In my opinion its senseless to argue if it is "Blue" or "9"... I thought "Windows Blue" will be the beginning of the shorter release cycle Microsoft is planning for their products (probably only minor changes) -->w ww.theverge.com/2012/11/28/3693368/windows-blue-update-low-cost so you could argue it is only something like an service pack... then you should name it "Blue" But if you look at the kernel versions: all recent releases are based 6.* and all are building on Vista!! 6.0, if you continue the "naming" : 6.1 --> Windows 7 6.2 --> Windows 8 then 6.3 should be "Windows 9" Soo cool down a bit and wait until we know what it will be... and rename the thread to Blue/Windows 9 ... then everyone is satisfied (mmh sorry for the bad english...)
Very useful and knowledgable article. Good find lets just hope this turns out less buggy as Windows 8 RTM and is tested properly
Okay, so you've noticed that there are three revisions of NT 6.x (6.0, 6.1, and 6.2), and therefore it must follow that this build is Windows 9? No. You're seeing an implication that isn't there. Windows Vista (NT 6.0) wasn't a numbered release, so you're left with Windows 7 (NT 6.1) and Windows 8 (NT 6.2) as your only reference for this claim. I could just as easily claim that the next numbered release will be NT 6.4, as the numbered revisions of Windows are clearly built on revisions of NT that have secondary version numbers that are powers of 2. Windows 7 (NT 6.1) <=> 1 = 2^0 Windows 8 (NT 6.2) <=> 2 = 2^1 Clearly it follows that Windows 9 will be NT 6.4, as 4 = 2^2. Q.E.D.
Nope, that's Windows 8.1 (Blue), thankfully they're improving Windows 8 (an already awesome O.S.), this is something that sets Windows 8 apart from the previous O.S.'es, Microsoft can update all apps in the app store. I also mean that Windows Update offers a bit more than it did on XP and instead of sending large patches it can improve indivual applications.