Windows 9 Too Good to Release

[Ben]

Stand by for Windows 10.

This parody article from last year is all too true. Windows always screws up every other release, and now they're skipping the name of the release that would be the good one for the name of the release that will be the next bad one. 

http://www.infoworld.com/article/2613504/microsoft-windows/microsoft-windows-microsoft-skips-too-good-windows-9-jumps-to-windows-10.html

[230RN]

I'll wait for Windows 987.

[Brad Johnson]

I want it to go to 11.

Brad

[roo_ster]

I want it to go to 11.

Brad

Why not just make 10 better?

[vaskidmark]

Why not just make 10 better?

Because 10 has always been the bestest.  You cannot improve on perfection.  10 is, has, and always will be "G*d made this" - except if it's Windows.

stay safe.

[TommyGunn]

Because 10 has always been the bestest.  You cannot improve on perfection.  10 is, has, and always will be "G*d made this" - except if it's Windows.

stay safe.

It is not perfection unless it's released by Glock................

[GigaBuist]

Because 10 has always been the bestest.  You cannot improve on perfection.

Exactly.. and that's why OS X will never change its name.

*ducks and runs

(Posted from an Ubuntu 14.04 laptop running WindowMaker)

[RevDisk]

Have it running on my VMware environment.

Essentially, it's Windows trying to be Android. Their app store looks exactly like Google Play. The start menu is back, but goofy. It's half normal, half metro. But if you unpin all of Metro thingies, it disappears and it's almost ok. Classic Shell isn't an absolute mandatory necessity like it is with Windows 8 and Server 2012, but it would still be a significant improvement over stock Win 10 start menu.

As a tip, try right clicking on start menu.

Overall, it's functional. It's what Windows 8.1 should be (it's really just Win 8.2), but Windows 7 is much better for most users. With absolutely no sarcasm or joking, Win 10 is much better than XP, 7, 8.1 for folks that are technology illiterate. However, if you have even minimal experience with using technology, Win 7 is better.

[Ben]

Overall, it's functional. It's what Windows 8.1 should be (it's really just Win 8.2), but Windows 7 is much better for most users. With absolutely no sarcasm or joking, Win 10 is much better than XP, 7, 8.1 for folks that are technology illiterate. However, if you have even minimal experience with using technology, Win 7 is better.

Unfortunately most people seem to fall into the former category vs the latter, so those of us in the latter are kinda screwed I guess. 

Thanks for the review though!  I didn't know there were betas in the wild.

[Brad Johnson]

Why not just make 10 better?

Not a Spinal Tap fan, I take it? 

Brad

[roo_ster]

Not a Spinal Tap fan, I take it? 

Brad

My second favorite Rob Reiner film.


Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation.

Marty DiBergi:
"This tasteless cover is a good indication of the lack of musical invention within. The musical growth of this band cannot even be charted. They are treading water in a sea of retarded sexuality and bad poetry."

Nigel Tufnel:
That's just nitpicking, isn't it?

=============

Nigel Tufnel:
We've got Armadillos in our trousers. It's really quite frightening.

[RevDisk]

Unfortunately most people seem to fall into the former category vs the latter, so those of us in the latter are kinda screwed I guess. 

Thanks for the review though!  I didn't know there were betas in the wild.

http://revdisk.org/blog/?p=193

Longer review, doubt anyone in particular will care.

[Mannlicher]

I still miss DOS 3.0   

[lee n. field]

I still miss DOS 3.0   

I might have a copy around here.

[Brad Johnson]

3.3 for teh win. 4.0 for teh fail.

Brad

[Perd Hapley]

Not a Spinal Tap fan, I take it? 

Brad

He was playing out the dialogue.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOO5S4vxi0o#t=0m38s

Who's not a Spinal Tap fan, now? 

[Phyphor]

3.3 for teh win. 4.0 for teh fail.

Brad

4 was fine if you didn't allow DOSSHELL to load in your AUTOEXEC.BAT file. 

Not that it brought much to the table, otherwise.

[lee n. field]

4 was fine if you didn't allow DOSSHELL to load in your AUTOEXEC.BAT file. 

Not that it brought much to the table, otherwise.

Native support for larger partitions, IIRC.  No more 20MB C:

5.0 was a sweet spot.

[Brad Johnson]

He was playing out the dialogue.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOO5S4vxi0o#t=0m38s

Who's not a Spinal Tap fan, now? 

I stand before thee, shamed and humiliated...

Brad

[RocketMan]

I still miss DOS 3.0   

I might have a copy around here.

I've got 6.2 around here someplace.  Double the fun.

[Fitz]

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/windows-10-why-microsoft-skipped-windows-9-9769537.html

[Phyphor]

Native support for larger partitions, IIRC.  No more 20MB C:

5.0 was a sweet spot.

Yeah, but 6 really was the game changer.

5.0's use of HIMEM & EMM386 was nice, but the way one had to manually manage them was cumbersome as hell.  If you weren't that knowledgeable about computers and you had an issue with a piece of equipment's memory range being mapped over by emm386, you were SCREWED until you either got someone who knew to help or found some help on a BBS/the internet/FIDOnet.

But yeah, 5 definitely was where MS-DOS really grew up.

[lee n. field]

Yeah, but 6 really was the game changer.

5.0's use of HIMEM & EMM386 was nice, but the way one had to manually manage them was cumbersome as hell.  If you weren't that knowledgeable about computers and you had an issue with a piece of equipment's memory range being mapped over by emm386, you were SCREWED until you either got someone who knew to help or found some help on a BBS/the internet/FIDOnet.

But yeah, 5 definitely was where MS-DOS really grew up.

I got to where I could do DOS 5 memory management pretty well manually.

There was also Quarterdeck's QEMM, if you wanted to go that route.  (And DesqView, full preemptive multitasking of DOS apps, with good serial port support.)

I never had a problem with DOS 6.0, like many people did.  As karmic payback, my initial foray into Win95 was a horrific disaster.

Something I wrote about that at the time:

Thought you-all might want to hear my Windows 95 experience.

On Monday my boss gave me a copy of Win95 to take home and attempt
to load.  I spent Monday cleaning up my system, making 100MB
available on c:, virus scanning, defragging, norton disk-dr.ing,
etc.  I made a full tape backup with verify.  I made backup copies
of config.sys, autoexec.bat, windows\*.grp, *.ini and *.pif files to
a subdirectory.  I wrote down the IRQ, address and DMA of all
installed cards.  That system was _clean_--no conflicts, everything
worked right.  Also note that I had _no_ trouble installing OS/2 2.1
or Warp.  This is a no surprises AMI BIOS generic clone, like
millions of others out there.

Tuesday I do the install.  The readme says that QEMM causes
problems, so I switch to himem/emm386.  The readme says that
lantastic server shouldn't be loaded, so I rem it out.  Boot to DOS,
change to the CD and run setup.  I choose to not to install over my
current Windows.  All goes well for a while.  Win95 detects my
modem, then my mouse cursor disappears.  Good thing I'm up on
keyboard equivalents.  Onward we go.  Win95 detects the make and
model of my network card, but gets the irq and address wrong (OK, so
you can fix this eventually in the control panel).  Win95 attempts
to send a test page to my printer.  Nothing prints.  Setup procedes
to completion.  I reboot ("Starting Windows 95. . ."!) and the
system comes up to the windows desktop.  (It blows away Boot
Manager, but this is documented in the readme along with the
procedure for reenabling it.)

Window95 detected that I had a Trident video card.  It defaulted to
16 color mode but offered a 256 color mode.  I select that and start
having problems.  Windows 95 hereafter would either hang on boot,
boot in 16color mode, or boot in 256 color mode but with no mouse
(and what does the color depth have to do with the mouse?!?).
Windows 95 offered the option of using windows 3.1 drivers.  I tried
this but it just got me into deeper problems.  It's late, I decide
to hang it up and tomorrow I'd uninstall and try it again.

(Oh, yes.  No more GPFs.  They're now called fatal exceptions.  I
saw a couple.  Familiar blue screen.)

Wednesday I try to run uninstall.  Uninstall won't run.  I decide to
do it manually.  I boot off a dos 6.2 floppy and try to sys the
drive.  No luck: "no room for system on destination disk".  Norton
disktool is able to make my c: bootable with 6.2.  I boot clean,
copy my startup files out of their hiding place and reboot.  Files
are missing.  My cdrom driver, lantastic files and mouse driver are
missing--as in "file not found"!  ("hnuh?!?!").  I run Norton Disk
Doctor on general principles.  It finds a subdirectory with invalid
files, but is unable to fix it (PCTools Diskfix was able to fix it).
 Remember, this system was clean 2 days previously.  At this point I
decide to reformat and restore from tape.

Three days shot.  No progress.  This is my payback for not having
had any problems with DOS 6.0.

So, who wants to move their business over to Windows 95?

[bedlamite]

[lee n. field]

Because 10 has always been the bestest.  You cannot improve on perfection.  10 is, has, and always will be "G*d made this" - except if it's Windows.

Which means the questions is "Ah, but what god?*"

*Borrowed from a Douglas Adams book.