Why was there no Windows Nine? Because Seven Ate Nine! Ate... Eight.. gettit! I.... will let myself out.

Aura89:

I'm just going to have to leave this here https://media.giphy.com/media/wWue0rCDOphOE/giphy.gif

That's his personal opinion/experience and I don't see anything to be laughed about. Although my personal experience with Win10 is quite small I see many advanced users localy and my client around me having all kinds of weird issues with Win10, not all of them but lets say 1/3 of them are having some sort of issues using Win10. That is the main reason why I don't want to waste my time with Win10 yet and why should I when Win8.1 on my side is serving me perfectly fine. Not a single issue so far for past few years and I'm not talking about one or two PC's but almost two dozens of those running Win8.1 here in my home and in office. Soon after Win8.1 was released (almost zero experience with plain Win8 here on my side) I've strated to use it + Classic Shell since day one and since then it's been rock stable here on my side. Everyone should use OS that fits their needs. If you're happy how Win10 runs on your side that's fine but don't laugh at comments made by people using the older OS. This post is comming from happy Win8.1 camper...

Neo Cyrus:

No one wanted to use it because of its retarded interface and everyone knows that. It was one of the most relatively unpopular OSes ever even among those who used it. That sounds like a failure, enough of a failure that Microsoft skipped the number 9 to try to distance their newish OS from it. Regardless of what it ended up being turned into when Microsoft stopped trying to molest everyone with it, they spent so long trying to force it on everyone that it cost the company big time. I tried my hardest to get used to it (had it on my laptop), I just couldn't. I used 7 on my desktop until 10 was released. I still don't like the stupid sharp edges and Ribbon interface that's been around since Vista. I disable Ribbon to this day and I'd install a theme to get rid of the sharp edges if it was easy to do and every major Win 10 update didn't break themes.

To be fair, 10 has adopted the "retarded interface" way more broadly then 8.x ever did. It has made the "retarded interface" slightly less "retarded" but it's still not a great experience. In 8.x you could almost completely ignore the existence of the "retarded interface" with one exception, the start menu (which had 3rd party replacements). In 10, on the other hand, it's actually all over the place and it's unavoidable to use the "retarded interface". All that said, 10 is a decent OS overall, but I very much see it as the point where the "retarded interface" truly became mandatory for the first time. (My assumption is that "retarded interface" refers to whole Metro/Modern thing)

I liked Windows 8.1. MS decided to let Win8.1 manage memory differently, not off loading certain things, and it made it a snappy OS; but many people took it as a memory hog. Fast forward to Win10 and even Mac OS X which do the same thing and all is A O K.