Is Windows 10 Fall Update a new version?
-
@art_of_shred said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@art_of_shred said:
11? Who knows? It might be Windows 2014 that comes out next... lol
We are talking the kernel, not the OS brand name.
So now 10 and 11 are kernel names? That's what I was joking about.
it may seem like jokes, but if you think about it.. it's easier for most folks to have the kernel match the OS number.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Yes, 10 is the new kernel name. And the real question is given that 6.5 maps to 10.0, what would what should be 6.6 map to and depending on that answer, what would NT 7 map to then?
I'm pretty sure its 6.4 maps to kernel 10.
-
Sorry, yes 6.4 = 10. It's 6.5 we aren't sure what it will be.
-
So what constitues jumping a main number, typically? say from 10 to 11 (assuming we never see another new Windows).
-
@Dashrender said:
So what constitues jumping a main number, typically? say from 10 to 11 (assuming we never see another new Windows).
There is no strict guide but it often implies a fundamental rewrite of the code and signals a high risk of compatibility breaks. It's hard to describe but easy to see. NT 4 to NT 5 to NT6 fundamentally changed how the code worked and compatibility between those releases was minimal.
In the Linux world, there has not been a major release since 2.0 long, long ago. Linux even mentioned that at this point the kernel is so mature that they were unsure what would ever trigger a major version jump again. Asterisk did the same thing.
In both cases, they moved the minor number into the major spot and dropped the major number entirely. So Linux is "forever" on the 2.x family. And Asterisk is forever on the 1.x branch.
-
A good example was Waste Watcher when @andyw and I were at the helm. Version 1 was written in VBScript and ASP. It was maintained and versioned for many years.
We went to version 2.0 in 2005 after six years on the 1.x family. The version jump was because of a core change to the technology and a full rewrite from the ground up. Moved to C# and ASP.NET, new platform dependencies and even a new database behind it.
-
Good explanation!
OK, kernel 4.0 = NT 4.0
was kernel 5.0 = Windows 2000?
and kernel 6.0 = Windows XP? -
@Dashrender said:
Good explanation!
OK, kernel 4.0 = NT 4.0
was kernel 5.0 = Windows 2000?
and kernel 6.0 = Windows XP?4.0 = NT 4
5.0 = 2000
6.0 = Vista -
Window XP was 5.1. XP SP3 was 5.2.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
Good explanation!
OK, kernel 4.0 = NT 4.0
was kernel 5.0 = Windows 2000?
and kernel 6.0 = Windows XP?4.0 = NT 4
5.0 = 2000
6.0 = VistaAwww.. man completely spaced Vista.. that makes more sense.
-
That is partially what made Windows 7 so misleading. Vista was 6. MS tried to mislead people by calling the tiny, itty bitty update from 6.0 to 6.1 as "Windows 7". It made peoples' brains think that a major version release had happened when, in fact, it was one of the smallest updates in recent times.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
That is partially what made Windows 7 so misleading. Vista was 6. MS tried to mislead people by calling the tiny, itty bitty update from 6.0 to 6.1 as "Windows 7". It made peoples' brains think that a major version release had happened when, in fact, it was one of the smallest updates in recent times.
It might have been small on the kernel side, but it was pretty epic on the UI side. So I can't give you this one.
And while the UI changes from 7 to 8 where even more dramatic, people hated them.. so that didn't work until the 8.1 upgrade. And then again now on the Windows 10 upgrade - all still on the kernel 6.x
You're right we might not ever see a kernel major number change again (as long as we remember that 10 actually = 6.4
-
@Dashrender said:
It might have been small on the kernel side, but it was pretty epic on the UI side. So I can't give you this one.
Is UI even a factor? By that logic moving from Fedora 23 with Gnome 3 to Fedora 23 with KDE would be a major change when, in fact, it is totally superficial and nothing has changed. It's just window dressing. It's not even the OS itself changing.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
It might have been small on the kernel side, but it was pretty epic on the UI side. So I can't give you this one.
Is UI even a factor? By that logic moving from Fedora 23 with Gnome 3 to Fedora 23 with KDE would be a major change when, in fact, it is totally superficial and nothing has changed. It's just window dressing. It's not even the OS itself changing.
From a consumer perspective, yes the UI is a major factor.. in fact, I'd go so far as to call it the only factor. Another factor might be compatibility with previous versions, but then again, maybe not.
-
@Dashrender said:
From a consumer perspective, yes the UI is a major factor.. in fact, I'd go so far as to call it the only factor. Another factor might be compatibility with previous versions, but then again, maybe not.
Okay but is consumer perspective relevant? If so, there is no point in even knowing the product. By that perspective many people in the 2000s actually thought that Linux was the new version of Windows and that LibreOffice was the upgrade to MS Office 2003.
I'd argue that being "easily fooled by unrelated things" does not make the opinion applicable. I understand that people who know nothing about the product only care about things they see and that they are easily fooled. But by that logic, fake Coach handbags ARE Coach handbags rather than knockoffs.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
From a consumer perspective, yes the UI is a major factor.. in fact, I'd go so far as to call it the only factor. Another factor might be compatibility with previous versions, but then again, maybe not.
Okay but is consumer perspective relevant? If so, there is no point in even knowing the product. By that perspective many people in the 2000s actually thought that Linux was the new version of Windows and that LibreOffice was the upgrade to MS Office 2003.
I'd argue that being "easily fooled by unrelated things" does not make the opinion applicable. I understand that people who know nothing about the product only care about things they see and that they are easily fooled. But by that logic, fake Coach handbags ARE Coach handbags rather than knockoffs.
LOL Touche!
