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.

14 of 154 comments (clear)

  1. Why you should care by homey+of+my+owney · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's not about how it's labeled, it's about the level of difficulty getting from one to the next.

    1. Re:Why you should care by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Or, in some tragic cases, from getting from next back to former.

  2. WindOwS X by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    They'll just do what Apple did, like Windows 10.4 Tiger, Windows 10.5 Leopard, Windows 10.6 Snow Leopard, etc.

    1. Re:WindOwS X by jellomizer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.
    2. Re:WindOwS X by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 4, Funny

      Why would MS ever copy Apple? How idiotic. Everyone knows MS is the innovator and all Apple innovates is TV ads.

    3. Re:WindOwS X by sl3xd · · Score: 4, Informative

      Your history is incomplete.

      You're aware there were hordes of Apple II clones, right? I started my computing life on a Franklin ACE 1000 - a superior clone of the Apple II. After it died, I got another Apple II clone (A "Laser 128" as I recall). There were Apple clones for over ten years with the Apple II, and several more years with the Macintosh.

      Apple II clones died for two reasons: The Apple II was a very old architecture, only capable of 64k of memory. Also, most of the cloners illegally copied Apple's BIOS. Even then, Apple vs. Franklin was in 1987 - ten years after the Apple II was released.

      IBM did sue clone makers into oblivion. In fact, after Apple vs. Franklin, IBM sued a number of early cloners out of existence for the because they also illegally copied from IBM's BIOS.

      The difference is that nobody saw the point in writing a clean-room Apple II ROM in 1987. The world had moved beyond 64k, and there was no point in denying reality. Even Apple was pounding nails in the Apple II's coffin.

      In contrast, Phoenix and AMI both had clean-room IBM BIOS clones written in 1984 and '85 - years before Apple vs. Franklin. IBM couldn't touch Phoenix or AMI.

      So IBM tried to destroy cloners by creating the backwards (but not forwards) compatible PS/2, complete with their backwards (but not forwards) compatible OS/2.

      In the end, it came down to price: A clone was more capable than IBM's PS/2 disaster, and had a cost far less than the PS/2 or a Macintosh.

      IBM tried its best to kill the PC clone. The difference is that unlike the Apple II, the PC clone could handily beat the PS/2 that was supposed to replace it.

      Never forget: The PC clone didn't just beat the Apple Mac - it beat IBM's replacement for the PC as well.

      And it did so for the same reason Timex has far more market share than Rolex or Tag Heuer: It does the same job for a lot less money.

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
  3. who cares? Me. by dAzED1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  4. Our own computers ... by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If it makes sense to release something called Windows 10 R2, Windows 11, or Windows Yoghurt â" seriously, who cares? â" then they'll do that.

    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.
    1. Re:Our own computers ... by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I work on mission critical software that runs on Linux... When I say mission critical I mean failure can mean people die and property is destroyed.

      But that in no way means that all mission critical/enterprise software has any meaningful open source analogs.

      I'm not saying it's not possible to run mission critical software on Linux, but I'm saying all the drooling idiots who say "yarg, run teh linux and teh open sores" are usually talking out of the ass and don't know a damned thing.

      Sorry, but I run stuff which has been around for 10+ years, has millions invested in it, and impacts many aspects of company business.

      So when some whiny punk says "just run Linux", they demonstrate how utterly clueless they are. In the real world, that's rarely an option.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:Our own computers ... by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Long time /. user here; I've been doing game dev for 20+ years and as someone who uses Windows, OSX, and Linux daily and thinks all OS's suck, some just more then others -- hopefully you won't treat this as just a random user posting ...

      It's true Open Source can't solve all business needs. (Anytime an ideology is taken to an extreme you usually end up with delusions, but I digress.)

      However, I was curious what are your specific business needs that OSS can't solve?

      It sounds like you are tied to closed source and MS. Right now you are at the mercy of Microsoft. Is that where your business wants to stay ?

      i.e.
      What is your 10 year migration plan to not be locked into one vendor's proprietary solutions? (Notice how I didn't specify MS or Linux.)

      If you have already spent millions on your platform, what is it going to cost you to stay with MS when they no longer support your needs?

  5. Windows 7 was last real version by JoeyRox · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Version 8 and above are empty vessels for Microsoft's beyond-the-desktop ambitions.

    1. Re:Windows 7 was last real version by iampiti · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Where are my mod points when I need them?
      Totally agree. Windows 7 is an OS that does what's supposed to: Stay away and let you do your work. Windows 10 is a giant advertisement for Microsoft services: Don't like OneDrive? Sorry you can't uninstall it. Don't want to use Bing search? Sorry it's baked in to run when you try to do a search on your computer.
      You even get suggestions (ads) for apps on the Start Menu! Also it's a bipolar UI, an unholy mix of touch/mobile and desktop flavors and applications and even in the desktop you're sometimes forced to use a touch UI for some tasks.
      Windows 7 was a nice OS for users, Win 10 it's only for Microsoft sake, no wonder it's a free upgrade: They're hoping to get the money from you through your data, the money they'll get from you using their services, etc...

  6. Wiser MS? by Moof123 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  7. Obviously by It+doesn't+come+easy · · Score: 5, Funny

    After all, Microsoft has been working on Windows for 30+ years. By now it must be as good as it gets. A "Perfect 10", so to speak. All problems fixed, all security issues resolved, time to move on to bigger and better things.

    --
    The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.