Tiled Linux Distros
-
@Dashrender said:
Frankly I use 8 and 8.1 interchangeably - typically it doesn't matter, though in this case it might.
No different than using 7 and 8 interchangeably or 8.1 and 10. It's a separate OS with a different kernel. It's part of the Vista -> 7 -> 8 -> 8.1 -> 10 desktop family.
Windows 8 is 2012 and NT 6.2. Windows 8.1 is 2012 R2 and NT 6.3.
-
Yes teacher - I understand... Frankly calling it 8.1 was the dumbest, it would have been better off called Windows 8 second edition... this point names imply to the masses (obviously not to people like Scott) that the lineage is very close and the above distinction is unwarranted.
-
@Dashrender said:
Yes teacher - I understand... Frankly calling it 8.1 was the dumbest, it would have been better off called Windows 8 second edition... this point names imply to the masses (obviously not to people like Scott) that the lineage is very close and the above distinction is unwarranted.
It implies but is incorrect. Very important that IT not treat the naming casually. It can matter, like in this case, where we are talking about licensing or compatibility or features. Really, when doesn't it matter? It's easy to say that they are similar, but they are still as different as any two others members of the same lineage when it comes to what matters (solving problems, knowing how things work, licensing, etc.) While they "look" similar, I can't think of any scenario where not knowing which OS you are discussing doesn't matter.
Absolutely the naming was terrible. The .1 makes people feel one thing. But they sort of corrected that by jumping to 10, reverse implying that it was spiritually 9.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
reverse implying that it was spiritually 9.
Not even once have I ever seen that inferred. So I would say not.
-
Windows 8 SE would not be the same, in theory. There should have been no connection to Windows 8 as it was a full OS. It should have been 9 or something weird like Vista was, just a name. It wasn't an update to 8, it was a full fledged new OS. And even the visual components of the interface changed.
-
@JaredBusch said:
Not even once have I ever seen that inferred. So I would say not.
Why not? Doesn't the missing link between 8 and 10 imply nothing more or less than the completely "read into" implication of .1? What makes one more meaningful than the other?
-
Because as Jared said, no one other than you has ever said that that I've read.
-
Otherwise, what does the leap to 10 imply? Does it imply that the number means literally nothing (which I would agree with) which then does actually mean that 8 -> 8.1 doesn't mean anything more than 8.1 -> 10. Or does it imply that 8.1 -> 10 was a step so large as to qualify as a double jump?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@JaredBusch said:
Not even once have I ever seen that inferred. So I would say not.
Why not? Doesn't the missing link between 8 and 10 imply nothing more or less than the completely "read into" implication of .1? What makes one more meaningful than the other?
Nope, it does not. In fact I, find the 9 being skipped as more likely to avoid issue with old legacy code as implied by some snarky posts back when it was announced. When code checked for "Windows 9*" implying 95/98. There is a serious amount of old bad code still in active use out there.
-
@Dashrender said:
Because as Jared said, no one other than you has ever said that that I've read.
Okay, but does that change the implication? Why do you feel it is okay to imply something in one case and not the other? Just because it's become common can be because one happened first, one was picked up by the media, one is easier to be lazy about, etc.
-
This whole 8 vs 8.1 presents a whole load of problems, especially in the arena of Licenses and keys, etc.
If you had Windows 8, you received (or at least could) a free upgrade to Windows 8.1, BUT the Windows 8 key won't work for Windows 8.1. So, when you have to reinstall for whatever reason, if you have a Windows 8 key in your UEFI, then I'm pretty sure you must start with a Windows 8 installation, then go and upgrade to 8.1.... what a pain!
-
@JaredBusch said:
Nope, it does not. In fact I, find the 9 being skipped as more likely to avoid issue with old legacy code as implied by some snarky posts back when it was announced. When code checked for "Windows 9*" implying 95/98. There is a serious amount of old bad code still in active use out there.
Okay, that makes a little sense. But supports that 8.1 was nine as much as anything else.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
Because as Jared said, no one other than you has ever said that that I've read.
Okay, but does that change the implication? Why do you feel it is okay to imply something in one case and not the other? Just because it's become common can be because one happened first, one was picked up by the media, one is easier to be lazy about, etc.
Yes it changes the implication from an implication assumed by everyone to an implication assumed by you.
For the most part allWindows naming is for marketing purposes. I would feel more confident that actually skipped Windows 9 to avoid marketing memories of Windows 95/98 than anything else.
-
@Dashrender said:
This whole 8 vs 8.1 presents a whole load of problems, especially in the arena of Licenses and keys, etc.
If you had Windows 8, you received (or at least could) a free upgrade to Windows 8.1, BUT the Windows 8 key won't work for Windows 8.1. So, when you have to reinstall for whatever reason, if you have a Windows 8 key in your UEFI, then I'm pretty sure you must start with a Windows 8 installation, then go and upgrade to 8.1.... what a pain!
Yes, they've done some really weird things with licensing. Part of that comes from the server side starting with 2003. They wanted to bring out updates but only force license updates half as often. So they started this insane R2 naming thing. There was nothing tying the 2003 to 2003 R2, or 2008 to 2008 R2 releases except that they got to share some licenses. It has caused no end of end user confusion. Which is why I'm so adamant about accuracy in how IT talks about these things. When we are casual about product names, versions, etc. it is easy to make mistakes, have bad information, etc.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@JaredBusch said:
Nope, it does not. In fact I, find the 9 being skipped as more likely to avoid issue with old legacy code as implied by some snarky posts back when it was announced. When code checked for "Windows 9*" implying 95/98. There is a serious amount of old bad code still in active use out there.
Okay, that makes a little sense. But supports that 8.1 was nine as much as anything else.
That's a great point, and one I had heard before, but forgot. But really 8 Second Edition really implies a new version. 8.1 does not at least to the straw pole I just took, imply a new version, only an upgrade, and probably a minor one at that.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Okay, that makes a little sense. But supports that 8.1 was nine as much as anything else.
No it does not support it. It does not go against your implication, true. But it also does not support your implication. You are trying to drum up your own opinion by stating that a fact that does not invalidate your opinion, is in fact validating it. That is not how it works.
-
@JaredBusch said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
Because as Jared said, no one other than you has ever said that that I've read.
Okay, but does that change the implication? Why do you feel it is okay to imply something in one case and not the other? Just because it's become common can be because one happened first, one was picked up by the media, one is easier to be lazy about, etc.
Yes it changes the implication from an implication assumed by everyone to an implication assumed by you.
For the most part allWindows naming is for marketing purposes. I would feel more confident that actually skipped Windows 9 to avoid marketing memories of Windows 95/98 than anything else.
Likewise, I've never heard this from anyone but you. So the "just one person's opinion" thing equally applies. I've never heard anyone state that they felt that the number 9 reminds people of 95 and 98 nor that those things carried bad memories. That seems an immense leap of marketing. What a long association or weirdness to think that people would have and doesn't make any sense given that the use of 8.1 did the opposite - associated a "fix" with the bad memory of 8 when they could have distanced themselves from something that was actively a bad memory rather than something I've never heard of stated as a bad memory from nearly two decades ago.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
This whole 8 vs 8.1 presents a whole load of problems, especially in the arena of Licenses and keys, etc.
If you had Windows 8, you received (or at least could) a free upgrade to Windows 8.1, BUT the Windows 8 key won't work for Windows 8.1. So, when you have to reinstall for whatever reason, if you have a Windows 8 key in your UEFI, then I'm pretty sure you must start with a Windows 8 installation, then go and upgrade to 8.1.... what a pain!
Yes, they've done some really weird things with licensing. Part of that comes from the server side starting with 2003. They wanted to bring out updates but only force license updates half as often. So they started this insane R2 naming thing. There was nothing tying the 2003 to 2003 R2, or 2008 to 2008 R2 releases except that they got to share some licenses. It has caused no end of end user confusion. Which is why I'm so adamant about accuracy in how IT talks about these things. When we are casual about product names, versions, etc. it is easy to make mistakes, have bad information, etc.
Touche - I do the same thing - for whatever reason I just don't consider the need in Windows 8 vs 8.1 - but you are correct and I should correct myself.
-
It's a interesting theory, I'll give you, that Microsoft is now forever fearful of the number 9 because of their 1990s products or obviously ME. Do you feel that the number 8 now haunts them as well and the name Vista? They very well might. But they are going to need a new strategy soon.
Marketing does and knows odd things, so it is far from impossible that this is the case. Just seems really obscure to me and I've never heard anything like this suggested.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Likewise, I've never heard this from anyone but you. So the "just one person's opinion" thing equally applies.
Because I just thought of it an said it. But the difference is that I am not trying to push it off as a truth on the community.
