I was sitting in an interview in Dubai, UAE, discussing the finer points of Active Directory, provisioning users, user life cycle management, monitoring AD changes, recovering from AD changes, etc. During our conversation, we got onto the issue of Windows desktops and the history of Microsoft and the desktop. We noticed that there is a distinct pattern of good and not-so-good (OK, in some cases AWFUL) operating systems. We noticed a “leap frog” factor in Microsoft’s delivery of good and bad desktops.
Windows 95/98 – Good
Windows ME – Bad
Windows NT Workstation – Bad
Windows 2000 Professional – Good
Windows XP Professional – Good
Windows Vista – Bad
Windows 7 – Good
Windows 8 – Bad
Windows 8.1 – Not Bad
Windows 9 – Non-existent
Windows 10 – TBD
As you can see, Microsoft jumps back and forth, for the most part, with good and bad operating systems. I say Windows 8.1 is “Not Bad” because it is not as horrible as Windows 8 (but still not used that much in the industry).
We then started to talk about what happened to Windows 9. I mean, when you are on a roll and naming operating systems, why jump over Windows 9, when you have 7 and 8 preceding it? Granted, Microsoft is notorious in mixing things up for no apparent reason and certainly no positive outcome, e.g.,
-
Changing Add Remove Programs to Programs and Features
-
Changing XCACLS to ICACLS
-
Removing the Start button
We then started to consider why Windows 9 will not come to be. Then it hit us! It is so obvious!
“Why is 6 afraid of 7? Because 7 ate 9!”
I truly think this children’s riddle may be the root cause behind Microsoft’s decision to skip Windows 9!
