Quake3World

I use Windows 8 without any start menu enhancements.. I'm a desktop icon guy.

For those of you with MSDN access the technical preview of Windows 10 is up there from today .

Not sure if I'll bother yet.

PhoeniX wrote:For those of you with MSDN access the technical preview of Windows 10 is up there from today .

Not sure if I'll bother yet.

all you need is a microsoft account

it all starts here

the .ISO is 4.1GB

Ah cool, usually they don't release alpha stuff to the general public I thought.

scared? wrote:Real men get the latest thing for free becuz they are ... poor...

ftfy

PhoeniX wrote:Ah cool, usually they don't release alpha stuff to the general public I thought.

more info, direct links to .ISO's, product key..

Apparently, the reason for the version skip is the following:

Some software relies on knowing the windows version it is running on. So it needs to ask the OS for the Version number.

A lazy solution is to ask for the name instead.

As Windows 95 and Windows 98 are very much alike on the technical side some software only checks if the string begins with "Windows 9". So if the new windows was named "Windows 9" This would have lead to faulty behaviour of some software.

This lazy hack is even used in prominent software like OpenJDK.

Source. http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comm ... 10/ckwq83x

If you want to use this new version of Windows but need to use software that was designed to run on Windows 98, and it checks this using shit code, you should probably just shoot yourself. I really don't think this is a valid reason, applications have access to the OSes identifier, it's a lot easier getting this than trying to grab the OS name as a string and parsing it. Not sure tho.

It's so sexy when you guys talk nerd

Touch my pocket protector like you mean it. You know you want to.

Indeed. Sounds like the same mistake MS made with IE6 back then, ie "keep allowing people's sloppiness so we won't have to deal with the backlash".
That worked out great last time!

Jeeze, fuck off with the tiles already. They're a waste of space and dumb.

Those tiles must have really pissed off DooMer, enough that he came back here to post about it.

Are the tiles meant to be more touch screen friendly? Are they assuming most PC are going touch screen?

i think they're assuming it will be simpler to have one OS that scales across all platforms, along with the resulting compromises, than to develop multiple OS's for different platforms

Simpler or cheaper?

Simpler for everybody.

Well, simpler for them ?. PC users and tablet users interface in different ways so to have a cross platform OS would surely have drawbacks for one or the other, even both ?

Transient wrote:

Captain Mazda wrote:There is no Windows 9, genius.

That's his point. He was saying it sarcastically.

They should have stuck with 9 because it was the "good" version, but now they're going right to another shitty version of Windows.

Except there's no such thing as Windows 9 and the "joke" fails.

Allegedly they dropped 9 because lots of programs are coded to look for "Windows 9x" (Windows 95, 98, 98 R2, etc) which caused havoc.

Seems fishy.

obsidian wrote:Those tiles must have really pissed off DooMer, enough that he came back here to post about it.

Seems like bro has titlement issues or someshit

PhoeniX wrote:Allegedly they dropped 9 because lots of programs are coded to look for "Windows 9x" (Windows 95, 98, 98 R2, etc) which caused havoc.

Seems fishy.

I'm glad you made sure it's mentioned on this page as well.
Do the same thing when page 3 arrives yeah?

Will do!

I thought it was another board I'd read it on .

Captain Mazda wrote: Except there's no such thing as Windows 9 and the "joke" fails.

You still don't get it.

Your house still has wheels.