So was 3.11
Of course, you’re all aware that Windows 7 is actually Windows Version 6.1, right?
Windows 95 was version 4.00
Windows 2000 was version 5.0, XP was version 5.1
Vista was version 6.0
Windows 7 is version 6.1, Windows 8 is version 6.2, and Windows 8.1 is version 6.3
So Windows 10 might be anything from version 6.4 to 7.0.
Just to make things more difficult 
I like a comment on another board, where a reader suggested they should actually call it Windows X, as a comparison to OS X
I run XP, I don’t have to live without any of those things. Actually, I haven’t yet come across anything that I have to live without because I run XP.
No, that can’t be right. Can you give me a cite?
If you bring up a command prompt, it says:
Yeah ->run->cmd->ver will give you a cite. XP is 5.1
To quote someone on another board:
"So, 7 ate 9?
Okay, mucho thanks to all of you for making a mockery of my thread. Now, if we can get back to brass tacks… is the new version of Windows, which they are calling Windows 10 for marketing purposes, whatever the fuck it really is in chronological terms, WORTH BUYING? That’s really all I want to know. Thankyouverymuch…
Well, considering that it’s just been announced, and won’t be available for at least a year, you can’t expect too much conversation around that topic.
Cite - http://www.cnet.com/news/microsoft-jumps-to-windows-10/
8 is odd - from a certain point of view.
Me too. Even Windows 8 point nothing wasn’t really the monster it’s made out to be.
It looks like it might be quite good.
Pro:
[ul]
[li]Start Menu is back (with jump lists), so that ought to satisfy the people who mourned its removal from Win8.[/li][li]Modern UI apps run in floating windows (so presumably can be a bit like Vista/7 widgets now)[/li][li]Win8, internally, was pretty stable and speedy, so hopefully that will persist into this version[/li][/ul]
(possible)Con:
[ul]
[li]Looks like aero is still gone. People who don’t like flat rectangularity are going to be sad[/li][li]Modern UI is still around in the form of universal apps and tiles at the side of the start menu (but I suspect these can be turned off)[/li][/ul]
It doesn’t look too radical a departure from the 8 layout.
I got a Widows 8 laptop earlier this year and though some things are clunky I found it very stable and fast so the learning curve wasn’t too much of a drag. I also updated to 8.1 last night and that was painless.
If 10 doesn’t dump me at the bottom of another learning curve but keeps the stability and speed and adds in some old favourites and Linux features such as multiple work areas then I’ll be perfectly happy.
Two things I’d like to know…“how much”? It has been suggested that it will be much cheaper and that Windows 8 users will even get it for free and I like those numbers.
Also, “what footprint”? If this is meant to be a common platform across all devices then I’d love there to be a very light version that can be used for resurrecting old laptops. Linux fulfills that function now but if a chopped down Windows 10 could be had for £30 then I’d seriously consider it.
I’ve a feeling that was all talk about Windows 9 - and it might even be part of the reason for skipping to version 10 (i.e. “rumours of Win9 being free are so widespread, we can’t charge for the next version unless we call it something other than 9”)
I think the commonality of platform is only going to be in the Modern UI layer - so Windows 10 won’t be lighter than Win8, but the Metro/Modern UI bit will be capable of supporting cross-platform apps.
I vaguely remember that Vista was years late to arrive (prior to that, Microsoft was on basically a two-year schedule), one explanation was that they were trying to use a new file system in the new OS, but that was causing so many problems, they abandoned the new file system. So whatever happened to that? Hard drives are so much larger now than a decade ago and people have so many more files, that I don’t know if NTFS is still capable.
And the idea that they introduced in Windows 8 of a common UI across smartphones, tablets, notebooks and desktop systems seems a valid one, except that what works well on touch devices (smartphones and tablets) might not be the best for a keyboard-based device (notebook and desktops).
I think… that I’ll be curious to see what number we’re up to if and when I ever stop using Windows XP.
In the discussion of version numbers, I wonder what people would think if you merely referred to Win8.1 as Vista SP 6 (which, you know… kinda) 
Realistically, until XP, you had 2 parallel Microsoft OS paths- the consumer path and the professional path, and the odd/even numbering doesn’t really hold up too great before XP.
So you had the 3/95 path, which was:
3.11 (who had 3.0?), 95, 98, ME, which were divided into Windows 3 vs. the Windows 95 types.
And you had the NT path, which was:
3.1, 3.5, 3.51 and 4.0 (all between 1993 and 1996), Windows 2000.
Windows XP was the point when it was all unified- there was one OS after that, with different versions for desktop and server (i.e. XP/Server 2003).
So if you look at it as the XP and later, with XP being 1, Vista being 2, 7 being 3, and 8 being 4, the odd/even stuff works.
If you go back, it doesn’t hold up, since 95 wasn’t really considered “bad”, and neither was 98 or 3.11, but ME definitely was.
Personally, I bet the skipping of Windows 9 is more of an acknowledgement of the perception of odd-numbered releases being good/even being bad, and trying to shake up that cycle.