Microsoft finally surprised us all: At the eagerly-awaited first briefing for the next Windows, the firm revealed that they had decided to skip the 9 and call it Windows 10 instead. From a features perspective, we only learned about a few minor new features that hadn’t already leaked. And as promised, the technical preview won’t ship until October. Which starts tomorrow, by the way.
To say that this was a different kind of Windows event is a major understatement. I want to focus on the details of the announcement here, but it’s at least worth pointing out that Terry Myerson’s team is approaching Windows 10 with a completely different – for the better – approach. Not just when compared to the past few releases. But when compared to every Windows release from the past 20 years. Everything is new again.
It’s looking like a good release so far – I’m especially very happy with the further neutering of Metro and the Expose-like functionality. Odd they’re skipping 9 though.
Hey, tiled layouts out of the box, no need for me to use https://github.com/Tzbob/python-windows-tiler anymore.
There is at least one reason I could see them skipping 9…
“Nine” sounds a lot like “Nein”.
But they jump from a “gifted” odd number (XP-5, 7, 9…) to a “cursed” even number (Millenium-4, Vista-6, 8, 10…) that would reveal something :/
Kochise
Oh the convenient “every other version” myth that only works if you, er, skip versions.
To recap…
Win 1 (1.01, 1.03, 1.04)
Win 2 (2.0, 2.1. 2.11)
Win 3 (3.0, 3.1)
NT 3.1
Win 3.11 (WfWG)
Win 3.2 (simplified Chinese only)
NT 3.5 (and 3.51)
Win 95
NT 4.0
Win 98
Win 2000
Win ME
Win XP
Win XP Pro x64
Win Vista
Win 7
Win 8 (8.1)
Win 10
Now which “every other version” was good, can you remind me?
Or are you seriously saying NT 4.0 and Win 2000 were crap because they had even numbers?
Edited 2014-10-01 11:22 UTC
I always took it as every other consumer version, leaving out the enterprise NT stuff pre-XP. Enterprise and home consumer are two entirely different markets. Also, I only ever heard this applied to Windows 98 and up, so 98 was good, ME was bad, XP was good (though my personal opinion was that it wasn’t really good until the first service pack), Vista was bad, 7 was good (great, actually), 8 was bad…so 10 may end up being good after all.
And yes, I left out 2000 specifically because as great as it was, it was the enterprise release that coincided with ME, and though a lot of home users got their hands on it, it was never meant for home use. XP was the first consumer NT product.
And that’s why I not took 2000 into account as well. It is by far one of the best Windows out there, even if it looks a lot like 98. Sad it only have x32 and monocore support :/
Kochise
Hm? Win2k of course has multiproc support, that’s the reason I ran it on my dual Pentium 2.
(there was also a release candidate version for Alpha
)
You screwed up the listing of versions. NT and Classic windows are different operating systems with different kernels.
Classic windows
1
2
3
95
98
ME
1,3 & 98 are the good ones
Win NT
3
4
5( Win 2000 kernel 5.0 /Windows XP kernel 5.01 )
6 ( Vista)
7 (Windows 7 )
8 ( Windows 8)/
Its a bit off, admittedly
3,4, 5, 7 were really good.
Edit: So the real question is what is the Kernel’s version number in windows 10?
Edited 2014-10-01 14:53 UTC
What was wrong with Windows 95?
It was a vast improvement over Windows 3.1, offering:
Plug-n-Play
Long file names
Enhanced stability
Win32 compatibility
Protected memory
Preemptive multitasking
Built-in networking
and a new version of DOS.
And don’t forget in later support releases, USB SUPPORT!!!!
Uhhh..the OEMs were just learning the new driver model so Win95 crashed if you looked at it funny? Of course with the hodgepodge of 16 and 32bit code that applied to all Win9X but I remember it being extra terrible on Win95 before the second release (OSR or something like that) as far as “oops BSOD” was concerned.
Plug-n-Play aka Plug-n-Crash
Long file names were good
Stability was not enhanced, but significantly degraded from win 3.1
Protected Memory was nice. Blue screens, though frequent, were better than the alternative.
Premeptive multitasking. Good
Built in networking. Good
New Version of Dos. Not Good 6.22 was the best version, win 95’s was a regression in many ways.
It had a lot of good in it, but the dang thing barely functioned for long. Especially for people with less than 32 Megs. A number of people I know bought it and ran it with 8 megs, with much pain and regret.
You can’t mix NT and non-NT to make the pattern work.
For the consumer line of Windows
Windows 1 was better than DOS.
Windows 2 was eh.
Windows 3 was much better.
Windows 3.1 is the exception, as it was even better.
Windows 3.11 for Workgroups was even better still.
Windows 95 was ok.
Windows 98 was much better.
Windows ME was horrible.
Windows XP was much better.
Windows Vista was meh.
Windows 7 was much better.
Windows 8 was horrible.
Windows 10 should be better.
And for the NT line:
Windows NT 3.x was ok.
Windows NT 4.x was better.
Windows 2000 was ok.
Windows XP was better.
Windows Vista was horrible.
Windows 7 was much better.
Windows 8 was horrible.
Windows 10 should be much better.
And, if you count only the NT releases, Windows 10 is the 10th major release of NT:
3.1, 3.5, 4.0, 2K, XP, Vista, 7, 8, 8.1, 10.
But by germans it wouldn’t be called “Windows nein” but “Windows Neun” anyway.
I doubt that. Microsoft aren’t childish enough to change a version number because it ‘sounds’ like a word in German.
But it is a marketing hint to tell users that they adds enough changes to warrant two version bumps.
They changed Office 13
According to a comment on Reddit, the reason Microsoft chose to go with “Windows 10” actually (and depressingly) makes a great deal of sense.
It is from Reddit so it might be nonsense but, given the amount of rubbish code I’ve seen over the years, it strikes me as entirely plausible.
Edited 2014-10-01 17:30 UTC
Fenster? Nein! Ich will Linux!
They’re not really neutering it as much as setting it up the way it should’ve been done in the first place. If they can get Windows Phone running the same apps as RT/Metro, then the whole ecosystem may finally take off. If not, desktop users are going to be stuck running most of their apps in a web browser. I don’t like doing this on tablets, and sure as hell don’t like it on desktops. It’s like I have this stable, multi-tasking OS available to me, but yet I have a browser open with 12 app tabs, which crashes frequently, and the only recourse I get from browser makers is, ‘reset your profile, re-install Flash, etc.’. And of course, this almost never works, and if it does, it’s only temporary. They don’t give two shits about actually fixing problems that end users are having. So in terms of stability, it’s like we’ve gone back to Windows 3.1, and for what?
Metro isn’t the ideal solution either, but I think the days of devs making dedicated desktop apps are over. They probaby figure (and rightly so), ‘well, they have a web browser, so why should we bother?’ So in terms of actually having NATIVE apps to run, I’ll take what I can get.
Edited 2014-09-30 23:43 UTC
Microsoft should have called it “Windows 12” to distance itself not only from Windows 8, but also from OS X and Windows X11. And then, of course, skip Windows 13 and may be Windows 14, just for fun, and go directly to Windows 15. Wrrrrrroooom!
I’d have been happier if they’d have just called it “Windows” and got with a rolling update scheme.
That’s honestly what I expected to happen, and I wish they had. If they truly mean what they say about one OS for all devices, that would have been the best way to do it.
But then, I’m not their typical user either. I only really like Windows on phones and tablets, at least since 8.x was released.
8.1 isn’t so bad on desktop, as long as you use a start menu (like Start8 or something). Granted, you shouldn’t have to.
I also mostly use Mac OS X these days for work.
Agree.
Performance-wise, my experience with Windows 8.1 has been much better than with Windows 7 (which suffers from random disk activity and general sluggishness).
To me, Windows 8.1 is the first decent replacement for Windows XP x64, even if that means dealing with (working around) the f–ked up Metro UI.
Edited 2014-10-01 09:41 UTC
To be honest, I actually like Windows 8 on my desktop (and no, I don’t have a touch screen). What I don’t like about Windows 8 has been the updates. I’ve had to format and reinstall Windows in order to install the “required” update. And I’ve recently had an update that took over a month before I could get it to install properly. I have disabled automatic updates since the botched update tried and failed to install every time I restarted Windows. At the moment, I do have a fully updated, functional Windows 8.1. I just don’t have faith that it will continue to function after I start installing updates.
That I can’t understand. I just started using Macs again. Its almost intolerable. How does one live with out being able to snap windows? Windows does it. KDE does it. Gnome does it. OSX no such luck.
OSX uses a document metaphor (mostly), and if you use a magic mouse or touch pad, there are all kinds of gestures to help with that.
But yeah, some snapping could be useful – it would even fit the document metaphor well. There’s this: http://hyperdock.bahoom.com/
Now, the loss of the “random resize” button as Thom calls it (which is much more normalized that Thom admits) in Yosemite is kind of a pain. For non-document centric apps (or multiple document interface apps) that button almost always “maximizes” which is what I usually want (like in Firefox or Photoshop). In Yosemite that functionality is still there (double tap the title bar) but the loss of a obvious button is kind of a problem, IMHO.
Word for Windows jumped from version 2 to 6
To match Word for Macintosh version numbers.
I guess it will be time for Apple to release OS-XI !
Edited 2014-10-01 00:31 UTC
I’m pretty sure I used Word 5.
Maybe Word 5 for DOS ?
“..But, ours goes to eleven…” 🙂
deployment has gotten so easy with windows these days i doubt i’ll have to test much or for very long to push this out.
The bit that i don’t like reading is that they’re continuing with their awful store. I’m assuming that xbox/phone will get the most out of that because i disable the store by default and remove all metro apps.
I think it’s also an anti-bootleg measure. Logging into the OS with a Microsoft Account is required to be able to download from the Marketplace, and only an idiot would tie his Microsoft Account to his bootlegged copy of the OS.
That’s what disposable accounts are for. It’s not like there’s anything else that uses an MS account (I don’t own any consoles, and think hotmail/outlook is shite, so I don’t know if those are part of the MS accounts).
Those services do also require a Microsoft account. As for using a throwaway account, that’s all well and good until you want to purchase something.
But then, a software bootlegger probably wouldn’t want to purchase anything, right?
What’s there worth paying for?
I don’t pirate software, but I’ve not needed to pay for anything on desktop or android; there are FOSS options for everything.
Agreed, though; if you’re going to pirate your OS, you’re probably going to pirate your applications too :p
Edited 2014-10-01 12:57 UTC
Nothing that I’ve seen in the Windows Store yet. Pretty much everything in there, apart from Xbox games, is available on my Kindle tablet, and usually for free (especially with Amazon’s daily free app and quarterly-ish free bundles).
And when I am on desktop Windows, I much prefer the F/OSS desktop apps to their commercial equivalents, with the only exception being OneNote. The only thing I pay for on Windows is games from GoG and Steam.
They’re swinging too far in the other direction. They’re fixing the GUI, but now they’re saying they’ll never change the name or version number of Windows, and they will never do a “major” release ever again. That’s clearly insane and wrong.
We’ve got the Chrome and Firefox guys going to a system of new version numbers ever few weeks, so the number has no meaning. Now we’ve got Windows on new version numbers never, so the 10 has no meaning.
Let’s call the name change and skipping “9” what it is. Microsoft gave up on counting correctly because they’re insane.
A couple months ago they said publicly that the start menu was coming back in Windows 8.2. Now Windows 8.2 has been renamed Windows 10 for… forever, and until the next CEO changes it.
Some homework for you:
1) Find where they said 8.2 would include the start menu.
This was an unsubstantiated rumor by WZOR.
2) Find where they said there will be no more major versions, or that the version number won’t be incremented.
What they haven’t said (but have strongly hinted at) is that there will be point updates to Windows 10 at a faster pace. That doesn’t mean that there won’t ever be a Windows 11.
I don’t really care what they call it, as long as they call the minor updates something specific that’s easy to search for, like ‘10.1’, 10.2′ instead of ‘Update 1’, ‘Update 2,’ etc. In fact, just don’t have the name ‘UPDATE’ anywhere in the name, okay? It can make Google searches relating to that specific update more difficult than they need to be.
You haven’t been paying enough attention. Nothing I said was controversial. It’s everywhere.
http://winsupersite.com/windows-8/windows-81-update-2-shipping-mont…
Mary Jo Foley at 10 minutes: “It’s not gonna be these big-bang windows releases every 1-2 years. That’s over.”
http://twit.tv/show/windows-weekly/382
It goes on and on. Finding this much was really easy for me, nelson
It isn’t controversial, its just wrong. You very specifically said that Microsoft publicly stated that the Start Menu would come to Windows 8.2. Something which was never acknowledged to even exist by Microsoft.
That Paul Thurrot got wind of internal team discussions is irrelevant to the matter, because it was never a promise that Microsoft made — so in that sense your original comment is wildly off the mark. That’s the first one.
Mary Jo Foley is not Microsoft. It might be confusing to you because they both start with M.
If you look beyond her Windows Weekly remarks, she clarifies what she means on Twitter:
http://cl.ly/image/2e3M2f1s2k2l
So basically, she’s repeating what we’ve known for a while. Windows will have a faster release cadence. It already does.
None of that leaves out the possibility of a change in the major version number. Thats where you let your imagination do the rest.
You’re out of your mind. Terry Myerson said on stage: “I’m not here to announce the next version of Windows. We will be making [the start menu and windowed metro apps] available to all Windows 8.1 users as an update [after Update 1].”
I searched YouTube, and hundreds of thousnds of people have watched the presentation where he said that. You can’t be helped if you don’t believe the news, or reporters who repeat what company officials say to their faces.
Edited 2014-10-03 05:20 UTC
That update is Windows 10.
Well, they’re going straight to ten, because Seven Eight Nine.
Groan, but did it taste nice? would 8 give 9 a 10 ?
I’ll see myself out…
I meant would 7 give 9 a 10 …
Edited 2014-10-01 15:11 UTC
Not much to talk about. The Continuum feature seems pretty cool. Don’t care much about Task View/paste in C.P. Most stuff they talked about was leaked.
Late 2015. uh. That is a downer.
The changes to the standard command prompt seem a pretty good indication that the 32-bit (x86) Windows is no more.
Much of the stagnation in cmd.exe has been because of the requirements of a DOS compatible console. 64-bit Windows cannot run DOS or 16-bit Windows applications, so there is no need to preserve that constrained design in support of compatibility.
ARM versions, though, might remain 32-bit, since there obviously aren’t DOS applications that need support.
Exactly what are those “DOS requirements”? cmd.exe has nothing to do with DOS or 32-bit.
That Microsoft didn’t bother to update cmd.exe, the console window, or the console subsystem for about two decades is just because they didn’t want to. Why? Because they used to not believe in the console, and as for cmd.exe they want PowerShell to replace it.
The good news is someone with power at MS finally realized they need a better command prompt.
The non crippled command prompt is a Microsoft innovation, just like they innovated symlinks in windows 2000
DOS programs interact with the console in a way that is different from Win32.
For example, a string that wraps around to the next line in Win32 wouldn’t contain a CR/LF character, but this isn’t true for a text string that wraps around to the next line in a DOS application – the CR/LF is printed. Copying a block of text and including some line breaks but not others wouldn’t be predictable, and it wouldn’t be correct behavior. Reflowing text on window resize wouldn’t be reliable in a console that also needs to maintain DOS compatibility.
Many of the enhancements revolve around the better text handling, which becomes unpredictable when you need to bake in DOS support.
There are plenty of ways to get around such limitations. For example, you could apply a new set of rules until a DOS application is launched in the console window. After that it goes into compatibility mode. Another possibility would be to have a check box enabling the old behavior for those needing a DOS program (haven’t launched one since the late 1990’s personally).
Even without reflow, there’s no good reason that you couldn’t just grab the corners of the window and resize it. Resizing is clearly possible because you can do it from the properties dialog. Microsoft simply never bothered to touch this code for 20 years. If I remember correctly, it even still defaults to a bitmap (!!) font for the text rendering. And displays a ‘classic theme’ title bar.
There absolutely are ways.
The problem is, for a somewhat minor productivity increase from enhancing cmd.exe, that really only would positively affect a small share of users (And only a miniscule share of users would receive a significant benefit from it), it would require a significant amount of engineering and testing to keep the all-important compatibility running properly. It wasn’t a worthwhile tradeoff, especially since 32-bit Windows is nearing the end of life anyways. I can’t imagine they’d do all this testing just get the console out one version sooner when it’s been languishing for well over a decade.
Now, if they kill 32-bit Windows (and the need for DOS compatibility), all these changes can be made without much of the required testing, since Win32 is much more flexible.
In other words, they just didn’t care enough about the console. To the level where they did not even bother upgrading the looks of the window decorations.
The reflow limitation you mentioned is baked into the Win32 console API as well. Which means any current 64 bit console application has the same problems. See the WriteConsoleOutput function, for example, where the last argument WriteRegion is a rectangle breaking the reflow stuff you were talking about.
If the DOS emulator layer was done right, it would be using the Win32 console API (or the shared lower level kernel API) already for screen updates. The work required should be roughly the same.
I never had any problem with it.
What is so hard to customize the shell for the desired size and enabling mouse selection?
Ok, Microsoft should have long changed the defaults, but they aren’t a big deal to change one after login in the first time into the system.
My point was that the state of the console and cmd.exe in Windows for all this time has been a deliberate choice – not a technical limitation due to 32-bit, DOS or other backwards compatibility. Even the most trivial “one week of work required” changes haven’t been done.
You can download and install a 32-bit version of the technical preview of 10.
Been using a laptop with Windows 8.x recently, and after the 8.1 updates metro is something of a large start menu.
Windows 10 looks to improve on this in every way.
They are only calling it Windows-10, because then they can get ahead of all the talk about Windows-9 being free.
Simple as that. Nobody saw the “skipping” of the number 9 here. Smart move from Microsoft though.
Anyway…
Let’s all wait, and see how many 9’s someone can dig out of Win10 releases. This will be fun. 😛
For me, there is no actual Dos in Win95 and above.
All the “Dos” stuff, is not really Dos is it?
They are an implementation of Dos system, into a Windows operating system. Not Dos as such.
Yeah… I know, I am oldfascioned. Yet I still run Dos 6.22 on one or more of my computers.
And I run Win95, Win98, Os/2….. Win7 is on my primaery machine though.
Edited 2014-10-01 07:21 UTC
It is DOS, and it runs in a full-fledged virtual machine.
Specifically, it is DOS 5.0.500, and is no more different than any other computer-specific version of DOS that occasionally shipped. All the user programs are from DOS 5.0, and run unmodified. The DOS system files are largely unmodified, too, though some changes had to be made (Think file system access)
Edited 2014-10-01 08:24 UTC
Yes, it is. You can even replace the MS-DOS 7 that ships with Windows 95 with any other compatible DOS. For example, I ran Windows 95 on top of DR-DOS for awhile, just because I could (and it was slightly more stable when gaming). You could also run it on top of PC-DOS.
You could even extract MS-DOS 7 to a floppy/CD-ROM and run it without the GUI.
Windows 98 was slightly more integrated with MS-DOS, but could still be run on top of DR-DOS.
Windows ME, though, played dirty, and did everything possible to make “DOS” disappear and become inextricably intertwined with the GUI.
It’s not until Windows XP, though, that they completely removed all traces of DOS from Windows, using all the DOS emulation stuff that NT uses.
It looks quite good.
I am specially keen to see how WinRT will evolve and how it will spread across the OS.
Also curious what roles C++/CX and .NET Native will have.
As long as you can get rid of that crap then it might have a chance otherwise the likes of Start8 etc will be around for a lot longer.
What will they do with Server 2015 (or 2016)? Will that have a GUI that has all this tiling [redacted]? How can anyone on MS seriously think that this stuff has a place in a Server OS? Do you want a Weather App on a server? My feeling is that someone somewhere in MS thinks it would be super cool to do this.
I thought they would reserve the number 10 for when they definitely would embrace the UNIX lifestyle.
… but they have … multiple desktops / expose … Windows Linux Desktop Edition err I mean windows OSX err windows 10…
Even the widgets in the menu system is a similar idea to plasmoids in kicker/kde panel. In fact I think Kde’s plasmoids are a better idea. It doesn’t clutter up the menu and you can have different panels on autohide or the plasmoids directly on the desktop. I personally think the big tiles look hideous.
My real question however is what does this do that is different to windows 7? why should a person using windows 7 upgrade – lets remove false barriers such as direct x being held back – what else is there ?
it looks like the same old to me. I dont even see the great departure from windows or the fresh thinking to to skip a version.
Quick upgrade cycles / numbering will probably fragment the MS desktops I dont think the average user cares enough about Windows to constantly upgrade it, this is the problem Microsoft has always had no one loves windows and by extension no one really cares about Microsoft – These honestly adverts they constantly run absolutely piss me off, they foo-barred win 8, the 1 thing they had was the brand recognition from Nokia for phones and thats going soon.
What is there to make them relevant for the average consumer? A desktop os thats gone back to behaving like windows 7 after trying to ram metro and the closed off microsoft store down everyones throats ?
Windows 8 cost them massively, anyone still keeping up with Linux and SteamOS ? Steam now has tropico 5, metro redux (soon to be released) borderlands 2, CS:GO, Borderlands pre:sequal all coming or on steamos and by extension Linux, they pissed off Valve a massive Gaming force on PC with the Windows 8 closed off store and trying to force 30% of all sales to be given to them – every arrogant misstep they take, the more they alienate other smaller entities, which are big enough to cause major waves in Windows usage.
Why bother upgrading to keep up with DirectX if most of the games devlopers jump across to OpenGL to support Gaming on the mobile platforms and on SteamOS and Mac OSX ?
Edited 2014-10-01 17:04 UTC
Am I the only one who reads “One product family. One platform. One store” and immediately thinks of “Ein Reich. Ein Volk. Ein Fuhrer”?
They should have renamed the BSOD “Jedem das seine” and the Start button as “Arbeit macht frei”
Edited 2014-10-01 11:41 UTC
It’s just you
or you could read it as 1 ring to rule them all..
It’s one thing to opine and editorialize on a site that presents itself as News, it’s quite another to censor comments that point out blatant, unsupported and poorly composed editorial comment expressing a preference; to wit:
“I’m especially very happy with the further neutering of Metro and the Expose-like functionality.”
Why would you be ‘happy‘ about this, ‘neutering‘? Why would you suppose your readers would care about this opinion expressed and given without qualification? What ‘neutering‘ exactly are you even referencing? More importantly why would you censor and remove a post questioning this?
Do you consider your editorial opinions above reproach and question? And what exactly is your objection to Microsoft’s approach to cross platform application support? Are you even aware of any of the benefits achieved for the Developer, End User, and platform security?
Thank God it’s not a PC Magazine site with endless “Top 10 New Features of…”
I like Thom’s witty comments and occasional sarcastic remarks. Otherwise, it’s french fries with no salt – yecch!
You’re obviously welcome to like what ever pleases you, give God credit for Thom’s efforts, and consider what ever obtuse unqualified and poorly composed cheap remark a brilliant exposition.
I give and have given Thom full credit for the effort he makes here, not God, laud his thoughtful well composed articles (even when I don’t agree with them), and pan the hell out of the crap writing, like this comment which may be wry, but is neither witty, or offers any qualified insightful criticism.
OSnews used to hold to a high journalistic standard, on par with some of the writers at ArsTechnica, now some of that is slipping — perhaps due to the absence of competing sites or burnout (and lack of context) for one Nederlander doing it all on his own.
Regardless, my points stand; and if I didn’t value Thom and his effort here I wouldn’t have asked the questions raised.
Edited 2014-10-02 02:41 UTC
They’re calling 10 for two reasons —
1. Make it sound as different as possible from 8, which they’re trying to run away from as fast as they can
2. Make it sound much more advanced than 7, to try to encourage those (relatively happy) users to upgrade.
It’ll be interesting to see if Win 7 users buy the koolaid. I think it depends on how many 10 features are truly useful, versus how many are simply corrections to the Win 8 disaster.
It’s also the 10th release of NT, so the name fits. Similar to how Windows 7 is the 7th release of NT (with 8.0, 8.1 in between).
I just figured they would go up to 11.
I’ve given it a go as a VM & apart from Metro sidelined if, unfortunately, still there, I can’t see much of anything..certainly no wow factor or any reason at all to upgrade. Another point release of 8. And so , the point is beyond me. Maybe OS’s are just treading water, so to speak, till they fade away…
From Microsoft’s Technical Preview site (where it now seems to be available):
System requirements
Basically, if your PC can run Windows 8.1, you’re good to go. If you’re not sure, don’t worry—Windows will check your system to make sure it can install the preview.
Processor: 1 gigahertz (GHz) or faster
RAM: 1 gigabyte (GB) (32-bit) or 2 GB (64-bit)
Free hard disk space: 16 GB
Graphics card: Microsoft DirectX 9 graphics device with WDDM driver
A Microsoft account and Internet access
Busy life, missed a lot of news. But I couldn’t help thinking up a lame joke about the windows 10 thing.
What is Microsoft’s answer to clean up the Windows 8 mess?
Wind’ X
(I don’t know how globally known Windex is, but it’s a ubiquitous name brand in the US for a window cleaner.)
Edited 2014-10-05 21:20 UTC