Because 80% of users would suddenly become very confused as to whether that "Windows nine" that their computery friends are talking about is newer or older than this "Windows icks" that the new computer was bundled with.

And you KNOW someone on ebay will have fun pulling out all the old 95/98 discs and start selling old ass computers saying Get Windows 9.5 Now!!, sorta reminding me of someone selling the original Xbox and calling it the Xbox one (technically true) to guys who aren't up to date with MS's naming system... (Course that video could have been a spoof...)

The official reason is "it's so big an upgrade that we skipped a number".

It that a sopihisticated varaiation of 'cause reasons' ? ;)

I wouldn't be overly surprised if Microsoft takes cues from EA's reboot naming system and simply calls their next console "XBox".
What else?

Oh. In that case it's good they didn't go OVER 9000!!! :-D
Huh? Where's Linoleum... er-r-r, I mean, Millenium?

True. But that doesn't make it any better.....but to be honest...i don't bother with the naming much as long it's a good OS. Windows 9 still would have made more sense though....

probably more like remembering. Remembering Windows 95 and Windows 98....

Honestly it would be best to wait a month or so after the official Windows 10 release as there will most likely be some issues during the initial release window to iron out. Plus it gives people time to find any interesting surprises.

I don't know, I didn't make the image...

Ah, I`d heard the reason OS9 was cancelled was because of the whole windoze button missing & the fact that folk still didn`t like the "Here`s a pc OS, made to look like your touch mobile".

Personally, even though it would mean better DX for cross card`ing, less bloatware etc, I still don`t want a touch screen clone.

As for OS10, isn`t it rumoured that patches/updates are going to be charged for?

It would indeed. I'm just glad they didn't name it "Windows X" just to be cool. I also understand the reason regarding legacy applications looking for a version string that starts with "Windows 9" because they were not compatible with Windows NT (looking at said version string is utterly retarded as it was only ever meant as a user-friendly string, not for applications, but at the time, Windows and Windows NT had different methods for real version checking so it was pretty much the easiest way to see which system you were on - nowadays, legacy Windows is obviously dead and we're all on NT).

Because the "lazy programmers" rumour is horseshit people are passing around as fact. I wouldn't be surprised if it were a joke people started to take seriously, because it just has the structure of a joke? "Why did they rename their operating system?" "It's Windows, it's probably because something was broken." The mistake is too foolish to be real. Even if Windows really is checking for "windows 9," there are a half-dozen ways a junior programmer alone could get around it without a billion dollar marketing campaign attached.

Is the system checking for "windows 9?" Then have the operating system call itself "windows_9" or "windows9" or "window9," "w9," or "windowss9," or "windows bob2." No one would ever see it who wasn't a programmer. Or you could do what every computer program in existence does and use a number instead of a string. The OS is now known internally as "3," problem solved. Or you could do any number of more complicated things that wouldn't be necessary because these simple solutions would work fine. Anyone who's had to create a 7-letter password on the internet when you prefer a 6 knows all these tricks by now, c'mon.

The name is just a marketing thing. If anyone wants to make Microsoft's programmers look like fools, I say let them do it by releasing their product, as is tradition.

There was an announcement that if you have Windows 7 or 8(.1), you have a year (starting at the release of 10) to register for a free upgrade. People misinterpreted that to mean "you get Windows 10 free for a year, then you'll have to start paying a subscription".

Windows 10 has the start menu back. The version number has little to do with that though, they could just as well have added it in as an update to Windows 8, naming it Windows 8.2 or whatever..