Seth wrote:
Windows 10

http://www.engadget.com/2014/09/30/m...=rss_truncated

I'm guessing the "Windows 10" is to compete with "MacOSX".
And that means all future OSes will be 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, etc.
Maybe it's acknowledgment of a "subscription future". I would
not accept a naive rationale for why it is "10". There is
some evil in that choice, which we'll have to wait and see.
This was not a "9 stinks as a number" decision. It has
some other meaning.

For Apple, the break from MacOS 9 to MacOSX, was a transition
from cooperative multitasking to pre-emptive multitasking. It
was a change worthy of a new name (as pre-emptive is not
crash prone like co-operative was). In the case of Microsoft,
the transition from 8 to 10 involves no new technologies
(I've seen no ground breaking announcements), so this is
hardly a comparable naming exercise. Microsoft had pre-emptive
multitasking for a lot longer than Apple. And before them,
probably some Unix kernel. But for Apple, their rewrite of the
OS was a turning point, from the "toy OS" that was MacOS 9.
MacOS 6 through 9 were still very nice, but "they crashed too much".
It used to crash once a day for me, on average. It's
where the notion of "do frequent saves" came from.
You're on a Mac. The MacOSX machine here, doesn't
have that problem (not that I use it much any more).

Paul