Windows 10 build 9888 shows up with a kernel version of 10

HippsieGypsie said:

whs said:

The 'One Core' strategy makes a lot of sense for the maintenance. It should cut down on thier cost. Whether it will do well in all the different environments remains to be seen.

You get an "atta boy!" for looking at this within a business perspective. Perhaps now that you have the Windows phone (and I think a Windows tablet?) you're seeing this. This also involves the cost of writing code, but ultimately it's about a familiar OS running across multiple devices. I think eventually people will eat this up, especially the commoners. Who else is accomplishing or can accomplish this?

I think this jump in the kernel may be about the addition of Cortana and especially Continuum. These will be great additions to 10. I can attest having Cortana on my phone for the last 5 or so months that this is a real handy feature to use. This is just a start.

Windows Phone 8 and 8.1 Search Button

Please look over all of the other handy features that Brink and others wrote about.

The 8.x code base/kernel already addresses multiple devices, including phones, Cortana, etc. The "10" nomenclature denotes nothing technical--Microsoft could have called it 7.444568 and it would be exactly the same thing as "10". It's more marketing goodness from the PR weenies inside the company, unfortunately--who seem preternaturally concerned that things inside Microsoft aren't "Apple enough" to suit them...;) (If they knew anything then they'd know why the opposite direction is preferable, but what'ya gonna' do? Some people are simply so untalented that all they can do is to copy something they see being done inside another company. Apple is at "10" (OS X) so now Microsoft should be at "10." El stupido, but as I say, what can you do except behold the madness, cringe, and hang on for dear life?...;))

waltc said:

The 8.x code base/kernel already addresses multiple devices, including phones, Cortana, etc. The "10" nomenclature denotes nothing technical--Microsoft could have called it 7.444568 and it would be exactly the same thing as "10".

To quote Brink’s article that he linked:

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. The company is working to consolidate all of its platforms into what the company calls OneCore, which, as the name implies, will be the one core for all of the company's operating systems.

Hmm. I would guess then the author must not know what he’s talking about? Neowin

More:

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. The company is working to consolidate all of its platforms into what the company calls OneCore, which, as the name implies, will be the one core for all of the company's operating systems.

Doesn't look like they're quite finished yet, Walt. Of course he did go on to say that they could’ve called it anything. Is that where you got the premise for your post?

waltc said:

It's more marketing goodness from the PR weenies inside the company, unfortunately--who seem preternaturally concerned that things inside Microsoft aren't "Apple enough" to suit them...

Perhaps you’re correct, but I doubt it. Maybe, just maybe they gave it that number (BTW > 10.0.9885.0) so that all MS employees know that it’s related to Windows 10 development. You think there’s a chance of that happening, Walt? And that it all may be coincidental?

waltc said:

(If they knew anything then they'd know why the opposite direction is preferable, but what'ya gonna' do?

Yeah, they’re really stupid. I wonder how they got to be so popular > Oh, yeah > That monopoly thing.

waltc said:

Some people are simply so untalented that all they can do is to copy something they see being done inside another company.

Copy? OS X runs across all of Apple’s devices? I don’t think so. There’s iOS to run on their mobile devices.

iOS - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

iOS shares with OS X some frameworks such as Core Foundation and Foundation; however, its UI toolkit is Cocoa Touch rather than OS X's Cocoa, so that it provides the UIKit framework rather than the AppKit framework. It is therefore not compatible with OS X for applications. Also while iOS also shares the Darwin foundation with OS X, Unix-like shell access is not available for users and restricted for apps, making iOS not fully Unix-compatible either.

Sounds like a real mess and downfall to me. Even Android/Chrome seems to be closer than this.

And is the bolded the reason why users have to pay for the same app on different devices? Not so with MS Store apps ultimately. Purchase once > Run across multiple devices. Of course Apple has to squeeze profit from somewhere other than their hardware.

waltc said:

Apple is at "10" (OS X) so now Microsoft should be at "10." El stupido, but as I say, what can you do except behold the madness, cringe, and hang on for dear life?...)

Ahh, most likely the X won’t change until another branding iron is placed in the fire.

OS X - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

OS X, whose X is the Roman numeral for 10 and is a prominent part of its brand identity, is built on technologies developed at NeXT between the second half of the 1980s and Apple's purchase of the company in late 1996. The 'X' is also used to emphasize the relatedness between OS X and UNIX. Versions 10.5 "Leopard" running on Intel processors, 10.6 "Snow Leopard", 10.7 "Lion", 10.8 "Mountain Lion", 10.9 "Mavericks", and 10.10 "Yosemite" have obtained UNIX 03 certification. iOS, which runs on the iPhone, iPod Touch, iPad, and the 2nd and 3rd generation Apple TV, shares the Darwin core and many frameworks with OS X. An unnamed variant of v10.4 powered the first generation Apple TV.

The current version of OS X is 10.10 Yosemite, which was released to the public on October 16, 2014.

It’s technically 10.10? Why not just 10.1? Perhaps 10.10 looks better? It does look better than 10.0.9885.0 I must say > Technically speaking.

BunnyJ said:

Rickkins said:

After 9879, I'm a little gunshy...

I can understand to a point. But that's what testing is about. Trying out the changes to see if they work and providing feed back to MS. This is not a prime time OS, it's a preview and MS does need testers and feed back.

They did point that out when you and all of us agreed to perform the testing at the start. Well, I did at least and so far it's doing just about what I expect it to do.

Again, YMMV
Jeff

Jeff,
Since you brought it up. Why does Microsoft need testers to begin with? Their employees could do it including the non techs that work there just my opinion.

labeeman said:

groze said:

BunnyJ said:

Rickkins said:

After 9879, I'm a little gunshy...

I can understand to a point. But that's what testing is about. Trying out the changes to see if they work and providing feed back to MS. This is not a prime time OS, it's a preview and MS does need testers and feed back.

They did point that out when you and all of us agreed to perform the testing at the start. Well, I did at least and so far it's doing just about what I expect it to do.

Again, YMMV
Jeff

Jeff,
Since you brought it up. Why does Microsoft need testers to begin with? Their employees could do it including the non techs that work there just my opinion.

Might be because they don't know how anymore.

Microsoft does it again, botches KB 2992611 SChannel patch

labeeman
Here this might get a few chuckles. Maybe it is time Microsoft put themselves up for sale. That is still up to Bill Gates even though he is retired. Apple couldn't buy them but others could. What if Canonical bought Microsoft? My out of box thinking.