · Score: 0
  
  Yet it does have to do with the comment that was being replied to.
12. Re:Guffaw! So much overhaul it's FOUR better! by roc97007 · 2014-11-21 07:30 · Score: 2
  
  Previous comment was: "Windows 7, Windows 8, Windows..." implying software version, not kernel, which unlike what TFA was talking about, is an integer, not a decimal.
  
  --
  Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
13. Re:Guffaw! So much overhaul it's FOUR better! by _xeno_ · 2014-11-21 07:31 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  That's the reason given but it makes no sense. The Windows API doesn't give out names like that. The Windows 95 version was internally identified as version 4.0. Windows 98 was version 4.10. (ME was 4.90, and a separate flag indicates if the system was Windows NT-based, allowing programs to known the difference between Windows 95 (4.0) and Windows NT 4.0.)
  So that explanation makes no sense.
  Even more, if you check out the documentation on getting version information, the version returned is now tied to the application manifest as of Windows 8.1 anyway. So you'll only ever get version 6.2 (Windows 8) back unless you explicitly target later version of Windows, meaning the jump to version 10 can't cause problems with older software.
  This whole "Windows 9*" check thing makes no sense. Well, except for Java applications, because Sun actually built Java to pull the version number and then translate it into a string rather than expose it via any public Java API. I guess the idea was that you shouldn't need to know the OS your Java app is running on, but as anyone who's done anything with Java knows, that never actually works in practice. As far as I know that's the only case where you'd ever be doing version checks against strings under Windows.
  
  --
  You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
14. Re:Guffaw! So much overhaul it's FOUR better! by Blaskowicz · 2014-11-21 07:33 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not so sure. I think it's for esthetical, psychological, branding reason. Windows 9 feels too close to Windows 8.1.1 and it reads "Windows Nein".
15. Re:Guffaw! So much overhaul it's FOUR better! by ericloewe · 2014-11-21 07:36 · Score: 2
  
  Open any of Windows' core applications (except IE) and navigate to the about page.
  Bam, Kernel version plastered right under the marketing name:
  Windows 7 Ultimate
  Version 6.1.whatever
16. Re:Guffaw! So much overhaul it's FOUR better! by _xeno_ · 2014-11-21 07:37 · Score: 2
  
  The Windows kernel version has almost never matched the marketing versions:
  Windows 95: 4.0
  Windows 98: 4.10
  Windows ME: 4.90
  Windows 2000: 5.0
  Windows XP: 5.1
  Windows Vista: 6.0
  Windows 7: 6.1
  Windows 8: 6.2
  Windows 8.1: 6.3
  (Note: Starting with Windows 2000, the versions are NT versions, Windows 95/98/ME are actually numbered based on the DOS Windows (as in Windows 3.1).)
  
  --
  You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
17. Re:Guffaw! So much overhaul it's FOUR better! by tehlinux · 2014-11-21 07:42 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Bad programmers seldom use APIs correctly.
  
  --
  Most linux users don't know this, but the man pages were named after Chuck Norris. Chuck Norris fsck'ing hates noobs!
18. Re:Guffaw! So much overhaul it's FOUR better! by CannonballHead · 2014-11-21 07:44 · Score: 2
  
  There's no way it's marketing. Marketing does not care about the kernel version. Seriously, most people who use Windows have absolutely no idea what a kernel even is, let alone what version their Windows kernel is. And the people who do know what the kernel is and what the kernel version is are not going to be interested in marketing anyways.
19. Re:Guffaw! So much overhaul it's FOUR better! by Kjella · 2014-11-21 07:46 · Score: 1
  
  Some developers, on the other hand, would probably be quite annoyed if there's a version 7 kernel which doesn't match with Windows 7, a version 8 kernel which has nothing to do with Windows 8, and a version 9 kernel which seems awfully close to Windows 95/98.From that point of view, Microsoft should really have started this with Windows 7 - but Windows 10 is the next major opportunity to so after having to skip Windows 9 anyway.
  Probably this, but who says they'll keep bumping it? Maybe they really wanted to do 7 now and 10 was the first non-confusing number. Maybe Windows 11 => 10.1, Windows 12 = 10.2, Windows 13 = 10.3, Windows 14 = 14. Like so many point out, it's not really a number anyway and you don't do arithmetic with it. 10 > 6 the same way 7 > 6, either way it's a major version bump. I doubt anyone in marketing even knows what kernel version they're running and if they did they wouldn't care.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
20. Re:Guffaw! So much overhaul it's FOUR better! by Minwee · 2014-11-21 07:55 · Score: 2
  
  This from the same company that released "Dot Nyet".
21. Re:Guffaw! So much overhaul it's FOUR better! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-21 08:01 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  You are assuming they were getting it from the API and not spelunking thru some system files or the registry to get it.
  I once worked with a guy who reverse engineered the windows handle structure. Just so he could rebuild it and change fonts on the fly (instead of repaint which was choppy and flickery). He pulled it off because it was close to the win3.0 windows structure (which MS had published at one point).
  My point? The windows API is *huge* not everyone knows every little detail. You didnt have access to things like google. You were lucky if you had a windows bible with a good chunk of the calls in it. Then you had to noodle out which one to use by yourself or if you were lucky worked with someone who had already done it. So there was quite a large bit of experimentation until it worked. http://www.amazon.com/Windows-95-Bible-Alan-Simpson/dp/0764530690 http://www.amazon.com/Programming-Windows-95-Microsoft/dp/1556156766 Up until win 98 MS did not even recommend the right way to get the version. In some ways it was a lot more fun than linux. It was hackable but you had to reverse engineer it first and hope MS didnt blow away the side effects you noodled out in the next version.
22. Re:Guffaw! So much overhaul it's FOUR better! by nine-times · 2014-11-21 08:02 · Score: 2
  
  Yeah, but they didn't just skip version 9. According to Microsoft's internal versioning scheme for Windows, Windows 8.1 is actually v6.3. Microsoft decided to skip 6.4, 7, 8, and 9.
  So no, this is unlikely to be the result of anything other than Microsoft finally saying, "Let's have our internal versioning scheme match the marketing versioning scheme, and just make all references to Windows show 'version 10'."
23. Re:Guffaw! So much overhaul it's FOUR better! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-21 08:12 · Score: 0
  
  This from the same company that released "Dot Nyet".
  I would rather Microsoft adopt GNU/Linux or FreeBSD / OpenBSD and deploy their applications on this platform.
24. Re:Guffaw! So much overhaul it's FOUR better! by DRJlaw · 2014-11-21 08:20 · Score: 1
  
  Guffaw! So much overhaul it's FOUR better!
  If you're launching belly laughs at a mere four since the release of Windows 8.1, have a doctor on hand for ~7/yr since the release of Chrome 3 and ~8/yr since the release of Firefox 3.6.18.
  RELEASE NOTES
  New major version!
  - Removed support for the blink tag
  - Upped the version number
25. Re:Guffaw! So much overhaul it's FOUR better! by GNious · 2014-11-21 08:25 · Score: 1
  
  They realized they couldn't sell Windows to Munchen, DE, if it was called Windows Nein - is all about replacing LiMux.
26. Re:Guffaw! So much overhaul it's FOUR better! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-21 09:03 · Score: 0
  
  except this is about the kernel version and not the distribution name/version. If you knew anything about GNU/Linux you would have had a clue about what the article was about.
27. Re:Guffaw! So much overhaul it's FOUR better! by mwvdlee · 2014-11-21 09:05 · Score: 1
  
  This.
  It just means that kernel version numbering has been robbed of it's use by the marketing department.
  Never mind that the only people who would actually care about kernel version numbers are the same kind of people who actually need it to have some significance. All this "10.0" version number will do, is for the technical community to start using more meaningful version identifiers like build numbers or dates or perhaps some other internal number that hasn't been discovered by the marketeers. It just means that the kernel version number is no longer of any value or useful meaning.
  
  --
  Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
28. Re:Guffaw! So much overhaul it's FOUR better! by Dahan · 2014-11-21 09:36 · Score: 1
  
  And "Bing"?
29. Re:Guffaw! So much overhaul it's FOUR better! by Fishchip · 2014-11-21 09:44 · Score: 1
  
  Now? Where have you been for the past thirteen years?
30. Re:Guffaw! So much overhaul it's FOUR better! by Gr8Apes · 2014-11-21 10:15 · Score: 1
  
  I would rather Microsoft adopt GNU/Linux or FreeBSD / OpenBSD and deploy their applications on this platform.
  Perhaps they could then just call their OS {Windows} X?
  
  --
  The cesspool just got a check and balance.
31. Re:Guffaw! So much overhaul it's FOUR better! by roc97007 · 2014-11-21 10:42 · Score: 2
  
  > except this is about the kernel version and not the distribution name/version.
  As I and others have pointed out, TFA is about the kernel version but the responder's comment to which I was replying was clearly about the OS version. It's one of those things that's called A Side Issue.
  > If you knew anything about GNU/Linux you would have had a clue about what the article was about.
  It's a bird! It's a plane! It's Condescending Man!. I do have a clue about what the article was about, thanks. A good part of my living comes from RHEL administration, and I'm quite aware of the difference between kernel version and OS version.
  
  --
  Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
32. Re:Guffaw! So much overhaul it's FOUR better! by homey+of+my+owney · 2014-11-21 11:08 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, eleven is better, see? (raises dial to 11)
33. Re: Guffaw! So much overhaul it's FOUR better! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-21 11:19 · Score: 0
  
  The Windows version is an integer? I wasn't aware that "XP", " Vista" and "8.1" were integers.
34. Re:Guffaw! So much overhaul it's FOUR better! by LordLimecat · 2014-11-21 12:27 · Score: 2
  
  The windows version number and its kernel number are synonymous. When youre on Windows NT 5.2, you're on XP /2003. 6.1, Vista / Server 2008. And so on.
35. Re:Guffaw! So much overhaul it's FOUR better! by LordLimecat · 2014-11-21 12:29 · Score: 1
  
  The actual reported Windows version is a decimal:
  http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-u...
  Its synomymous with its kernel number (though that generally has further versioning, such as 6.1.7601.17592).
36. Re:Guffaw! So much overhaul it's FOUR better! by F.Ultra · 2014-11-21 12:33 · Score: 2
  
  Even if you misused the API you wouldn't ever get the problem that is "windows 9*", that kind of string is not available using the API and instead one have to create that string yourself by knowing that major=4 is 95 and so on.
37. Re:Guffaw! So much overhaul it's FOUR better! by LordLimecat · 2014-11-21 12:38 · Score: 2
  
  Sure it does.
  PS> $os = get-wmiobject -class Win32_OperatingSystem PS> $os.caption Microsoft Windows 8.1 Pro PS> $os.name Microsoft Windows 8.1 Pro|C:\Windows|\Device\Harddisk0\Partition2 PS> $os.version 6.3.9600
38. Re:Guffaw! So much overhaul it's FOUR better! by LordLimecat · 2014-11-21 12:40 · Score: 1
  
  My point? The windows API is *huge* not everyone knows every little detail
  Case in point, parent is apparently unaware that the WMI Win32_OperatingSystem class provides multiple different ways of getting the OS version, and 2 of them will return the plain-text OS version.
  As I recall, WPIW is a notable program that relies on both Windows version # and plaintext name for filtering.
39. Re:Guffaw! So much overhaul it's FOUR better! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-21 13:21 · Score: 0
  
  8.1 was Windows 9. It was 6.3. Windows 7 was 6.1, Windows 8 was 6.2, Windows 10 was (until now) 6.4.
40. Re:Guffaw! So much overhaul it's FOUR better! by Seng · 2014-11-21 14:48 · Score: 1
  
  Then they used a very crappy method of version checking - the command line "ver" command doesn't return anything like "Windows 95"
41. Re:Guffaw! So much overhaul it's FOUR better! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-21 17:41 · Score: 0
  
  You may be technically right but the question remains as to how many programs actually use a "Windows 9" substring as a match for Windows 95/98. Is this really a relevant concern or just an unfounded fear or even a hoax?
42. Re:Guffaw! So much overhaul it's FOUR better! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-21 21:25 · Score: 0
  
  The Windows API doesn't give out names like that.
  Checking the windows API directly may be the "obvious" choice if you use C or C++ where windows.h is the simplest way to access this. Outside of these two languages people often use a string containing the OS name ( in C you would never do that - strings are too much of a pain ). I have seen quite a bit of open source code myself, add in the bug reports of mayor projects breaking against changed marketing names and the browser agent string shenanigans and you can bet that most programmers do things the easy and wrong way.
43. Re:Guffaw! So much overhaul it's FOUR better! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-21 21:45 · Score: 0
  
  Windows 95 was internally version 3.95. The reason? Windows 3.x apps that would be compatible with Windows 95 if not for a `major == 3` check.
44. Re:Guffaw! So much overhaul it's FOUR better! by JasonGoatcher · 2014-11-21 21:57 · Score: 1
  
  I would rather Microsoft adopt GNU/Linux or FreeBSD / OpenBSD and deploy their applications on this platform.
  I'm pretty sure that they've already tried this, and Linus told them to, as the British say, go forth and multiply. But the person who told me that may have been wrong.
45. Re:Guffaw! So much overhaul it's FOUR better! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-21 23:42 · Score: 0
  
  "I guess the idea was that you shouldn't need to know the OS your Java app is running on, but as anyone who's done anything with Java knows, that never actually works in practice. As far as I know that's the only case where you'd ever be doing version checks against strings under Windows."
  You, my friend, are talking out of your butt.... You obviously have not done any advanded development under Windows.
  The apps I designed and wrote NEED to check the actual rev of the OS. The apps use MSMQ. By default, MSMQ is not enabled (installed) as part the OS. This means that the app's installer needs to "install" MSMQ if needed. The method of installing MSMQ changed from XP/Vista/Windows7 using the pkgmgr (deprecated on Windows 8 and greater) to using DISM on Windows7/Windows8/Windows10. AND THE APP'S INSTALLER NEEDS TO KNOW THIS.
  So for all of you people out there that insist that apps don't need to know the actual OS version (major and minor), fuck off. You don't know what you're talking about.
  I wrote my own plugin for NSIS that does very extensive and accurate windows versioning that even works with 8.0, 8.1, 8.1 Update 1 and 10. I will now have to update it for the new major version of 10. This should be fairly easy to do.
46. Re:Guffaw! So much overhaul it's FOUR better! by donaldm · 2014-11-22 00:17 · Score: 1
  
  They actually had a good reason to skip 9. Too many third party products checked whether they were running on Windows 95 or Windows 98 by matching the string "Windows 9". It would have been the Microsoft version of the Y2K problem.
  This is informative? Jaw meet deck!
  
  You mean MS Window programmers are that bad they cannot determine a kernel or library version without drawing a y2k pentagram and mumbling incantations to the great old-ones? Be afraid, very afraid.
  
  Next you will be telling me that Firefox is up to version 33. .... Oh wait it is, however you can easily tell what version it is. /(*o*)\
  
  --
  There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
47. Re:Guffaw! So much overhaul it's FOUR better! by donaldm · 2014-11-22 01:07 · Score: 1
  
  Note: Starting with Windows 2000, the versions are NT versions, Windows 95/98/ME are actually numbered based on the DOS Windows (as in Windows 3.1).)
  
  MS Windows 95 had a 7.0 version of MS-DOS. MS Widows 98 had a 7.1 version of MS-DOS and MS Windows ME had a 7.0 Version of MS-DOS. See here.
  
  Actually MS Windows 10 is supposed to have an NT 6.4 kernel
  
  If developers can't tell the difference between MS Windows NT and MSDOS then they really should get out of the IT industry and take up say "basket weaving". After-all the world would be a much safer place although I am a bit worried about the quality of the baskets that would be produced. :)
  
  --
  There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
48. Re:Guffaw! So much overhaul it's FOUR better! by donaldm · 2014-11-22 01:32 · Score: 1
  
  Marketing does not care about the kernel version
  Why would they need to know? Although they may need to know what the version of the software is.
  
  Seriously, most people who use Windows have absolutely no idea what a kernel even is, let alone what version their Windows kernel is.
  
  Quite right, however they don't write the applications. It is really up to the application software writers to know.
  
  And the people who do know what the kernel is and what the kernel version is are not going to be interested in marketing anyways.
  .While a programmer may not be interested (although many are) in marketing they need to know the kernel version and the versions of the API's that they are going to use with their software if they are going to be programming under MS Windows. If they are going to be programming under Unix or Linux then they need to know what the version of the kernel is and the versions of the libraries that they are going to use with their software.
  
  --
  There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
49. Re:Guffaw! So much overhaul it's FOUR better! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-22 03:29 · Score: 0
  
  XP is kernel version 5.1, dipshit.
50. Re: Guffaw! So much overhaul it's FOUR better! by timestride · 2014-11-22 04:09 · Score: 1
  
  Depends which bit-ness of XP. XP x86 is 5.1, but XP x64 is 5.2. Windows Server 2003 is also 5.2.
51. Re:Guffaw! So much overhaul it's FOUR better! by Billly+Gates · 2014-11-22 12:30 · Score: 1
  
  Then they used a very crappy method of version checking - the command line "ver" command doesn't return anything like "Windows 95"
  Doesn't matter as these companies only hire inexperienced Indians to develop the software so the CEO can get his bonus.
  An app failing due to a stupid version check done incorrectly brings in revenue as these customers will now have to pay twice :-)
  I have seen this in the medical industry where an outdated version of IE is targeted on purpose knowing it will create demand for another purchase later on when websites stop rendering correctly. It doesn't make economic sense to hire good coders who prevent future re-purchases.
  Also the MBAs are stupid and will just deny upgrades and approve software without IT's approval that is poorly written. After all IT is a cost center and they know more and are better than we are because they are profit centers. If you do not like go work elsewhere etc ...
  
  --
  http://saveie6.com/
52. Re:Guffaw! So much overhaul it's FOUR better! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-22 12:49 · Score: 0
  
  You clueless twat! Software checks the version of the OS in many different ways, not using the methods prescribed by Microsoft.
  So when this happens, they're actually pulling out the name of the OS rather than check if it's Windows based on DOS or Windows NT, and rather than checking the specific kernel version. They also don't check for specific features as they should, relying on it being a specific version of Windows, which is not good coding practice. This mistake means that modern software might refuse to install thinking it's Windows 9x, or it might install the incorrect version of an app thinking that Windows 9x has been detected.
  In my software I don't check the title of the OS, so I never had this problem... But knowing how retarded most other programmers are, they don't use the best or most sophisticated approaches, and recall that almost anyone can program so you get a lot of noobish shit even in the commercial realm (people code for cash or because they like computers, not because they're good at it).
  Here is the code Microsoft had to sort of work around:
  if(version.StartsWith("Windows 9"))
  { /* 95 and 98 */
  } else { ;)
  obamasweapon.com
53. Re:Guffaw! So much overhaul it's FOUR better! by Billly+Gates · 2014-11-23 01:37 · Score: 1
  
  Java had tons of capability problems when Oracle changed a string in a copyright file unrelated to the version after acquiring it from SUN.
  Keep in mind I have not written java code for a long time now. But there was a method to check I think in java.lang somewhere.
  Want to know why these apps failed? They used RMI to bypass the platform and use win32 apis to go check strings in c:\program files\jre etc or they use WMI to check the owner of the copyright. Instead of using a =, the incompetent programmers used an "==" and would call a break writeln (This program requires java 1.4.2 to run etc)
  This was terrible and a ton more work not to mention broke compatibility with Linux and MacOSX for no reason at all?? My guess is these were corporate crap anyway that sent IE 6 specific CSS for these web apps anyway.
  It is what you get when you go H1B1 visa holders.
  My point is you would be shocked at all the garbage that goes and yes I can see poorly written MFC apps written in VC+ 4.2 doing a string check for Windows 9.x and printing out "Upgrade to Windows2000 Please!". If it happened in Java I am sure it can happen elsewhere
  
  --
  http://saveie6.com/
54. Re:Guffaw! So much overhaul it's FOUR better! by jonadab · 2014-11-24 05:39 · Score: 1
  
  You forgot the most important selling point of the new Firefox version:
  - Re-arranged the toolbar buttons, merged some unrelated ones, and changed their appearances beyond recognition, to prevent users from easily learning where to find the ones they want.
  
  --
  Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
55. Re:Guffaw! So much overhaul it's FOUR better! by QuasiSteve · 2014-11-24 11:19 · Score: 1
  
  Of course there's places where you can find it. There's even places where you can find it in proximity to the marketing name. Neither of those are necessarily marketing material, though.
  Unless you know something more about application's 'About' screens suitability for marketing and communications, of course :)
56. Re:Guffaw! So much overhaul it's FOUR better! by F.Ultra · 2014-11-25 21:44 · Score: 1
  
  Of course, but that is not misusing the API. That is not using the API at all!
It must be better by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-21 07:00 · Score: 1

Objectively, Windows 10.0 is slightly over 56% better than Windows 6.4.
Massive overhaul by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-21 07:01 · Score: 0

Every version number has been bumped!
1. Re:Massive overhaul by roc97007 · 2014-11-21 07:12 · Score: 1
  
  Every version number has been bumped!
  Yeah, think of how much work this was. We had to create new entries in the inventory database, and... and... everything!
  
  --
  Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
This one by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-21 07:01 · Score: 0

goes to eleven.
Comparability is hard by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-21 07:02 · Score: 0

Yes, comparability of software is hard, some suspect it's NP-complete. Some just think it's apples and oranges.
1. Re:Comparability is hard by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-21 07:23 · Score: 0
  
  I think that the danger is that developers might have used string comparison because it worked for them when comparing versions that are of the form x.y.
  10.0 > 6.4
  true
  "10.0" > "6.4"
  false
One critical flaw by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-21 07:03 · Score: 0

So, what's the one critical flaw going to be that allows you to crash/control all windows computers:
Buffer overflow that allows for elevation of privileges.
NSA mandated backdoor in the O.S. monitoring and reporting service
Flaw in the GUI that allows you to mirror the computer's screen remotely.
Or, the ability to install Java and Adobe products, thereby bypassing the need for Microsoft errors.
1. Re:One critical flaw by roc97007 · 2014-11-21 07:14 · Score: 1
  
  I'm voting for hit DEL at the login screen to bypass.
  
  --
  Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
2. Re:One critical flaw by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-21 07:16 · Score: 0
  
  1) Clearly, Windows is the only OS and piece of software with bugs and vulnerabilities, is not like Apple OSes are under attack right now, or that Linux didn't have any vulnerability the last couple of years, right?.
  2) Got any proof, if not, GTFO.
  3) Same as 1.
Drivers by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-21 07:11 · Score: 0

Will this affect driver support? I don't want the full Vista experience again.
really? by slashmydots · 2014-11-21 07:11 · Score: 3, Insightful

It's Windows 8.1 with a start menu. They didn't rewrite the kernel from scratch so that puts it into 6.4 - 6.99999 range. It's an arbitrary, meaningless number and it's in an OS that they named 10 for no logical reason. They're trying to assign meaning to that?
1. Re:really? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-21 07:17 · Score: 1
  
  They named it 10 because of shit software version checking the OS the wrong way.
2. Re:really? by jones_supa · 2014-11-21 07:24 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  They didn't rewrite the kernel from scratch so that puts it into 6.4 - 6.99999 range.
  Just a minor nitpick... Software version numbers are not decimal numbers but separate units (major.minor).
  After 6.9 comes 6.10. After 6.99999 comes 6.100000.
3. Re:really? by CannonballHead · 2014-11-21 07:46 · Score: 1
  
  I have worked on software (as both tester and developer) that went from 1.9 to 1.10.
4. Re:really? by HatofPig · 2014-11-21 07:58 · Score: 1
  
  Its the choice of the developer. Sometimes 6.9 leads to 7.0. Other times, like in KDE Project, after 4.9 comes 4.10, 4.11, 4.12...
  
  --
  Silicon & Charybdis McLuhan Kildall Papert Kay
5. Re:really? by MachineShedFred · 2014-11-21 08:01 · Score: 2
  
  ... Mac OS X 10.9.5 -> Mac OS X 10.10.0?
  
  --
  Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
6. Re:really? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-21 09:50 · Score: 0
  
  Just a major nitpick. Software version numbers are not standardized. People just pull them out of their ass. Some software projects used to have a sane system and then they decided to drop that (the kernel for example, or firefox) so nowadays it's just more or less random. Most of the time a larger number means more recent, but not always. The most sane system currently is ubuntu's, where the version is just the release year+month.
7. Re:really? by dissy · 2014-11-21 11:28 · Score: 1
  
  For what software? Certainly not any I use, nor the various versions of MS-DOS from the company in question I used back in the 80s and 90s.
  Back from the 60s one heavily used convention was: [major-version] dot [minor-version] dot [revision]
  The dots are separators not unlike those in an IP address, not decimal places (of which more then one of doesn't make much sense)
  Within the same major-version number the API would remain backwards compatible. New commands may be added in, but old existing commands should both still exist and still function identically.
  Within the same minor-version (rev changes) the API would remain identical and data/file formats would keep the same structure.
  This would allow the operator to assume a revision update can be installed at will and not worry much about breaking compatibility for anything not listed in the change log.
  One could also assume any additional applications made to work with the upgrading app should still function without modification, at least if you follow the API docs and don't do anything too hacky.
  For minor-version updates you assumed API using additions and apps should still work, but anything hacky by-passing the API due to limitations needs revisited and possibly edited.
  An example is one program that creates input to the program in question via documented API calls should be fine, but your second program that is run after output being generated that goes to parse internal data files you "shouldn't" be touching likely will break until updated to parse the new data file structure.
  For major-version updates, all bets are off. Pretend it is a brand new app and all interaction with it by other system components may need redesigned or be obsoleted.
  Of course version numbers are only conventions. Those conventions can be changed to mean something more fitting for your particular software.
  Or simplified to "Start at 1.0 and keep adding one" if you can predict not many updates being needed or for very simple one-off script type things.
  Dates have turned out to be quite convenient version numbers with the time making a good developer compile/commit identifier that already keeps revisions in the correct order.
  The only real rule is "pick a convention and stay consistent for the life of that software, else the wrath of dragons upon your head be"
8. Re:really? by TimothyDavis · 2014-11-21 11:49 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  They didn't rewrite the kernel from scratch so that puts it into 6.4 - 6.99999 range.
  Just a minor nitpick... Software version numbers are not decimal numbers but separate units (major.minor).
  After 6.9 comes 6.10. After 6.99999 comes 6.100000.
  Just another minor nitpick... Windows stores OS versions as an unsigned 64 bit integer, consisting of four 16 bit ordinals. When displaying a "friendly" string version of the version, the four ordinals are separated by periods.
  So 6.99999 is not a possible version, as 99999 overflows a 16 bit unsigned integer.
9. Re:really? by shutdown+-p+now · 2014-11-21 20:27 · Score: 1
  
  The change in kernel version was long overdue - if you compare XP to Vista, and then Vista to 8.1, the latter is just as much of a gap.
10. Re:really? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-22 01:46 · Score: 0
  
  You might have heard of this kernel called Linux.
  3.1 was released in 2011, 3.10 in 2013.
  It looks wrong to me, but that's the way it is.
11. Re:really? by toddestan · 2014-11-22 12:27 · Score: 1
  
  That's not how Microsoft does it.
  Windows 3.0 -> 3.1 -> 3.11
  MSDOS 6.0 -> 6.2 -> 6.21 -> 6.22
  Well, at least that's how they did it. Nowadays version numbers don't seem to mean much in Redmond.
12. Re:really? by Billly+Gates · 2014-11-23 01:30 · Score: 1
  
  The change in kernel version was long overdue - if you compare XP to Vista, and then Vista to 8.1, the latter is just as much of a gap.
  Not really at the kernel level besides some power management features. Services and gui there is a vast difference.
  But it does make more sense to put everything together unlike a Linux OS it comes together and the pieces are not installed separately.
  
  --
  http://saveie6.com/
13. Re:really? by shutdown+-p+now · 2014-11-24 11:10 · Score: 1
  
  There's actually quite a lot of incremental improvements at the kernel level since Vista. These things do accumulate.
Driver ABI change by tepples · 2014-11-21 07:14 · Score: 4, Interesting

Are you sure the major version of the kernel wasn't increased to allow breaking changes to the device driver ABI? That's what changed from XP (NT 5.1) to Vista (NT 6) and what didn't change from Vista to 8.1 (both NT 6.x).
1. Re:Driver ABI change by bondsbw · 2014-11-21 08:16 · Score: 2
  
  Agreed, this is the big takeaway, that they are moving off 6.*. The reason they skipped 7, 8, and 9 is rather obvious, that Microsoft wanted to align the kernel version with the product version.
  It's not like skipping 7, 8, and 9 causes any additional compat issues.
  
  --
  All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
2. Re:Driver ABI change by hendrikboom · 2014-11-21 10:51 · Score: 1
  
  If seven ate nine, I can imagine them wanting to stay clear of the whole cannibalistic feud.
3. Re:Driver ABI change by rssrss · 2014-11-21 10:56 · Score: 1
  
  6 is nervous, because 7 8 9
  Hint. Say it out loud.
  
  --
  In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
4. Re:Driver ABI change by thegarbz · 2014-11-21 17:08 · Score: 1
  
  The reason they skipped 7, 8, and 9 is rather obvious, that Microsoft wanted to align the kernel version with the product version.
  So ever release of windows then on it's new fast release cycle will involve a major kernel change then? Fantastic.
  Or rather Microsoft kernel devs where the last holdouts against the marketing team which finally managed to force their way in and kill the last group of people with any sense at all in the company. It was only a matter of time I guess. They had backup in the form of UX designers and accountants who were all stronger than the kernel devs due to the constant exercise involved with raising their arms to touch their screens.
"One" is the new "i" by DigiShaman · 2014-11-21 07:14 · Score: 1

OneDrive
OneCore
OneNote
xBox One
-?? Future ??-
OneOffice
OneExporer
OneSecurity

--
Life is not for the lazy.
1. Re:"One" is the new "i" by ArcadeMan · 2014-11-21 07:27 · Score: 2
  
  OneBorgMind.
  
  --
  Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
2. Re:"One" is the new "i" by aristotle-dude · 2014-11-21 07:32 · Score: 1
  
  OneBorgMind.
  You will all become one with the borg. Your biological and technological distinctiveness will be added to our own.
  
  --
  Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
3. Re:"One" is the new "i" by Eristone · 2014-11-21 07:37 · Score: 1
  
  OneRing - to rule them all, and set up the next round of fights. (damn I've gone cynical this week)
4. Re:"One" is the new "i" by ArcadeMan · 2014-11-21 07:51 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah but this is Microsoft we're talking about here.
  "We are One. Your biological and technological distinctiveness will be researched and then left unused. We only use One."
  
  --
  Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
5. Re:"One" is the new "i" by bondsbw · 2014-11-21 08:17 · Score: 1
  
  Honestly, I was very surprised that chose Windows 10 over Windows One.
  
  --
  All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
6. Re:"One" is the new "i" by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-21 08:50 · Score: 0
  
  Azure will be the magical transport network between individual borgs. Azure with Borgs is like magic with cyberpunk.
7. Re:"One" is the new "i" by operagost · 2014-11-21 09:47 · Score: 1
  
  Is it time for Slashdot to bring back the Borg Gates icon?
  
  --
  
  Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
In the words of Linus Torvalds by HyperQuantum · 2014-11-21 07:15 · Score: 1

Version numbers? We can increment them!

--
I am not really here right now.
1. Re:In the words of Linus Torvalds by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-21 07:19 · Score: 0
  
  Version numbers? We can increment them!
  I met Linus Torvalds once. He shared a secret with me that would haunt your dreams if I told you what it was.
2. Re:In the words of Linus Torvalds by ArcadeMan · 2014-11-21 07:27 · Score: 1
  
  Of one his computers runs Windows?
  
  --
  Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
3. Re:In the words of Linus Torvalds by jones_supa · 2014-11-21 07:32 · Score: 1
  
  A big amount of software these days would do just fine with a date code as the version number.
4. Re:In the words of Linus Torvalds by rtaylor · 2014-11-21 07:40 · Score: 2
  
  Right up until you want a way to define API changes and continue to maintain back branches.
  
  --
  Rod Taylor
5. Re:In the words of Linus Torvalds by petermgreen · 2014-11-21 08:08 · Score: 1
  
  I can think of a few pros and cons of date code based versioning
  pros:
  1: they can give a quick indication of how old the software is to someone not familiar with the software and the history
  2: they are less prone to bikeshedding over when it's appropriate to increase each component than multi-part version numbers. This is expecially true of large projects where different components move at different speeds. Single montonically increasing numbers
  cons:
  1: they usually end up much larger than a simple version number, especially if you want to leave the flexibility to perform frequent releases.
  2: they can be misleading, especially when only a couple of date components are used making it not immediately obvious that the versioning is date based. Ubuntu is a good example of this, to those not familar with ubuntu releases the difference between 8.04 and 8.10 looks smaller than the difference between 8.10 and 8.04 even though both in fact represent 6 months of progress.
  3: they caused a lot of fun arround the year 2000 as stuff that had been labeled 9x wasn't sure where to go, some stuff broke monotonicity and went back to 0x, some stuff broke monoticity and went to completely new naming or numbering schemes.
  4: they make it tricky to handle software that has multiple branches supported at the same time. You can get arround this by using a hybrid system of date based and multipart but that makes the problems of long version numbers worse and can also be misleading (is the date supposed to be the date of branching or the date of release.......).
  
  --
  note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
6. Re:In the words of Linus Torvalds by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-21 08:21 · Score: 0
  
  Do tell
7. Re:In the words of Linus Torvalds by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-21 23:57 · Score: 0
  
  in my company, i fought hard and long and we now use date + svn numbers as version... this is great. it makes it easy to know when something was released how old it is and dead easy to rebuild a given version if somone complains about an issue using svn...
  it is olso auto incrementing/generating (build scrip generates source with current date) so there is no manual procee, no discussion (is it minor, major, which part of the number do we update....).
  Since then, we never looked back, it always worked flawlessly and it's not a subject which is even discussed anymore because it just works!
  cyrille
8. Re:In the words of Linus Torvalds by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-22 02:35 · Score: 0
  
  He let Stallman put a finger in his pooper.
9. Re:In the words of Linus Torvalds by nctritech · 2014-11-22 03:56 · Score: 1
  
  I use a version number in the classic (and very useful) major.minor.revision scheme, but I also use a chronologically sortable date code to the right of it. Best of both worlds. There's no reason to be limited to "date codes that don't say when you break stuff" or "version numbers that seem arbitrary." When the programs are started, they emit "Program that Does Stuff to Your Cookies 3.4.15 (2014-11-22)" and even if the version number doesn't ring a bell, the date code tells me "that's the day you accidentally typed a backtick and divided by zero."
This means something. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-21 07:15 · Score: 0

This is important.
1. Re:This means something. by ArcadeMan · 2014-11-21 07:28 · Score: 1
  
  Kernel, not potato.
  
  --
  Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
2. Re:This means something. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-21 07:49 · Score: 0
  
  It's a UNIX system. I know this.
Of course there will be... by dmgxmichael · 2014-11-21 07:17 · Score: 5, Funny

It will be interesting to see if this causes any software comparability issues with legacy applications.
Of course there will be - in any large pool of people of any calling there's going to be morons - the sort of morons that sniff the OS version string for things like "Windows 9" and then assume it's Windows 95 or 98 and refuse to work; instead of using the proper channels to query for the OS version number.
As a PHP programmer I can testify that morons can indeed program. I'm one of them.
1. Re:Of course there will be... by UnknowingFool · 2014-11-21 07:36 · Score: 1
  
  Personally I think it's just an excuse. How many Win 9x programs still exist that would be tripped up by Windows 9? I think it's the Xbox 360 naming scheme again where MS didn't want name their second console Xbox 2 because that would imply there were 1 behind Sony's Playstation.So they picked 360. But then again they picked the name Xbox One for some stupid reason.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
2. Re:Of course there will be... by CannonballHead · 2014-11-21 07:51 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not so sure about that. OSX is already on what, 10.7 or something like that? I doubt most people would fall for Windows 10 vs. OSX 10.7 [insert cat name here]. That STILL looks like Windows is behind, so it'd be failed marketing if it was a marketing gimmick.
  I'm pretty cynical when it comes to tech companies, but I don't think Microsoft's marketing is quite that stupid nor their dev teams quite that stupid.
  IMO, they probably wanted to bump the kernel number ... and decided to bump it to match the version. Maybe they actually want Windows 10 to use the Windows 10 kernel. Maybe they want OS version and kernel version to actually match/make sense/be in sync, and are using this as a good time to do it (versus the OS patch that was 8.1).
3. Re:Of course there will be... by PRMan · 2014-11-21 07:56 · Score: 1
  
  Xbox 720 has such a nice ring to it...
  
  --
  Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
4. Re:Of course there will be... by _xeno_ · 2014-11-21 08:03 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not so sure about that. OSX is already on what, 10.7 or something like that?
  The current version of OS X is 10.10.1. (10.10 is Yosemite. They stopped using big cat names with 10.9, which was Mavericks.)
  
  --
  You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
5. Re:Of course there will be... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-21 08:03 · Score: 0
  
  10.7? Try 10.10.1 (Yosemite) (if you like having an interface ruined with flat square brightly colored everything)
  10.9.5 (Mavericks) is the is most recent version of OS X with out the butchered UI.
6. Re:Of course there will be... by UnknowingFool · 2014-11-21 08:27 · Score: 1
  
  I doubt most people would fall for Windows 10 vs. OSX 10.7 [insert cat name here].
  
  Well most people (and maybe Apple has a better handle on this) say: OS X [Marketing Name]. Techs use 10.7 and it is in the internals of the OS.
  
  I'm pretty cynical when it comes to tech companies, but I don't think Microsoft's marketing is quite that stupid nor their dev teams quite that stupid.
  I don't think the Dev teams have much to say in the marketing name. I'm sure there are internal code names that they use instead (Blackcomb, Longhorn, etc.). Like many things MS, their marketing department has a few major misses: Squirting, Zune, C#, Windows Vista Basic Home Internet Extreme Edition, Xbox One. I think MS tried to emulate Apple's method with Vista but Vista was such a PR problem that they abandoned the practice.
  
  IMO, they probably wanted to bump the kernel number ... and decided to bump it to match the version. Maybe they actually want Windows 10 to use the Windows 10 kernel. Maybe they want OS version and kernel version to actually match/make sense/be in sync, and are using this as a good time to do it (versus the OS patch that was 8.1).
  Maybe but in Linux and OS X there's a difference between an internal versioning number and a marketing name. But it's the fault of MS as they created problem when they used a numbering scheme in the Marketing Name. Now they have to match them. In the case of Apple they switched away from big cats but it's not major a change from their previous scheme.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
7. Re:Of course there will be... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-21 09:12 · Score: 0
  
  As a PHP programmer I can testify that morons can indeed program. I'm one of them.
  And also repetitive.
8. Re:Of course there will be... by Dahan · 2014-11-21 09:50 · Score: 1
  
  Personally I think it's just an excuse. How many Win 9x programs still exist that would be tripped up by Windows 9?
  Lots of programs that were written when Win9x was still popular are still around... an example given in the last /. story about MS skipping Windows 9 is jEdit. As of right now, the current revision of that file (r23738), last modified about a year ago, still detects the OS as Windows 9x if the OS name supplied by Java contains either "Windows 9" or "Windows M".
9. Re:Of course there will be... by UnknowingFool · 2014-11-21 09:59 · Score: 1
  
  But that's not a Windows program. That's a Java program and that is the coder's issue not MS. The Windows API that returns the Marketing Name have been deprecated as far as I know.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
10. Re:Of course there will be... by Gr8Apes · 2014-11-21 10:20 · Score: 1
  
  Amazingly enough, for OSX, the major kernel change occurred with 10.7 with the inclusion of GrandCentral. It's been 4 releases, and there's still bugs in that change, but they're getting ironed out slowly. The GUI changes on the last go round were... jarring. For the most part, I ignore them.
  
  --
  The cesspool just got a check and balance.
11. Re:Of course there will be... by Dahan · 2014-11-21 13:23 · Score: 1
  
  But that's not a Windows program. That's a Java program and that is the coder's issue not MS. The Windows API that returns the Marketing Name have been deprecated as far as I know.
  I don't what distinction you're trying to make between a Windows program and a Java program. Windows is an OS, Java is a programming language. Java programs can run on Windows. And sure, it's a problem with the code, but Java programs are popular in big "enterprise" apps, so MS is especially interested in keeping those apps running. The last thing they want is for some company to not upgrade thousands of copies of Windows because a program that company needs won't run on the new version. "DOS ain't done until Lotus won't run" is a myth; MS jumps through a lot of hoops to make sure that almost all programs that run on an older version of Windows will continue running on the new version, even when the coder did something stupid.
12. Re:Of course there will be... by UnknowingFool · 2014-11-22 07:06 · Score: 1
  
  If you think that MS changed from Windows 9 to Windows 10 for the likes of Java I think that you're naive. For their own Windows APIs, they might have done it, but not for a competitor. That's the competition's problem. However this is the reason they deprecated the exact API that returns the Marketing Name in favor of one that uses the Kernel number instead. Even then people were coding for minor vs major kernel versions. MS could have bumped it up to Kernel 7.0 and things would still break if coders were careless.
  MS has slowly been breaking backwards compatibility since Vista especially with the Windows 9x kernels. At this point how many versions of current Windows programs still run on Win 9x and not newer versions? Considering that it was 20 years old, I would say very few.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
It's just a name by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-21 07:21 · Score: 0

It is just a name, nothing else. I doubt it is even marketing, this here is common sense.
Microsoft decided to go with a new full kerlen version, they are at 6.x, for rather obvious reasons picking "7.x" or "8.x" for Windows 10 after Win 7 and Win 8 and 8.1 would be possible, but also rather silly. So why not jump all the way and name it the only thing that actually makes *sense* for now if you're numbering your OS anyway and call all new round numbers your "big release".
There is nothing to see here (apart from a rather sensible choice).
This all is only interesting if internal versioning of the kernel would matter. Which it does not really.
1. Re:It's just a name by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-21 07:59 · Score: 0
  
  It is marketing. The kernel is just one component of a Windows system. The versioning of the kernel should depend on changes in the kernel, and the Windows version should depend on changes in the overall system. The two can progress at different rates.
Compatibility by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-21 07:30 · Score: 0

Why would compatibility be an issue? They already have compatibility shims for things like version numbers.
See, e.g.:
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnew...
Or any of countless other Old New Thing posts.
Version numbers are meaningless today by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-21 07:32 · Score: 0

Didn't you get the memo from 10 years ago? The new world order is that version numbers are meaningless and arbitrary, reduced to mere marketing. What they ought to do, if they can't stand the idea of meaningful version numbers, is simply use the release date as the "version number". Then it would at least make some sense (compared to a random number pulled out of somebody's ass that follows no recognizable pattern).
1. Re: Version numbers are meaningless today by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-21 23:01 · Score: 0
  
  So a hypothetical service pack equivalent for Windows 8.1 released after Windows 10 comes out would be a higher version number? That would be a disaster for software compatibility.
Comparabilities by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-21 07:32 · Score: 0

Really now?
Slow day by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-21 07:48 · Score: 0

at Slashdot
but...ours goes to 11!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-21 07:52 · Score: 0

:-)
It's the API by Dutch+Gun · 2014-11-21 08:21 · Score: 4, Interesting

The reason Microsoft never bumped the version number is because of backwards compatibility. Whether intentionally or unintentionally, many programmers have misused the old Windows APIs that check version numbers in a way that breaks compatibility of their apps going forward. That is, they're checking against future version of Windows rather than previous versions, and as such, their programs would refuse to run if the internal version number had been bumped from 6 to 7 (or 8). Whenever that sort of thing happens, people inevitably blame the OS rather than the application that had the bug in the first place, and as such Microsoft has resorted to some rather extraordinary measures to preserve backward compatibility, even going so far as to intentionally replicate bugs in special program-specific compatibility modes.
The GetWindowsVersionEx() API function is overly-complicated and notoriously easy to accidentally misuse. It appears that Microsoft finally had enough of that, and depreciated it. It will now actually only report accurately up to Windows 8.1, even in future operating systems, to ensure people can't accidentally or intentionally misuse them. They've been replaced with a set of "too simple to possibly misuse" functions that look like the following:
IsWindowsXPSP2OrGreater()
IsWindows7OrGreater()
IsWindows8Point1OrGreater()
There's one function for each major OS version + service pack, and it only checks in an equal-to-or-greater fashion, as you almost always want to do for broad compatibility checks. Notice also how you can't even check against future Windows versions until new API functions are released. I think now that MS has this safer API in place and enough time has passed since the initial problems were detected, they can get the internal version number back in sync with the more visible public number.
There's probably some marketing push in there, because I've seen people (wrongly) claim that since it was just a minor version bump in previous versions, it proved that there were only minor changes to the kernel, blah, blah... Maybe it bothered some particularly anal developers, but I doubt many really cared. It's just an arbitrary number to check at the end of the day, and we're sort of used to dealing with those.

--
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
1. Re:It's the API by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-21 14:53 · Score: 1
  
  s/depreciated/deprecated
2. Re:It's the API by Dutch+Gun · 2014-11-21 15:35 · Score: 2
  
  s/depreciated/deprecated
  Oops, dang. You're right. I'm not sure why my brain picked that word - I should know better.
  In my defense, I suppose one could argue since MS is now having that function return technically incorrect results, it's not only deprecated, but also depreciated, right?
  
  --
  Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
3. Re:It's the API by thegarbz · 2014-11-21 17:04 · Score: 1
  
  Whether intentionally or unintentionally, many programmers have misused the old Windows APIs that check version numbers in a way that breaks compatibility of their apps going forward.
  Don't quote me on this but I was under the impression that the Windows versions API never exposed the name of the version, only the kernel number. As someone above noted there was a separate flag for NT kernels vs whatever the other was called.
  The only examples I've ever seen for matching windows versions were in Java applications and in theory there should be no compatibility issues there. Even in the last slashdot story about this there was code examples and they were ALL Java.
4. Re:It's the API by Dutch+Gun · 2014-11-21 18:09 · Score: 1
  
  This isn't about the Java "checking the name of the Windows" string issue. That was just someone's supposition, and probably off the mark, in my opinion. This was a real problem both in Windows programs as well as with installers, where incorrect logic would cause the program to spit out a message saying "Sorry, the program isn't compatible with this version of Windows", but if that check were removed the program would actually install or run just fine.
  The GetVersionEx() function returned a struct filled with information. Two of those members were a major and a minor version number. You had to check both of them and apply the correct logic based on a table of major and minor numbers you'd have to look up in the online help somewhere. For instance, in Microsoft's own example, to check for XP or later, you had to do this (where osvi is the struct returned from the function):
  bIsWindowsXPorLater = ((osvi.dwMajorVersion > 5) || ((osvi.dwMajorVersion == 5) && (osvi.dwMinorVersion >= 1)));
  It's not overly complicated, but neither is it completely intuitive or trivial. Say you did something silly like this instead:
  bIsWindowsXPorLater = (osvi.dwMajorVersion >= 5 && osvi.dwMajorVersion >= 1);
  Oops. This code runs just fine on XP, but won't run on Vista now. Worse, it's one of those bugs that doesn't show up until a new version of Windows is released. It seems silly, but there were apparently an awful lot of programmers that somehow managed to get this wrong.
  
  --
  Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
5. Re:It's the API by shutdown+-p+now · 2014-11-21 20:26 · Score: 1
  
  It will now actually only report accurately up to Windows 8.1, even in future operating systems, to ensure people can't accidentally or intentionally misuse them.
  
  Not quite. It will report the version number up to whatever OS version is the highest listed as supported in the application's manifest. In other words, you'll never get back an OS version higher than the one in existence when you were making the app.
6. Re:It's the API by Pope+Hagbard · 2014-11-22 03:40 · Score: 1
  
  They did the same thing with Internet Explorer 10: in the "old" of the Registry IE10's version is 9.10.9200.17116, and in the "new" part it's 10.0.9200.17116.
  We track that with the registry because our tool (OCS Inventory-NG) can pull any old thing from there but we'd have to change the source code to use an API and it doesn't track that by default.
7. Re:It's the API by goarilla · 2014-11-22 06:37 · Score: 1
  
  bIsWindowsXPorLater = (osvi.dwMajorVersion >= 5 && osvi.dwMajorVersion >= 1);
  
  bIsWindowsXPorLater = (osvi.dwMajorVersion >= 5 && osvi.dwMinorVersion >= 1);
8. Re:It's the API by Dutch+Gun · 2014-11-22 07:18 · Score: 1
  
  Sort of ironic for me to introduce a bug in code designed to show off an intentional bug, the point of which was to show how easy it was to make a silly mistake. Yes, that's what I meant to type, thanks.
  
  --
  Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
They should've gone to 11 by davidwr · 2014-11-21 08:21 · Score: 1

For when you need that extra level of noise.

--
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
1. Re:They should've gone to 11 by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-21 08:40 · Score: 0
  
  For when you need that extra level of noise.
  That's Apple's move.
2. Re:They should've gone to 11 by Merk42 · 2014-11-21 09:30 · Score: 1
  
  That's Apple's move.
  Latest version is 10.10.1. they seem rather reluctant to go to 11.
3. Re:They should've gone to 11 by nctritech · 2014-11-22 04:12 · Score: 1
  
  A good engineer would offer to build them one that goes to 12.
Great. by toonces33 · 2014-11-21 08:23 · Score: 1

Every time they overhaul things, they break stuff right and left. Why can't they leave things alone that are working properly?
1. Re:Great. by jader3rd · 2014-11-21 08:25 · Score: 1
  
  Every time they overhaul things, they break stuff right and left. Why can't they leave things alone that are working properly?
  Because it's never quite worked properly. So far it's just worked good enough, but all those who work on it know that it can work better.
Does this amp go to 11? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-21 08:25 · Score: 0

Just wondering?
But what about the API's? by jader3rd · 2014-11-21 08:27 · Score: 1

I know in Windows 8.1, if you query for the version number you get back the version for Windows 8, unless you're executable lists the GUID for 8.1 in the app manifest. So in Windows 10, with no app manifest, do you still get back the version number for 8?
1. Re:But what about the API's? by shutdown+-p+now · 2014-11-21 20:28 · Score: 1
  
  Yes. And if you have the GUID for 8.1 in the manifest, then you'll get back 8.1.
  Basically, the OS will never again tell you the version number that you did not explicitly declare that you know how to handle (via your app manifest).
Good business advice by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-21 08:50 · Score: 1

Gates probably ran in to Volkerding on Caltran last week...
System 10? At Last Revenge for Sybase... by elvis+the+frog · 2014-11-21 08:53 · Score: 1

yep, thought so, going from version 6 of the flagship product to version 10. What could go wrong? It's just a label, heheh.
Switching to classic versioning by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-21 08:54 · Score: 0

Most likely MS is going to use classic versioning: major.minor.patch
I.e. Windows 10 update 1 will have kernel version 10.1.7656
perhaps it's time to scuttle legacy applications by swschrad · 2014-11-21 08:56 · Score: 2

Windows has so many piles of APIs and hooks rotting in the corners, unpatched for 15 years and longer, that it's perhaps time to blow up the known universe and start afresh.
the danger is that it becomes open competition for all business and consumer apps. but with a fully sandboxed emulator, as Apple did, the well-behaved stuff should get enough life to allow CrankyCo to take down their FrankenCode and streamline the apps around the core data.

--
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Version numbers mean something. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-21 09:06 · Score: 0

Their problem is that NTOS Kernel 7 would be confused with Windows 7. Likewise NTOS Kernel 8. And now marketdroids have ruined the versioning system. Might be better giving your software version names like "Greased Weasel", "Erotic Pickled Herring", or "Man-Eating Seals of Antiquity"
Or may be... by TemporalBeing · 2014-11-21 09:07 · Score: 1

...they adopted Linux or Mach kernels and just wanted a way to differentiate them...

sadly, no that will not be the case.

--
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
It's just version number harmonization by Pope+Hagbard · 2014-11-21 09:37 · Score: 2

They've done it before. For example, Word for Windows: it went 1.0, 2.0, and then 6.0 because Microsoft wanted all the Office programs to have the same version, and Excel happened to have the highest version number. Another example is Windows itself: Windows NT went straight to 3.1 for the original (1.0) release because that's where the DOS-based consumer Windows was.
It's not unheard-of from their competitors either.
There's really no significance to this story other than a psychologically-important number increment.
The microkernel in NT didn't get 10.0 by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-21 09:42 · Score: 0

The NT is the operating system in Windows, not a kernel. NT has microkernel and has server-client architecture.
The Operating System version has always been the real number of NT, while the Windows [Software System] is called with other versioning like XP, Vista, Windows 95, Windows 10 and so on regardless what is the Operating System [NT] version.
how big is the new kernel? by stonebit · 2014-11-21 09:51 · Score: 0

I imagine the windows phone will now have a 30 gig partition just for the kernel now. Good think flash storage is cheap. Funny to think of all the unused junk that will sit on all devices.
1. Re:how big is the new kernel? by jd · 2014-11-21 11:40 · Score: 0
  
  Thirty gigs will barely hold the coredumps and you've got to take account of the space needed for the Clippy Presentation of the Complete Works of Shakespere.
  
  --
  It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Microsoft BS - but why now? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-21 10:59 · Score: 1

The Internal number represented the TECHNICAL class of the kernel, and now the cretin running Microsoft has allowed marketing to prevent this being thru- for the FIRST time- for Windows 10.
-Windows 3 and 3.1 were the same Kernel class
-Windows 95/98/Millennium shared the same kernel
-Windows NT4.0/Windows 2000/Windows XP shared the same Kernel
-Windows Vista/7/8/8.1/10 share the same kernel
'SAME' does NOT mean identical code. It refers to compatibility with drivers and DLLs that provide the essential defining services. NT4.0 can run DirectX9, for instance, though almost none of you here know that fact.
So why now is Microsoft playing games with the internal Kernel class name? The scummy Huddy from AMD gives us a giant clue. A few days ago, scumbag Huddy gave a technical report declaring DirectX12 would no run on any OS before Windows 10. A day later, Microsoft forced AMD to release a VERY humble press statement declaring that Huddy had been talking out of his arse, but nasty games are afoot.
AMD does NOT want to produce DirectX12 drivers for any AMD GPU hardware earlier than GCN. Nvidia, on the other hand, has already announced DirectX12 support going back several generations before its latest architecture. If DirectX12 does appear on Windows 7 (and unless Windows 10 has a TRUE, new kernel, nothing can prevent this) AMD is going to be in a LOT of trouble.
AMD cards based on VLIW5 and VLIW4 (going back to the 4000 series, and possibly the 3000/2000 series) are perfectly capable of running DX12. Half of sold AMD APUs (including ones selling today in non-West nations) are VLIW4. AMD is determined that its lousy software teams will NOT have to bother providing new drivers for them, and needs Microsoft to provide the excuse.
Intel goes along with this, mostly. It's own GPU (integrated into most Intel CPU parts) has only very recently reached the point of any kind of hardware correctness and true compatibility- older Intel GPUs will never have DX12 support because their GPUs are far too broken and buggy.
But Microsoft has a real dilemma. Unlike Vista and Win8, Win7 has been a great success- it merely lacks the virtualised 'Metro' environment of Win8 that few Windows users wish to use anyway. Win7 has no downside for Microsoft, being fully kernel compatible with all new Microsoft initiatives save Metro apps. Disowning Win7 at the very moment so many companies need it as an upgrade to WinXP would be a DISASTER for MS.
However, internally Microsoft still has some insanely filthy, very powerful, figures- including the bloc that initially prevented MS from supporting full-blown Windows on ARM (leading to the abortion the world knows as RT). These cynical scumbags are fully onside with AMD, and want Microsoft to 'play the market' with Windows 10- in other words pay off tech sites like this one to proclaim that, of course, technically Windows 10 cannot be compatible with Windows 7. If the kernel number for Windows 10 remained the same as Vista/7/8/8.1, the betas that visit sites like this one would get suspicious. Hence the renaming to '10'.
1. Re:Microsoft BS - but why now? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-22 04:47 · Score: 0
  
  Intel goes along with this, mostly.
  Intel drops their direct driver support so fast that only the latest chips get the dx12 treatment from the Intel's website. Only way to be safe with Intel is with Linux or other OSOS, or rely on the drivers supplied with Windows.
OneCore? by jd · 2014-11-21 11:38 · Score: 2

*Freddy Mercury impression*
One Core, One System!
The bright neon looks oh-so tacky.
They've screwed it up, it's now worse than wacky!
Oh oh oh, give them some vision!
No true, no false, the GUI will only do a slow waltz
No blood, no vein, MS zombies wanna much on your brain
No specs, no mission, the code's just some fried chicken!
*Switches to Gandal*
Nine cores for mortal tasks, doomed to die()
Seven for the Intel lords, in their halls of silicon
Three for the MIPS under the NSA
One for the Dark Hoarde on their Dark Campus.
One Core to rule them all, One Core to crash them,
One Core to freeze them all and in the darkness mash them!
In the land of Redmond, where the dotnet lies!

--
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
1. Re:OneCore? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-22 00:25 · Score: 0
  
  what a douche-bag you are.
2. Re:OneCore? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-22 02:38 · Score: 0
  
  You'll never be as gay as Freddy Mercury, but hat's off for trying!
all about roman numerals and moving to Linux by Locutus · 2014-11-21 12:00 · Score: 1

They'll quickly star the marketing machine calling it Windows X and then they'll start calling it X Windows as they move to the Linux kernel.
They can also start calling all computers running Windows X/X Windows, X Boxes. So really, using 10 just makes everything fit with marketing better since the Windows brand is so last century.

LoB

--
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Upward compatibility by jacobsm · 2014-11-21 12:09 · Score: 1

> It will be interesting to see if this causes any software compatibility issues with legacy applications.
The odds are in favor that many legacy applications won't work.
1. Re:Upward compatibility by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-21 12:26 · Score: 0
  
  Vista had 6.0 which caused no end of problems. Win7 was 6.1, which cured many legacy apps looking for (major>=5 && minor>=1) to identify XP. So hopefully they use 10.1 at least.
Version numbers. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-21 12:53 · Score: 0

This entire topic reminds me of a sarcastic conversation I used to begin with a girlfriend when I wanted to annoy her. I would basically start sprouting of history about the Linux kernel version numbers and the various times of major distributions in the 90s (SLS, Slackware, Debian etc.). Half the time I just made the numbers up, but that's not the point. This is one of the most ridiculous discussions out there. Because numbers in maths have meaning, we believe version numbers should too. The fact is this is as interesting an analysis as divination of tea leaves.
Re:perhaps it's time to scuttle legacy application by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-21 14:59 · Score: 0

Exactly, Apple turned out just fine adopting a professional core like BSD. The Windows kernel is still acceptable for playing games and lightweight tasks so they could keep it for the Xbox. But for their bread and butter customers who need real-world stability and uptime, Microsoft would come out way ahead by following Apple's footsteps into BSD land.
Neowin is an idiot by nitehawk214 · 2014-11-21 17:58 · Score: 1

"Neowin speculates that this large jump in version number is likely related to the massive overhaul of the underlying components..."
The version number and the amount of work on a project have nothing to do with one another. Does he (or they, whatever the hell a neowin is) really think that 40% of all the work that has ever gone into windows happened in this iteration? Version numbers are assigned by marketing and management. You have to name your product something, but what it is named has nothing to do with the engineers working on it.
And yes, I know that the actual name (windows 7, XP, Vista) is also assigned by marketing. But since people know the top name means nothing and look at the internal version number, marketing gets a hold of that and tries to manipulate it as well.
As Londo said... "It does not mean a thing!"

--
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
Wine by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-22 00:17 · Score: 0

> It will be interesting to see if this causes any software comparability issues with legacy applications.
So what, that's what https://www.winehq.org/ is for.
Re:perhaps it's time to scuttle legacy application by im_thatoneguy · 2014-11-22 14:22 · Score: 1

Windows has so many piles of APIs and hooks rotting in the corners, unpatched for 15 years and longer, that it's perhaps time to blow up the known universe and start afresh.
You just described WinRT aka Metro.
Version number whoring by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-22 21:11 · Score: 0

That's a marketing decision, not an engineering one.
Refer to Firefox and Chrome.