Build 2014: what to expect from Microsoft's developer conference
-
-
I think it will be Windows 8.2, The last OS core change was Windows Vista, and the previous one before that was Windows 2000, so if this is truly a core change, then the internal number should be 6.3 with Windows 9 being the seventh generation of Windows.
Free your mind and the rest will follow, Don't be colorblind, don't be so shallow!
-
I think it will be Windows 8.2, The last OS core change was Windows Vista, and the previous one before that was Windows 2000, so if this is truly a core change, then the internal number should be 6.3 with Windows 9 being the seventh generation of Windows.
Free your mind and the rest will follow, Don't be colorblind, don't be so shallow!
It's already 6.3 for Windows 8.1. And it's unlikely they'll change the major version for a long time to come after they faced so many problems with app compatibility (because people were implementing the algorithms to check for the OS version number wrong) when they did with Vista. That's one of the reasons Windows 7 didn't end up as 7.0 and became 6.1 instead. I think the next version will be Windows 9 because I can imagine they want to release something that diversifies it from 8. Either that, or something completely different. How about Windows NT 6.4?
-
It's already 6.3 for Windows 8.1. And it's unlikely they'll change the major version for a long time to come after they faced so many problems with app compatibility (because people were implementing the algorithms to check for the OS version number wrong) when they did with Vista. That's one of the reasons Windows 7 didn't end up as 7.0 and became 6.1 instead. I think the next version will be Windows 9 because I can imagine they want to release something that diversifies it from 8. Either that, or something completely different. How about Windows NT 6.4?
When I think of a version change from 6.3 to 7.0, that means the file system and/or kernel changed, not the UI or the HAL. Windows 9 I believe will be more like 8.1 except the Desktop is enabled on non-touch and Metro/Modern is enabled on touch. Also, Modern apps can/will be made to run in Desktop mode with some windowing based on operation mode. I also expect Windows RT, if it sticks around, to include a Hyper-V/VMWare type of client to run apps going back at least to Win Vista. The ecosystem otherwise is quite lacking.
Free your mind and the rest will follow, Don't be colorblind, don't be so shallow!
-
When I think of a version change from 6.3 to 7.0, that means the file system and/or kernel changed, not the UI or the HAL. Windows 9 I believe will be more like 8.1 except the Desktop is enabled on non-touch and Metro/Modern is enabled on touch. Also, Modern apps can/will be made to run in Desktop mode with some windowing based on operation mode. I also expect Windows RT, if it sticks around, to include a Hyper-V/VMWare type of client to run apps going back at least to Win Vista. The ecosystem otherwise is quite lacking.
Free your mind and the rest will follow, Don't be colorblind, don't be so shallow!
The kernel actually changes with every Windows release, especially for Windows 8 when they tweaked it for the new app model. The important question is: Was it a big change or not. Incrementing the major version between XP and Vista was quite reasonable because the changes were quite big. Incrementing the minor version number for Windows 7 and 8 was reasonable too as they essentially build on the work they've done in Vista and there were not big architectural changes. Well, now incrementing the minor version again for Windows 8.1 is not so reasonable to me as I assume the changes to the kernel were more of a service pack like fashion, and the bigger changes were all in the UI. But since Microsoft is not doing service packs anymore, they had to release a new version of Windows which essentially is just an update to Windows 8. You can even tell from simple things like the branding that remained unchanged. One could go one with this all day long, but in fact it's just numbers and everybody has it's own opinion on them. I agree with you that Windows 9 (or whatever the branding will be) will be more like what 8.1 was to 8.0, hence we can expect it to be another minor release internally. What I'd really love to see was if they split the new app model into two flavors - a consumer-oriented one that works just like the one today, and a professional-oriented one that replaces Win32 on the desktop, opens up the native XAML stack for windowed applications etc. and removes the deployment limitation via the Windows Store (some kind of sideloading by default, if you will). UI-wise, this would end up in two different versions of Windows in the future: One that is consumer-oriented and touch-optimized, with the Modern shell as the only UI and no Desktop (just like Windows RT today), and a professional/enterprise version without the Modern shell and a "reimagined" Desktop with its new app model flavor; which would be used for content creation, in production environments, and building apps for the consumer version (with an emulator like for Windows Phone). Of couse, that separation between consumer/professional won't happen as Microsoft went the route of "one size fits all" - a bold step but IMO one that can't really work out without compromises in both sides (all that "non-compromises" talk in the early days of Windows 8 was just talk with a specific perspective on the product, but nothing that worked out well in the real world).
-
The kernel actually changes with every Windows release, especially for Windows 8 when they tweaked it for the new app model. The important question is: Was it a big change or not. Incrementing the major version between XP and Vista was quite reasonable because the changes were quite big. Incrementing the minor version number for Windows 7 and 8 was reasonable too as they essentially build on the work they've done in Vista and there were not big architectural changes. Well, now incrementing the minor version again for Windows 8.1 is not so reasonable to me as I assume the changes to the kernel were more of a service pack like fashion, and the bigger changes were all in the UI. But since Microsoft is not doing service packs anymore, they had to release a new version of Windows which essentially is just an update to Windows 8. You can even tell from simple things like the branding that remained unchanged. One could go one with this all day long, but in fact it's just numbers and everybody has it's own opinion on them. I agree with you that Windows 9 (or whatever the branding will be) will be more like what 8.1 was to 8.0, hence we can expect it to be another minor release internally. What I'd really love to see was if they split the new app model into two flavors - a consumer-oriented one that works just like the one today, and a professional-oriented one that replaces Win32 on the desktop, opens up the native XAML stack for windowed applications etc. and removes the deployment limitation via the Windows Store (some kind of sideloading by default, if you will). UI-wise, this would end up in two different versions of Windows in the future: One that is consumer-oriented and touch-optimized, with the Modern shell as the only UI and no Desktop (just like Windows RT today), and a professional/enterprise version without the Modern shell and a "reimagined" Desktop with its new app model flavor; which would be used for content creation, in production environments, and building apps for the consumer version (with an emulator like for Windows Phone). Of couse, that separation between consumer/professional won't happen as Microsoft went the route of "one size fits all" - a bold step but IMO one that can't really work out without compromises in both sides (all that "non-compromises" talk in the early days of Windows 8 was just talk with a specific perspective on the product, but nothing that worked out well in the real world).
I'm glad you educated me about Kernel level changes (Ring Zero) and how they are made with every major and minor version. The change from XP to Vista must have had something to do with a filesystem rewrite, but I could be wrong. As for the consumer/professional track, while this may make our development and "real work" lives easier, and it would, I don't see MS going down this road again. They went there with the Windows 9.x vs NT branch. They also had two codebases at the time, unified in Win2K.
Free your mind and the rest will follow, Don't be colorblind, don't be so shallow!