Which name system of Windows do you prefer?
Best Windows naming scheme?
- Thread starter Candlelight
- Start date
I think I liked the initials the best. You could have some fun, making some that ran together to give funny names.
Such as CE-ME-NT.
Such as CE-ME-NT.
G
Garrovick
Guest
I think names would be best.
Initials, it sounds cooler.
A
Amaris
Guest
I like version and year. I like the idea of my OS progressing.
J.
J.
Version seems to offer the least ambiguous indicator of progress; v5.1 (XP) really is just v5.0 (2000) slightly warmed over, and v4.1 and v4.9 (98 and ME) are just v4.0 (95) slightly warmed over too.
I'd probably have called XP v5.5, denoting a greater increment over 2000 than 98 over 95, but otherwise I think that the version numbers make sense.
I'd probably have called XP v5.5, denoting a greater increment over 2000 than 98 over 95, but otherwise I think that the version numbers make sense.
I've go with version numbers.
Version numbers are logical, but uninspiring. You wouldn't know that 5.1 was so different from 5.0, or so incompatible, etc.
I think years make software sound out of date much sooner, prompting for an upgrade. But it is more natural, and easier to understand.
Initials and names are both ambiguous and in no obvious order, so it doesn't suggest relative power.
The naming system of cpus is similiar: What started out with nice logical names like 8088, 80286, 80386 etc, we got Pentium Pentium 2, Pentium 3, which was ok. Celeron was so-so because the name was generic, and wasn't associated with its pentium variant. They should have called them Celeron 2, Celeron 3, etc. Then the chips D and M and 570 and Itanium and whatever it was came out, and I got lost. I have no idea anymore which processors are which.
So I say: Have family names, and let them run for like 10 years, and use version numbers to show improvements. Lower spec'd OS can have different family names, like the mobile versions (CE etc) have a family name.
For example:
(95) Windows Neon
(98) Windows Neon 2
(ME) Windows Neon 3
(2000) Windows Vitrium
(XP) Windows Vitrium 2
(Vista) Windows Vitrium 3 ...
or something like that
Service pack, are naturally then minor version numbers, so Windows 2000 sp4, becomes Windows Vitrium 1.4, etc.
Much better.
Expand the initials to more meaningful and descriptive terms that reflect the product's features. Windows Myalgic Encephalomyelitis, for example.
5.1 isn't that different from 5.0. (Or at least, it wasn't at launch. I suppose after Service Pack 2 some noticeable changes were added.) Hell, I suspect that the only reason software like iTunes doesn't support 5.0 anymore is because Microsoft dropped support from their SDKs, and not because it was a big pain to do so on top of 5.1.
Oh don't take me literally on that - 5.0 & 5.1 - they were just random figures I chose for sake of argument.
Ah, sorry. You just happened to choose the version numbers for 2000 and XP, so I assumed that you actually had reason and logic behind your choice.Oh don't take me literally on that - 5.0 & 5.1 - they were just random figures I chose for sake of argument.
I prefer years or something suitably logical. 'Me' and 'XP' mean nothing. 'Vista' is just as random as any of the code names for windows throughout the history of it.
I know they want to 'sexy' it up and year or version numbers aren't sexy, but there has to be some way of doing both without being so random. You can give the version/year number and then have the version name be bigger and what it is generally referred to as, creating a 'new product' each time a new windows comes out, with 'windows' becoming more of a brand name or platform than a product unto itself.
e.g:
Windows 7.1
Awesome
Windows 7.5
BetterThanAwesome
Whatever.
I also just realized Windows 7.0/Vienna/Whatever will be out in like a year and a half and I have yet to see any reason to put Vista on my system. I'm starting to doubt if I will even bother with it.
I know they want to 'sexy' it up and year or version numbers aren't sexy, but there has to be some way of doing both without being so random. You can give the version/year number and then have the version name be bigger and what it is generally referred to as, creating a 'new product' each time a new windows comes out, with 'windows' becoming more of a brand name or platform than a product unto itself.
e.g:
Windows 7.1
Awesome
Windows 7.5
BetterThanAwesome
Whatever.
I also just realized Windows 7.0/Vienna/Whatever will be out in like a year and a half and I have yet to see any reason to put Vista on my system. I'm starting to doubt if I will even bother with it.
Their year numbers so far weren't terribly logical:
home: 95 98 Me XP Vista
workstation: NT4 (n/a) 2000 XP Vista
server: NT4 (n/a) 2000 2003 2008 Vista
It looks like 2000 should be the successor to 98, but, well, it's not.
Same with 2003/2008.You mean like what Apple's done with OS X (10.4 Tiger 10.5 Leopard 10.6 Snow Leopard)? Yeah, that'll go over with any accusations of copying...
My current system, five years old at this point, is probably never going to be upgraded past XP. I tried Vista, but the poor performance in beta, even with 1.5 GB of RAM, convinced me not to upgrade without hardware upgrades beyond the additional RAM and new Radeon X1650 video card it's gotten over the years. At this point, I might as well build a brand new machine instead, add another core or three and switch to a PCI-X video card.
2000 is what I went to after 98, as far as I'm concerned Me was just a cash in waiting for XP, which was built on. . . oh SNAP, 2000!Their year numbers so far weren't terribly logical:
home: 95 98 Me XP Vista
workstation: NT4 (n/a) 2000 XP Vista
server: NT4 (n/a) 2000 2003 2008 Vista
It looks like 2000 should be the successor to 98, but, well, it's not.
both NT and Home versions were following very logical patterns from the mid-90s through to Me, which fucked everything up. 2000 should have been the unification of the home and workstation versions into one, with the server branch being kept separate. Instead they moved the year numbers over to the NT Server version (and they are labeled as 'Server 2003', 'Server 2008', btw.)
In any case, the failures of their naming so far mean little when it comes to the question asked. I hold by my opinion that Me, XP, Vista, etc. are all nonsense words meant to sound new and sexy so that people will want to buy it. They carry no connotation as to which is actually better(or rather, more advanced) unless you know when they were released.
Because they invented the subtitle and the use of version numbers right? As long as they don't start labeling it as Windows VII: OCELOT, I think anyone who actually tries to pull that shit deserves to have their ipod shoved up their ass. Good artists copy, great artists steal. If someone has a better idea than yours, especially if it is something as retarded and harmless as a naming scheme, then take it.You mean like what Apple's done with OS X (10.4 Tiger 10.5 Leopard 10.6 Snow Leopard)? Yeah, that'll go over with any accusations of copying...
I feel ya, I was forced into an upgrade when my computer caught a power surge (through the surge protector even, fucking cheap ass piece of shit) last week. Poor little thing never even knew the light of a 64 bit OS.
It's with all these new 4 core processors that allow software to work faster than microsoft anticipated. So they need a new operating system capable of blocking up every core, not just one.
What I would LOVE to see is something like the XP Fundamentals come out designed specifically for gaming and other high-demand software. Something with all the excesses removed so I can get the most out of the applications rather than having half my resources dedicated to Windows when It isn't even doing anything at the moment.
