Microsoft Confirms That Windows 10 Kernel Will be 10.0

CommanderFrank

Cat Can't Scratch It
Joined
May 9, 2000
Messages
75,400
Microsoft confirmed the company is finally getting its stuff together, literally. The next version of Windows will be designated 10 and to go with that designation, the kernel version will also be 10. That doesn’t sound like much of an accomplishment, but it will be the first time in a great while that version matched kernel.

This large jump in version number is likely related to the massive overhaul of the underlying components of the OS to make it the core for all of Microsoft's products.
 
that is a big jump , lets hope it works in a bigger way too ;)

Just cause they bumped the number from 6 to 10 doesn't mean it's a drastic difference. Just means that Microsoft decided to give it the number 10 for marketing reasons. Otherwise it should be version 7 at best.
 
Even if they went with 6.4 it still would of been appropriate that Windows 10 is the name of the OS.

But I do like that they are aligning the name with the Kernel (or Kernel with the name in this case).

Hopefully most developers the past 15 years or so have moved away from hard coding so a kernel name change shouldn't matter. I have seen very few application compatibility issues since the jump from XP to Vista. XP was the end of an era in some regards.
 
Hopefully 10 isn't a turd like 8 even though 10 = #2x5!
Can't see how it can get worse....
 
A kernel version change is not due to marketing reasons. Good lord people.

It means they are doing major under the hood updates and they just decided to make the version 10, since they are releasing Windows 10. The kernel could be V7, but the number they version it is not what matters, the fact that we are moving to a new full point is what matters. Last time this happened was when vista dropped, and 2000 before it. It is a big jump regardless of the number. Right now my preview box is 6.4. Going to a new point version for the kernel will likely make all the Vista/7/8 drivers break.

And I can already see that 7 is the new XP. People will hang onto it FAR past its useful life for no reason but they are scared to move.
 
A kernel version change is not due to marketing reasons. Good lord people.

It means they are doing major under the hood updates and they just decided to make the version 10, since they are releasing Windows 10. The kernel could be V7, but the number they version it is not what matters, the fact that we are moving to a new full point is what matters. Last time this happened was when vista dropped, and 2000 before it. It is a big jump regardless of the number. Right now my preview box is 6.4. Going to a new point version for the kernel will likely make all the Vista/7/8 drivers break.

And I can already see that 7 is the new XP. People will hang onto it FAR past its useful life for no reason but they are scared to move.

Being scared to move and not being willing to put up with unnecessary bullshit are two entirely different things. Most people aren't "Scared" to move to win 8, they just don't have the time or desire to put up with stupid design decisions when win 7 works perfectly well for them. The old saying goes "If it isn't broke, don't fix it". Well for the overwhelming majority of people, win 7 isn't broke. So they don't upgrade when there is no compelling reason to.
 
This is more a matter of caving in to marketing people that "getting it together". The Windows kernel version used to mean something, now it won't.

And no, there are no big "under the hood" changes for Windows 10. It's all about fixing the userspace parts, most notably the keyboard/mouse interface. I'm running the preview on one of my systems, there are very few "behind the scenes" differences from Windows 8.1.
 
Why stop at 10? Why not go straight to11 claiming it's so advanced that the number 10 is insufficient to portray the advance-ness of the advancements.
Btw, where did "9" go?
 
Why stop at 10? Why not go straight to11 claiming it's so advanced that the number 10 is insufficient to portray the advance-ness of the advancements.
Btw, where did "9" go?

They skipped '9' because a lot of software/scripts/sites/etc out there check for Windows versions, and look for all the Windows 95/98/98SE releases as 'Windows 9[something]'.

Basically, they skipped 'Windows 9' to avoid compatibility problems resulting from all the sloppy version checking out there.

(At least, that's the official line)
 
Hopefully 10 isn't a turd like 8 even though 10 = #2x5!
Can't see how it can get worse....

To each his own. I think Windows 8.1 is the best windows. All it takes a little customization and getting used to.
 
To each his own. I think Windows 8.1 is the best windows. All it takes a little customization and getting used to.

This, it's faster, more usable, more stable, and boasts a lot of extra little features that add up to make it far better than win7 ever could have hoped to be. Win7 is basically xp comparatively.
 
Being scared to move and not being willing to put up with unnecessary bullshit are two entirely different things. Most people aren't "Scared" to move to win 8, they just don't have the time or desire to put up with stupid design decisions when win 7 works perfectly well for them. The old saying goes "If it isn't broke, don't fix it". Well for the overwhelming majority of people, win 7 isn't broke. So they don't upgrade when there is no compelling reason to.

XP users say that too, but it's still wrong.
 
A kernel version change is not due to marketing reasons. Good lord people.

It means they are doing major under the hood updates and they just decided to make the version 10, since they are releasing Windows 10. The kernel could be V7, but the number they version it is not what matters, the fact that we are moving to a new full point is what matters. Last time this happened was when vista dropped, and 2000 before it. It is a big jump regardless of the number. Right now my preview box is 6.4. Going to a new point version for the kernel will likely make all the Vista/7/8 drivers break.

And I can already see that 7 is the new XP. People will hang onto it FAR past its useful life for no reason but they are scared to move.

Quoted for truth. But it's like explaining nuclear physics to a cave man... .
 
This is a recent change as the 6.4 code is already in some of the other MS products, namely SCCM (saw it just this week).
 
Apparently, you use the same logic as Microsoft. Users en mass, however, disagree. Windows XP still has a greater market share than 8 and 8.1 combined.

The other major market share tracker, StatCounter, has shown 8.x with larger market share than XP for three months now. And with the onslaught of all of these cheap Windows devices, even this survey will probably show a different story soon.
 
The other major market share tracker, StatCounter, has shown 8.x with larger market share than XP for three months now. And with the onslaught of all of these cheap Windows devices, even this survey will probably show a different story soon.

Aren't you out of lipstick for this pig? XP is EOL and not supported anymore. Of course 8 will be passing it.
 
Aren't you out of lipstick for this pig? XP is EOL and not supported anymore. Of course 8 will be passing it.

I was just pointing out that some say that 8.x already passed XP market share months ago. And with these new super cheap Windows devices that have free Windows on them, 8.1's market share is likely to accelerate. So I guess Microsoft couldn't sell 8 so now it's giving it away. But that is driving down decent Windows hardware to all time low prices which is certainly good for consumers. Windows laptops, tablets and hybrids coming in cheaper than Android tablets and Chromebooks, pretty wild.
 
The tech preview was basically the same messy 2 UI crap as Win 8.x. I'll wait for the next big preview.
 
A kernel version change is not due to marketing reasons. Good lord people.
...

Going to a new point version for the kernel will likely make all the Vista/7/8 drivers break.

It's hard not to call it a marketing move when the whole jump to 10 thing is purely marketing in the first place.

Until I see some of these revolutionary under-the-hood changes it's just marketing to get 7 users excited about something new. Numbers are just numbers, and from what I've seen so far I'm not too excited to upgrade. 8 sufferers get the start menu back and newcomers from 7 can enjoy paying $10 for the free Media Center program included in 7 Home Premium. Windows DLC, yay! I'm surprised they haven't turned solitaire and photo viewer into DLC yet.
 
My next system probably will have 8.1 on it instead of 7, but if it is 8.1, my very second step (first is installing a non-IE browser and subsequently uninstalling the browser) is finding out how to change the win phone start interface to the old version.

My one biggest gripe about Win 8.1 is that, the start menu that isn't even that good on a phone screen it is designed for, much less for a computer with a mouse
 
A kernel version change is not due to marketing reasons. Good lord people.
You don't see Linux moving their kernel from 3.18 to 10.00. And linux does go through many kernels changes. Anyone who does anything in software development would increment it by 7 at best. Not that there's a rule book to this, but that's just good software development.
It means they are doing major under the hood updates and they just decided to make the version 10, since they are releasing Windows 10. The kernel could be V7, but the number they version it is not what matters, the fact that we are moving to a new full point is what matters. Last time this happened was when vista dropped, and 2000 before it. It is a big jump regardless of the number. Right now my preview box is 6.4. Going to a new point version for the kernel will likely make all the Vista/7/8 drivers break.
If there were any major changes to the kernel we'll see much more than drivers breaking. I'll be waiting for the benchmarks, which would likely be no difference.
And I can already see that 7 is the new XP. People will hang onto it FAR past its useful life for no reason but they are scared to move.
Yea sure scared to move. Pointless waste of money more like it. But hey what do I know, I'm too scared. Excuse me while I work on my more comfortable Windows 7 machine. And my Linux machines. Also my Mac. Can't forget my mac. Android phones and tablet. Android in my car.

Yes yes, I'm afraid of change. Change bad.
 
I have been running Windows 8.1 on my Desktop and on my MacBook for since launch. I recently decided to downgrade to windows 7 on my desktop just to see the differences. I have 3 RAID 1 arrays on my system and the windows 7 installed fucked up all of them to a point that I had to restore from external backups.

No USB 3.0 support, no ability to deal with 4TB RAID arrays properly and when I finally had the system up and running, the whole thing just seemed so much slower and more antiquated compared with Win 8.1. Needless to say that, I'm now back on Windows 8.1 and will be upgrading to Windows 10 as soon as it is released.
 
A kernel version change is not due to marketing reasons. Good lord people.

It means they are doing major under the hood updates and they just decided to make the version 10, since they are releasing Windows 10. The kernel could be V7, but the number they version it is not what matters, the fact that we are moving to a new full point is what matters. Last time this happened was when vista dropped, and 2000 before it. It is a big jump regardless of the number. Right now my preview box is 6.4. Going to a new point version for the kernel will likely make all the Vista/7/8 drivers break.

And I can already see that 7 is the new XP. People will hang onto it FAR past its useful life for no reason but they are scared to move.
Have they ever changed a windows version number going from a release candidate to the final version?

I have a feeling that it neither represents the overhaul of the system nor any marketing purpose. I feel like microsoft just got tired of having two different confusing number schemes especially after windows 8 released a decimal version: 8.1

windows 6.1 - windows 7
windows 6.2 - windows 8
windows 6.3 - windows 8.1
windows 6.4 - windows 10.

It just doesn't make sense and you can easily see how in the future it would cause frustration:

(example) windows 8.1 - windows 13.1
which windows 8.1 are we referring to?

However I'm pulling all of this out of my ass.
 
Version numbers have been a problem since Windows95. Any old timers remember that in certain cases it reported itself as version 3.95? It's because they had to shim so many programs that broke because the minor number 0 was less than 1 (as in windows 3.1) http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2004/02/13/72476.aspx

It bit them again with Vista, where a lot of programs specifically looked for XP and wouldn't work without it. Remember those compatibility packs? It was shims to give those programs what they wanted to hear. 7 does similar where it keeps a editable database of bad apps, and otherwise tells apps it's Vista unless the app specifically declares it supports 7.

http://arstechnica.com/information-...ion-6-any-more-and-why-it-will-probably-work/ good article on the subject.
 
Back
Top