Need to stop quoting the 1.X% figure...
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| JaseP Sep 22, 2014 8:16 AM EDT |
These news outlets really need to stop quoting the 1.X% figure... The actual figure is closer to 5%... |
| Bob_Robertson Sep 22, 2014 8:35 AM EDT |
Oh, like the Mac, which has always gotten those special "Runs on Windows and Mac" things. |
| the_doctor Sep 22, 2014 8:41 AM EDT |
5.6% http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp |
| JaseP Sep 22, 2014 8:51 AM EDT |
Quoting:5.6% Thanks. I was looking for that... |
| skelband Sep 22, 2014 12:09 PM EDT |
Netflix works just fine on my Linux Mint. Not sure what the fuss is about :D |
| DrGeoffrey Sep 22, 2014 7:05 PM EDT |
Just the Masters of Spin trying to get everyone to think, "Linux is too hard!" |
| gus3 Sep 23, 2014 1:55 PM EDT |
It is. But Windows is even harder to get it to work right. Look how long Microsoft has been trying! |
| the_doctor Sep 23, 2014 7:02 PM EDT |
gus3 wrote:
Quoting:It is. But Windows is even harder to get it to work right. Look how long Microsoft has been trying! Yep. More than 10 years worth of "Patch Tuesday" and they still haven't managed to plug all the security holes. At Microsoft, job security is more important than your security. :) |
| helios Sep 30, 2014 7:40 PM EDT |
"Just the Masters of Spin trying to get everyone to think, "Linux is too hard!"" All these "computer professionals" are saying that Linux is too difficult? Shoot, I can fix that. I've got a contact list of hundreds of kids age 12-14 that will gladly help them with their Linux problems. |
| gary_newell Oct 01, 2014 3:06 AM EDT |
Microsoft is skipping Windows 9 and going straight to Windows 10. I have a theory about this. Microsoft's odd number releases have generally been the good ones. Working backwards: Windows 8.1 (Windows 9?) - Not as bad as Windows 8 but still fairly bad Windows 8 - Pure tripe Windows 7 - One of their best Windows 6 (Vista) - Horrific Windows 5 (XP) - Obviously a crowd pleaser Windows 4.9 (ME) - What, Why, How? Windows 4.1 (98) - An improvement on 95 but not much Windows 4 (95) - Took some getting used to, better than 3.1 hmm So first and foremost their numbering system is shocking. Between 95 and 2000 they stayed at version 4 and from then up to Windows 8 they went up in whole numbers. Then they went up in part numbers again for Windows 8.1 and now they are skipping 9 completely. So here is my theory. The odd numbers are the good ones and the even numbers are the bad ones. Maybe they don't have much confidence in Windows 10 already and so are already plotting its downfall. They don't want to ruin their record that the odd ones are the good ones. |
| JaseP Oct 01, 2014 7:54 AM EDT |
I think it's just because 10 is bigger than 9... But if they really wanted a great Windows experience they'd let their dial go all the way up to 11... |
| the_doctor Oct 01, 2014 8:35 AM EDT |
It's called Windows 10 because it is the 10th build of the NT kernel. Not very imaginative, but it is consistent with their previous naming scheme. |
| CFWhitman Oct 01, 2014 9:05 AM EDT |
I don't think the current numbering is supposed to trace back to the DOS based Windows releases, but rather to the NT based ones. That is: Windows NT 3.1 (first NT release; numbering seems to be related to not wanting it to sound older than DOS based releases, which were at 3.1) Windows NT 3.5 Windows NT 3.51 (the first fairly popular version) Windows NT 4 Windows 2000 (NT 5) Windows XP (NT 5.1 and 5.2) Windows Vista (NT 6) Windows 7 (here's the odd thing: kernel build referred to as NT 6.1) Windows 8 (kernel build referred to as NT 6.2) Windows 8.1 (kernel build referred to as NT 6.3) No matter how you slice it though, the numbering isn't really consistent. |
| the_doctor Oct 01, 2014 9:16 AM EDT |
Windows NT 3.1, Windows NT 3.5, Windows NT 3.51 = 3 Windows NT 4 = 4 Windows 2000, Windows XP = 5 Windows Vista = 6 Windows 7 = 7 Windows 8 = 8 Windows 8.1 = 9 Windows 10 = 10 I didn't say it was logical. I said it was consistent. But that's Microsoft for you! ;) |
| gus3 Oct 01, 2014 9:58 AM EDT |
Windows {CE,ME,NT} says it all. |
| mrider Oct 01, 2014 11:52 AM EDT |
@the_doctor: According to Microsoft @ http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ms72... %28v=vs.85%29.aspx (not sure why I can't get the [ url ] bbcode to work, but select all the way to ".aspx"...). Windows 8.1= 6.3 Windows Server 2012 R2 = 6.3 Windows 8 = 6.2 Windows Server 2012 = 6.2 Windows 7 = 6.1 Windows Server 2008 R2 = 6.1 Windows Server 2008 = 6.0 Windows Vista = 6.0 Windows Server 2003 R2 = 5.2 Windows Server 2003 = 5.2 Windows XP 64-Bit Edition = 5.2 Windows XP = 5.1 Windows 2000 = 5.0 |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!