Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Windows Kernel Version Bumped To 10.0

Posted by Soulskill on 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.

3 of 171 comments (clear)

  1. Guffaw! So much overhaul it's FOUR better! by SeaFox · · 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 _xeno_ · · 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.
  2. Of course there will be... by dmgxmichael · · 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.