Microsoft to call Windows 7, Windows 7

Author: Tim Smalley
Published: 14th October 2008
Comments (28) Stumble
Microsoft's Mike Nash has announced that Windows 7 will be known as Windows 7, which sparks a return to the good old days.

Microsoft's Mike Nash has announced that Windows 7 will be known as Windows 7, which sparks a return to the good old days.

Mike Nash, a vice president in the Windows Product Management Group at Microsoft, has announced Windows 7 will be called Windows 7, sparking a return to the good old days before Windows 95 showed up.

Nash revealed the software giant's intentions on the Windows Vista blog, where he wrote a rather lengthy post explaining why Microsoft had moved away from version numbers in the first place.

"We've used version numbers like Windows 3.11, or dates like Windows 98, or "aspirational" monikers like Windows XP or Windows Vista. And since we do not ship new versions of Windows every year, using a date did not make sense," explained Nash. "Likewise, coming up with an all-new "aspirational" name does not do justice to what we are trying to achieve, which is to stay firmly rooted to our aspirations for Windows Vista, while evolving and refining the substantial investments in platform technology in Windows Vista into the next generation of Windows.

"Simply put, this is the seventh release of Windows, so therefore "Windows 7" just makes sense," he continued.

We agree with Nash here – calling the next version of the OS Windows 7 does make sense and with Microsoft planning to release more regular and incremental OS updates, it's understandable. I was never a fan of the various new naming conventions Microsoft has tried since Windows 3.11 – but them I'm a bit of a sucker for version numbers.

What do you think about the company's move forwards into the good old days? Let us know in the forums.
Quote Deadwolf 14th October 2008, 15:56
Should got great with your "I7" Cores from Intel don't you think? Nice PR Choice
Quote Ninja_182 14th October 2008, 16:02
Woo yeah for using version numbers for the version! XP and Vista were stupid names, especially Vista. Saves them the time and effort coming up with something equally stupid sounding.

Still makes more sense than the naming of NT4 :p
Quote DougEdey 14th October 2008, 16:09
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deadwolf
Should got great with your "I7" Cores from Intel don't you think? Nice PR Choice


W(I7)7
WILL!
Quote Cupboard 14th October 2008, 17:04
OK fine.
Quote:
Likewise, coming up with an all-new "aspirational" name does not do justice to what we are trying to achieve, which is to stay firmly rooted to our aspirations for Windows Vista

Firstly, what is "aspirational" about XP or Vista and secondly, is this them admitting Vista was a bit of a flop?
Quote Tim S 14th October 2008, 17:11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cupboard
Firstly, what is "aspirational" about XP or Vista and secondly, is this them admitting Vista was a bit of a flop?

1) Not a lot
2) heh, mebbe :)
Quote esdubu 14th October 2008, 17:17
Isn't this version 9?

Windows 3.11
Windows 95 = 4
Windows 98 = 5
Windows 2000 = 6
Windows XP = 7
Windows Vista = 8
Quote quack 14th October 2008, 17:22
No, as Microsoft work by build numbers.

95 = 4.0
98 = 4.1
ME = 4.9
2000 = 5.0
XP = 5.1
2003 = 5.2
Vista/2008 = 6
7 = 7
Quote rhuitron 14th October 2008, 17:25
^^ Have you all forgoten ME?
Or was that on purpose? ;-)
Quote quack 14th October 2008, 17:26
Er, yeah... ME was 4.9. Added above.
Quote Nexxo 14th October 2008, 17:35
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhuitron
^^ Have you all forgoten ME?
Or was that on purpose? ;-)

ME was just a re-issue of 98, used to fund the marketing for XP. :p
Quote mclean007 14th October 2008, 17:37
Quote:
Originally Posted by quack
No, as Microsoft work by build numbers.

95 = 4.0
98 = 4.1
ME = 4.9
2000 = 5.0
XP = 5.1
2003 = 5.2
Vista/2008 = 6
7 = 7
I thought it went NT4 (v4) -> 2000 (v5) -> XP (v5.1)... as W2K was version 5 of the NT code base, not the Win 95 code base??
Quote Tim S 14th October 2008, 17:40
mclean007 - Windows 2000 was the first NT-based OS for consumers and, yes, it was v5.0 of that code base.
Quote Apoca1yps0 14th October 2008, 17:48
Quote:
Originally Posted by quack
No, as Microsoft work by build numbers.

95 = 4.0
98 = 4.1
ME = 4.9
2000 = 5.0
XP = 5.1
2003 = 5.2
Vista/2008 = 6
7 = 7

The last version of Blackcomb/Vienna/Windows 7 released was Milestone 3, Build 6.1.6780 and Build 6.1.6801 so shouldn't they be calling it Windows 6 by that rule?
Quote B3CK 14th October 2008, 17:51
I just hope that MS doesn't pass the cost of their R&D of what to call the next version of windows on to the consumers.
Quote <A88> 14th October 2008, 17:57
Quote:
The last version of Blackcomb/Vienna/Windows 7 released was Milestone 3, Build 6.1.6780 and Build 6.1.6801 so shouldn't they be calling it Windows 6 by that rule?
No, because it's an unfinished version so it's in between Vista and the final release of 7.
Quote mclean007 14th October 2008, 18:42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim S
mclean007 - Windows 2000 was the first NT-based OS for consumers and, yes, it was v5.0 of that code base.
I thought that's what I said!?
Quote dyzophoria 14th October 2008, 18:57
though many don't agree with M$, i think its a nice change they are just keeping it simple now, Windows 7, so that would make sp1 windows 7.1? that should be simple enough if that implies it all :)
Quote UrbanMarine 14th October 2008, 19:18
Vista was more of a filler OS just like Window ME was before XP released. M$ even said that Vista wasn't ment to be XPs replacement.
Quote steelblade 14th October 2008, 20:01
Ive read it else where at some point ages ago... but do we have a predicted date for windows 7? or is it still a ways off.
Quote MajestiX 14th October 2008, 21:03
they ran out of names or bill isn't there to make up names so they panic and called it 7

people didn't switch to vista because it was totally different and uncomfortable, windows 7 looks like vista so people won't be bothered moving. Let's confuse to consumers more.

so will this version have the advance settings all locked down with more pop-ups every time i do something because double clicking anything is a risk to my computer? Like honestly why did it even say it when i'm installing Microsoft products confuses the hell out of me.
Quote dr-strangelove 14th October 2008, 21:37
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Article
but them I'm a bit of a sucker for version numbers

Shouldn't it say 'but THEN I'm a bit of a sucker for version numbers'?
Quote bahgger 14th October 2008, 21:39
Windows 7 vs. OS 11! Go!
Quote quack 14th October 2008, 22:33
Quote:
Originally Posted by mclean007
I thought it went NT4 (v4) -> 2000 (v5) -> XP (v5.1)... as W2K was version 5 of the NT code base, not the Win 95 code base??
Ah yes... good point. I had forgotten it should've been NT kernels. D'oh!

And so far Windows 7 is not on a version 7 kernel, but actually 6.1... oh well. When I had it as 7 the name made more sense. Maybe the kernel number will change before RTM?

Revised list:

NT4 = 4.0
2000 = 5.0
XP = 5.1
2003 = 5.2
Vista/2008 = 6
7 = 6.1
Quote quack 14th October 2008, 22:57
New blog posting: http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2008/10/14/why-7.aspx
Quote:
There's been a lot of lively discussion since I confirmed yesterday that the official name for the next version of the Window client operating system will be "Windows 7" about how we got to the number "7."

I'll say up front, that there are many ways to count the releases of Windows and it's been both a trip down memory lane and quite amusing to read all the different theories about how we got to the number "7."

Anyway, the numbering we used is quite simple. The very first release of Windows was Windows 1.0, the second was Windows 2.0, the third Windows 3.0.

Here's where things get a little more complicated. Following Windows 3.0 was Windows NT which was code versioned as Windows 3.1. Then came Windows 95, which was code versioned as Windows 4.0. Then, Windows 98, 98 SE and Windows Millennium each shipped as 4.0.1998, 4.10.2222, and 4.90.3000, respectively. So we're counting all 9x versions as being 4.0.

Windows 2000 code was 5.0 and then we shipped Windows XP as 5.1, even though it was a major release we didn't' want to change code version numbers to maximize application compatibility.

That brings us to Windows Vista, which is 6.0. So we see Windows 7 as our next logical significant release and 7th in the family of Windows releases.

We learned a lot about using 5.1 for XP and how that helped developers with version checking for API compatibility. We also had the lesson reinforced when we applied the version number in the Windows Vista code as Windows 6.0-- that changing basic version numbers can cause application compatibility issues.

So we decided to ship the Windows 7 code as Windows 6.1 - which is what you will see in the actual version of the product in cmd.exe or computer properties.

There's been some fodder about whether using 6.1 in the code is an indicator of the relevance of Windows 7. It is not.

Windows 7 is a significant and evolutionary advancement of the client operating system. It is in every way a major effort in design, engineering and innovation. The only thing to read into the code versioning is that we are absolutely committed to making sure application compatibility is optimized for our customers.

We're just over a week away from showing off Windows 7 at PDC and WinHEC. I look forward to sharing more soon!

Mike
Quote Xir 15th October 2008, 07:30
Can someone tell a non native speaker what "aspirational" means...doesn't turn up in my dictionary.


"we are absolutely committed to making sure application compatibility is optimized for our customers."

Hey Boss, people are having massive compatibility problems with vista.
Who cares?
They're not buying it.
...ummmm, then I know just the slogan for our next build!

Well that's something new...what genius came up with that one?
Quote DougEdey 15th October 2008, 09:33
Aspirational:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/aspirational
Quote fargo 15th October 2008, 14:59
why don't they call win 7 vista se (second edition) because that is what it will be !!! what a shame
Quote Xir 16th October 2008, 09:05
Thx!
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.





Stats: 0.051 seconds