Slashdot Mirror
Windows 10 the Last Version of Windows? Not So Fast.
A multitude of tech sites are breathlessly reporting that Windows 10 will be the last version of Windows. These claims are based on a brief comment from developer evangelist Jerry Nixon while speaking a Microsoft Ignite session on "Tiles, Notifications, and Action Center." However, as Paul Thurrott points out, you probably shouldn't take this news too seriously. Windows development has been changing for the past several years. At the very least, we've known since we learned Windows 8 would be developed for multiple form factors. We've known it specifically about Windows 10 since it was announced — Microsoft has talked about transitioning away from giant, monolithic updates. Thurrott says,
The reason anyone is talking like this is that Microsoft is pushing a "Windows as a service" vision, which doesn't mean "subscription service" but rather that it plans to upgrade Windows 10 going forward with both functional and security updates, plus of course bug fixes. You know, just like it's done with every single version of Windows. Ever. ... In other words, nothing to see here. Beyond the usual: things change. If it makes sense to keep updating Windows 10 and not change the brand or version number, Microsoft will do that. If it makes sense to release something called Windows 10 R2, Windows 11, or Windows Yoghurt — seriously, who cares? — then they'll do that.
It's not about how it's labeled, it's about the level of difficulty getting from one to the next.
Responsible software should have a released branch that has only bug fixes, and then other versions for new features. Otherwise, how the fark can one use your software for certified products? How can someone do a risk analysis on something as a platform, when it might change daily? Feature changes should not be casually thrown in. Yes, mozilla stupidly did this - but most software does not, and should not. Fortunately in the case of Firefox, it's not used as a /platform/, it's used as a client, so as long as the previous features still work the same it's not as big of a deal. Something as core as the OS itself though? Do you really want device manufacturers to stop using your product? Yes we get it - hire the cheapest (h1b) workers you can, and reduce down to having a single branch - since what made you a massive company seems to not be something you want to do anymore, and you'd prefer to act like a tiny hole in the wall shop.
Well it is scary to think about it it was 15 years from Mac OS 1 to OS X
We had OS X for 15 years now.
So half of Mac OS existence has been in OS X
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Who cares? The problem with all of this is Microsoft seems to be saying "we reserve the right to drastically change your computer as we see fit, and if it breaks that will be your problem".
And, I'm sorry, but both for the computers I maintain at work, and my personal machine ... they're not the property of Microsoft. They're used for stuff that we need to maintain, and we'll decide what version we run and when/how we upgrade the system.
If Microsoft thinks they're going to do anything but piss of the world by suddenly deploying mandatory updates of what their vision of the future is, or by dropping functionality, or deciding we should all have new GUIS ... they can piss off.
Microsoft seems to be angling towards them being able to inform us what we're running, how it looks, and when that gets deployed.
And I'm sorry, Microsoft, but we neither trust your competence nor your motivations in this regard.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Version 8 and above are empty vessels for Microsoft's beyond-the-desktop ambitions.
Looks to me like they realized a few things:
1) Practically NOBODY upgraded Windows on their machines, they simply got a new computer that had the latest version of Windows on it when their old machine got too slow, died, or was no longer shiny enough.
2) Circa Vista and Windows 8 it became clear that people were actually going with older OS's on new machines rather than adopting MS's vision of how they should use their computer, and still never upgraded. MS was pretty powerless against this. Even their attempt to push touch by tying it to Windows 8 on laptops backfired and people would rather take Windows 7 on a laptop to avoid a touch based laptop with Windows 8 on it.
So MS is loosing almost no revenue by keeping you up to date, but they get to push whatever new "vision" they have on us at almost any time. So we can get Vista'ed, lose the Start menu, get tiled, Clippy'ed, or Ribbon'ed any time they decide to "improve" our lives.
Android (well Google) and Apple both pissed off their customers by breaking all their software with every single frequent update. Windows is the only product that hasn't technically done that since the OSes are too few and far between. Maybe they should look at fragmentation and compatibility disasters at their competitors and NOT DO THE EXACT SAME THING!!!
VISTA + 8.x = subject: Drive stockprice down, it can be bought cheap (release a model customer's wanted, 10, with a working start menu and fixing bugs in former prior versions, and then reap the ill-gotten rewards).
Gentrification happens in land deals all the time, and they take time, just like the entire process I describe above has.
(I.E. They move in scum into once nice neighborhoods to create ghettos, then, they buy up land for commercial purposes cheap, and then bring down the law to clean up said ghettos and sell it for a HUGE profit).
Anyone who doesn't understand what's going on at MS really needs to understand the world of business: A world of the WORST SCUM AND SHARKS THERE IS (makes street hoods look like pikers) and "their kind" doesn't care if they ruin something good. Their God = The "Holy Dollar", nothing more (makes up for their 2" dicks).
The PC won the computer wars years before the Mac came out, since it had the magic initials on it (IBM). It never lost its dominance in market share, although it became clear over time that the dominance actually belonged to the OS (PC-DOS, then MS-DOS).
The PC won the computer wars over Apple because IBM did not care to hunt down or even hinder clones while Apple did.
There was an evolving cloners scene in Taiwan and environs eager to try their (re)engineering skills with the Apple II but Cuppertino scared them away.
Enter IBM with that PC box and the cloners switch horses, meet no resistance and succeed to create a world standard almost immediately.
IBM wins, cloners win, consumers win, world economy had a new cycle to run through and IP evangelists decided to wait a decade or two before organizing the roll back.
605413? Yes, it's a prime.