So, my RTM thoughts were both right and wrong... but mostly right.
This, frankly, wins for most ridiculous thing ever. Build 10240 of Windows 10 was RTM, but Microsoft refuses to call it that. And the justification doesn't really hold up. This is the build which will be released to vendors for new PCs. It is the version that will ship on install media. It is the starting point for Windows 10. IT IS RTM.
In this case, I don't even care how MS chooses to brand (or in this case refuse to brand) the build. It is the RTM build. It meets the definition. It meets what everyone expects it to mean to RTM.
I'm not mad or frustrated or anything like some people seem to be. I think this is silly semantics. I'll continue to call it RTM whenever I have need to refer to this build and that is just that. I think everyone else who has a need to do so, should.
And I partly get the hesitation. I don't think it actually has as much to do with the claims they are giving that this isn't the traditional approach to delivering Windows. That isn't true in a broad enough sense to matter. People have gotten pre-release builds in the past. And Windows Insiders are just a small portion of those who will eventually run Windows 10. I think the concerns around calling it RTM are more a result of a fear of setting expectations too high. Windows 10 is a lot more ambitious in that they are aggressively targeting older hardware for upgrades while still also attempting to support new hardware. Undoubtedly, Windows 10 will be (on a case by case basis) the least stable version of Windows on day 1. New PCs will probably be within the same ballpark as Windows 8 or even Windows 7 PCs at RTM, it is really that install base of older PCs that will be problematic.
In fact, I think the point they are trying to make here is specifically around those old PCs. Based on the way it sounds like they want to approach the Windows 10 rollout, a lot of the older PCs may not be able to get the update for quite a while, and that update may come pre-populated with OS updates so that they may in some respects not be receiving the RTM version as a starting point. Again, a weak argument.
Not really an important article so I'll stop here. Point is, it IS RTM.
In this case, I don't even care how MS chooses to brand (or in this case refuse to brand) the build. It is the RTM build. It meets the definition. It meets what everyone expects it to mean to RTM.
I'm not mad or frustrated or anything like some people seem to be. I think this is silly semantics. I'll continue to call it RTM whenever I have need to refer to this build and that is just that. I think everyone else who has a need to do so, should.
And I partly get the hesitation. I don't think it actually has as much to do with the claims they are giving that this isn't the traditional approach to delivering Windows. That isn't true in a broad enough sense to matter. People have gotten pre-release builds in the past. And Windows Insiders are just a small portion of those who will eventually run Windows 10. I think the concerns around calling it RTM are more a result of a fear of setting expectations too high. Windows 10 is a lot more ambitious in that they are aggressively targeting older hardware for upgrades while still also attempting to support new hardware. Undoubtedly, Windows 10 will be (on a case by case basis) the least stable version of Windows on day 1. New PCs will probably be within the same ballpark as Windows 8 or even Windows 7 PCs at RTM, it is really that install base of older PCs that will be problematic.
In fact, I think the point they are trying to make here is specifically around those old PCs. Based on the way it sounds like they want to approach the Windows 10 rollout, a lot of the older PCs may not be able to get the update for quite a while, and that update may come pre-populated with OS updates so that they may in some respects not be receiving the RTM version as a starting point. Again, a weak argument.
Not really an important article so I'll stop here. Point is, it IS RTM.
Comments
Post a Comment