Tiled Linux Distros
-
@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.
-
@JaredBusch said:
@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.
Now you are implying that I did the other, which I did not. I simply pointed out that in the same way that one number jump implies one thing, another one of the same sort would imply the same sort of thing. Not that either meant something (I believe neither does) nor that people are convinced or marketed effectively by either. What I stated was, I believe, a fact. In the same way that 8.1 implies nothing in a solid way but could be read into, exactly the same 10 does. That either has been grasped by the public is a completely unrelated concept and nothing that I implied at all, you implied that about what I said as if it was fact.
-
Basically, if the use of specific numbers implies something, you can't pick and choose when that has happened. Every argument you use for why 10 was an attempt to skip 9 would equally apply to why 8.1 was also an attempt to do so. I'm only saying that they are the same, not that either means something special.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@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.
You're mixing a few things I feel.
I tend to agree that the idea that people would confuse Windows 9 with Windows 9X is kinda obsurd, but the idea that crappy software would have a problem with the name Windows 9 - yeah I can totally see that, and see why they skipped that name.
But keeping the 8 in 8.1 did not assuage any fears from anyone I know who disliked Windows 8. Not only that, but the look and feel of Windows 8.1 vs 8 while having many key points making it better, really wasn't different enough in the day to day use to make a user believe it wasn't just a simple update to Windows 8 - if they really wanted/expected people to give 8.1 a chance, they Needed to change it's name completely. But then they would have the problem they have now.. oh look Microsoft is giving away a free upgrade.The end users NEVER considered 8.1 a free upgrade like they are considering the Windows 10 a free upgrade if for no other reason than marketing, but really more than that, the name didn't really change as far as the consumer was concerned, so there was not 'upgrade' to them.. only and update.
But, as you said... we in IT need to make sure when talking to like minded folks, ensure we are speaking correctly.
-
I'm actually pretty sure that you are completely in support of the point that I was making - that we can't imply something from the naming conventions as there are lots of reasons (mostly marketing) as to why they might occur. But you are unhappy that it was me that said it or how I said it or something. So everything you've said seems to match exactly what I'm trying to express, but you feel that I'm stating the opposite.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Basically, if the use of specific numbers implies something, you can't pick and choose when that has happened. Every argument you use for why 10 was an attempt to skip 9 would equally apply to why 8.1 was also an attempt to do so. I'm only saying that they are the same, not that either means something special.
why couldn't there be completely different reasons for doing one over the other?
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@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.
You're mixing a few things I feel.
I tend to agree that the idea that people would confuse Windows 9 with Windows 9X is kinda obsurd, but the idea that crappy software would have a problem with the name Windows 9 - yeah I can totally see that, and see why they skipped that name.
But keeping the 8 in 8.1 did not assuage any fears from anyone I know who disliked Windows 8. Not only that, but the look and feel of Windows 8.1 vs 8 while having many key points making it better, really wasn't different enough in the day to day use to make a user believe it wasn't just a simple update to Windows 8 - if they really wanted/expected people to give 8.1 a chance, they Needed to change it's name completely. But then they would have the problem they have now.. oh look Microsoft is giving away a free upgrade.The end users NEVER considered 8.1 a free upgrade like they are considering the Windows 10 a free upgrade if for no other reason than marketing, but really more than that, the name didn't really change as far as the consumer was concerned, so there was not 'upgrade' to them.. only and update.
But, as you said... we in IT need to make sure when talking to like minded folks, ensure we are speaking correctly.
Exactly. Given what little info we have, it seems really strange that the numbers were done to avoid 9, a distant and strange memory and software from that era would be 32 bit, and not 8 which was the current memory they were, as far as we know, trying to fix.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Basically, if the use of specific numbers implies something, you can't pick and choose when that has happened. Every argument you use for why 10 was an attempt to skip 9 would equally apply to why 8.1 was also an attempt to do so. I'm only saying that they are the same, not that either means something special.
why couldn't there be completely different reasons for doing one over the other?
It absolutely could be. That's my point. We can't read into the numbers. The way that the numbers change is arbitrary. If we can read into the one then we can read into the other equally. Since we are all of agreement that we can't read into the second number, why do we feel we can read into the first when they are essentially equally arbitrary (to us.)?
-
My whole point is that we can't read into any of the numbers as meaningful. Yes the populace has clearly decided to make some associations in the case of 8 -> 8.1, but that doesn't mean or imply that the numbering choice was meaningful in a non-marketing way (or possibly even there but that is really unlikely.) If we can read into it (we can't) then we should also be able to read into other numbers in the same way. If that is not the case, where is the logic that says that one case was special and the other is not? They seem to be the same thing, incremental upgrades with confusing naming conventions that we can't read into. But if we were able to read into the one, we should equally be able to read into the other using the same logic.
So therefore, if logic told us that a .1 jump was meaningful in one case, it should tell us that a 1.9 jump is meaningful to the other. Since we can't read into the 1.9, why can we read into the .1?
Does that make sense?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Now you are implying that I did the other, which I did not. I simply pointed out that in the same way that one number jump implies one thing, another one of the same sort would imply the same sort of thing. Not that either meant something (I believe neither does) nor that people are convinced or marketed effectively by either. What I stated was, I believe, a fact. In the same way that 8.1 implies nothing in a solid way but could be read into, exactly the same 10 does. That either has been grasped by the public is a completely unrelated concept and nothing that I implied at all, you implied that about what I said as if it was fact.
You are because when we said we had never heard of this anywhere you insisted that it was a fact. To me this sounded like this is pushing your opinion as a fact and the only reason I pushed back.
-
@JaredBusch said:
You are because when we said we had never heard of this anywhere you insisted that it was a fact. To me this sounded like this is pushing your opinion as a fact and the only reason I pushed back.
To which statement by me are you referring where I insisted that it was fact? I'm looking through the posts but haven't found it yet.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
My whole point is that we can't read into any of the numbers as meaningful. Yes the populace has clearly decided to make some associations in the case of 8 -> 8.1, but that doesn't mean or imply that the numbering choice was meaningful in a non-marketing way (or possibly even there but that is really unlikely.) If we can read into it (we can't) then we should also be able to read into other numbers in the same way. If that is not the case, where is the logic that says that one case was special and the other is not? They seem to be the same thing, incremental upgrades with confusing naming conventions that we can't read into. But if we were able to read into the one, we should equally be able to read into the other using the same logic.
So therefore, if logic told us that a .1 jump was meaningful in one case, it should tell us that a 1.9 jump is meaningful to the other. Since we can't read into the 1.9, why can we read into the .1?
Does that make sense?
No, it doesn't make sense because you're applying Scott's logic to something that isn't Scott. It would be great if everyone followed something like that logic, but as we all know that's rarely the case.
After being reminded about the programming name Windows 9x by Jared, it totally makes sense though that MS figured they should skip naming something Windows 9 - I do recall reading stories online after Windows 8 came out that the next version could have issues because of the name collision with Windows 9X - same goes for the P5 from Intel, They started with the P5, P6 then dropped to PI, PII, PIII, P4, but then Intel changed gears and started calling things Core and now i something or other... I'm willing to bet that the fact that P5 was used so long ago is why they did that.
MS in this case probably realized the same thing... when they released Windows 8.1, they didn't want people freaking out thinking they would have to purchase the next version by calling it Windows 10 or Windows XYZ because they always knew it would be completely free forever, why, because it was required to fix the boongoggle that was Windows 8.
Then we have today, the release of Windows 10 - honostly, I'm not entirely sure why they gave it away other than Microsoft really doesn't make the much money on upgrades only on new hardware sales, but of course they shorted themselves there too because now people won't have to upgrade some gear for a few more years.
-
@Dashrender said:
No, it doesn't make sense because you're applying Scott's logic to something that isn't Scott. It would be great if everyone followed something like that logic, but as we all know that's rarely the case.
Okay, so where is the breakdown in logic? What factors make one thing different from the other? What makes one number change meaningful and another not? I totally understand that "most people" see one as meaningful and the other not, but that doesn't imply that the logic is wrong or that the way people see it was intentional or actually means what they think that it might imply.
Calling it "Scott logic" feels like an easy out. Is it not logical? Where did I get the logic wrong? If this was described purely as a logic exercise, which extra piece of info is missing?
-
@Dashrender said:
After being reminded about the programming name Windows 9x by Jared, it totally makes sense though that MS figured they should skip naming something Windows 9 - I do recall reading stories online after Windows 8 came out that the next version could have issues because of the name collision with Windows 9X - same goes for the P5 from Intel, They started with the P5, P6 then dropped to PI, PII, PIII, P4, but then Intel changed gears and started calling things Core and now i something or other... I'm willing to bet that the fact that P5 was used so long ago is why they did that.
Yes, that is totally a valid reason why the number 9 was avoided. But I'm unclear how that isn't completely in support of the logic that I supplied. I realize that you seem to feel that it matters in one direction and not the other, but other than your impression of that, is there logic that makes one true and not the other?
-
@Dashrender said:
MS in this case probably realized the same thing... when they released Windows 8.1, they didn't want people freaking out thinking they would have to purchase the next version by calling it Windows 10 or Windows XYZ because they always knew it would be completely free forever, why, because it was required to fix the boongoggle that was Windows 8.
Perhaps. But this doesn't fit their other patterns, like that of making Windows 10 free or avoiding a boondoggle name. So seems unlikely, but possible, of course. But if this is the case, like the last statement about avoiding the number 9, this is in support of what I said - that the number doesn't imply that the two are special or interchangeable.
You keep supporting what I thought I was saying, but stating it as if it is the opposite.
