The name of the next Windows client operating system will be Windows 7. Microsoft vice president of Windows product management Mike Nash blogged Monday Microsoft is adopting the current codename for the final product, for reasons best explained by himself. It has something to do with not wanting to get too far away from the …
Awaiting the force of 6.1 comments...
Before people say, because 2000 was 5.0 and XP was 5.1... Vista is 6.0 so this should be 6.1...
Can you really say that without seeing it?
TBH i dont even give a crap... If its better than Vista the bring the bloody thing on before I go completly insane with this god damn OS!!
"this is the seventh release of Windows"
Will it be the 3rd failure ?
If 7 is just Vista in a new skirt, then my answer is YES.
MS can't count
12) Windows 7
12 Not 7!
oh think of the shop assistants in pc world
i can just imagine it now "you want vista on your pc cos Microsoft have re released an old version of windows. i mean windows 95 and 98 were out like years ago so they should be up to 100 or 105 at least now but they have given us windows 7 which must be like 50 years old"
What's in a name?
I wonder if they regret using 'inspirational names' because while they look good at the time, they hide the age of the product in retrospect. For example, many people think Windows 2000 is ancient now and XP is the best Windows there is, however XP only came out a year later and 2K has had its own updates and service packs.
If XP had been named Windows 2001, would people still be clinging to it as much today, or would that number make it sound rather old and less desirable? Perhaps by reintroducing numbers (and come to think of it - weren't version numbers supposedly scrapped from IE for the intended Vista version before they did a U-turn and came up with IE7?) they're paving the way for subsequent higher numbers to once again make previous versions look even older and out of date?
"You still use Windows 7?! Don't you know the current version is 9.5! What, is your car powered by coal too? Hahaha!"
And I had my heart set on Windows WS for Windows Wallet Sucker.
I suppose it's better than...
Windows What Vista Should Have Been But Still Won't Be What It Should Be As It's Rushed To Market To Win Over Vista Haters.
Anyway, given they dropped the Blackcomb codename (XP was Whistler and the "next" spanking cool version was supposed to be Blackcomb, with Vista a stop-gap), then I guess Windows 8 will be Blackcomb with all the features they've been dreaming of for years but never can squeeze in.
A Rose By Any Other Name?
It's heartening to see senior management putting so much detailed thought and consideration into the name of a product. All we need now is the same approach to the design of the product.
Sounds like a company running out of ideas to me.
A Vista by any other name...
After MS' early bullshit about the next Windows being a slimmed down, leaner, faster OS it seems they've decided they can't be bothered with all that and that they'll just crap out Vista SP2 with a new name (a name "unblemished" by the Vista brand).
After all the feature cutting of Vista it seems MS can't work out how to put new features into Windows (unless it's DRM). My theory is that no-one there understands the source code anymore and so they just build more shit on top of the old shit instead of re-writing or replacing things. That's why every Windows release gets bigger and slower. A bit like building a house of cards on top of a house of cards.
You'd think they would try to come up with a lightweight OS to cater to the Netbook market, or something geared purely for performance for gamers.
Quicker to say on a support call
Calling the essential patched version 'Windows 7.1' is a lot easier than trying to get your tonsils around 'Windows Vista 2 Service Pack 1'
"The seventh release of Windows"?!?!
Anyone older than 30 who possesses the ability to count on their fingers knows:
1: Windows 1.0 - From the mists of 1985, with a tiled-only windowing interface that didn't catch on
2: Windows 2.0 - Overlapping windows - woohoo!
3: Windows 3.x - New GUI and controls taken from Word; we'll just count all 3.x releases as 4: one release even though they actually included 3.0, 3.1, 3.11 ("Windows for Workgroups", with networking built-in - woohoo!) and Windows 3/386 (protected-mode extensions originally developed at Compaq - woohoo again!)
4: Windows 95 - The one most people know and love
5: Windows 98 - With Internet built-in - woohoo!! And Windows 98SE, arguably the best 16-bit version
6: Windows ME - The most hated version until Vista came along, and the last 16-bit version
Now we move on to the "New Technology" code-base:
7: Windows NT 3.x - Not to confuse anyone with version numbers, but this was the *first* release of the code-base used in all current versions of Windows; 3.1 followed
8: Windows NT 4.0 - IIS and Active Directory available as add-ons; Windows 95 GUI add-on
9: Windows 2000 - Leanest/meanest NT release (i.e. before the bloat set in)
10: Windows XP/2003 - Client and server now separate brands
11: Windows Vista/2008 - (Oops - out of fingers!) According to most opinions (including mine), Vista suxx big-time but 2008 is really quite good, although it uses the same code-base - um, what?!
Which brings us to "Windows 7" which is in fact the 12th major release of Windows, or the 6th release of the NT code-base. Either way it's not the "seventh release of Windows". That was my point, in case anyone is for some reason still reading this.
I need a lie down now.
Error In Addition?
"Simply put, this is the seventh release of Windows, so therefore 'Windows 7' just makes sense," Nash said.
Windows 1, 2, 3, 3.11 for workgroups, NT3.5, NT4, 95, 98, ME, 2000, XP, Server2003, Vista, Server 2008
That makes fourteen. Ok, so, disregard 1 and combine 3/3.11/3.5... Still leaves eleven. For argument's sake maybe call 2003 & 2008 rebadged versions of XP & Vista... Nope, still got nine.
I know the reality - that W2K through to Server2003 are all labeled 5-point-something-or-other and Vista is 6-point-blah, but still, do Microsoft really expect us to buy this? (figuratively AND literally). Still, better than admitting the real reason - "Everyone's calling it 'Windows 7' already. If we call it something else we'll have to spend a ton of money on advertising it, and people will still call it Windows 7. Give in to the masses."
I wonder how much a consultancy was paid to come up with this revolutionary idea.
Seems reasonable if they want to go back to basics and make it sound like the thing works.
What they really need to do is just have one single version now. Or home/business at the very most. All the versions of Vista were a farce.
Their crappy activation system needs to go next. Innocent consumers being locked out of their machines is not something that should ever happen. It's going to get cracked anyway, so they might as well just tone their activation system.
I wonder ...
... if Windows 7 will be 64-bit only as announced. Microsoft once touted Windows Vista to be last 32/64-bit Windows incarnation. But then again,...
... if I need to buy a software signing certificate from the companies mentioned in http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/winlogo/drvsign/crosscert.mspx and sign my legacy drivers myself, so they will install. Side note: The list looks long, but half the list are Veri$ign children.
... if the United States of A will be still competitive or
... if Windows 7 Ultimate Uber Edition will cost me just 99 USD / 40 GBP / 99 CHF / 65 EUR :)
So is 'Windows Seven' going to be NT7, or NT6.1, like in the current alpha builds?
"Likewise, coming up with an all-new "aspirational" name does not do justice to what we are trying to achieve"
In other words "Windows we-promise-this-one-isn't-quite-as-crap-as-vista" didn't sound like a good name.
Windows Could Get Sexy
Hmmmmmmmm. Windows Seven of Nine - Sleek, well rounded, very easy on the eye; never sure if it's running it's own agenda. Probably shouldn't turn your back on it as it threatens to assimilate your printer, webcam, etc though.
Had to Wiki this but..
...pretty sure that's more than 7. I'm sure there's an obvious explanation.......
Perhaps Microsoft think that this'll be "lucky 7" - well the alternative can't be pleasant to contemplate - remind me to avoid the version of Windows six releases after this.
The crazy fools
Have they never heard of consistency? It doesn't say much that they cannot stick to a naming convention! Then again, any opportunity to confuse people!
Keep It Simple, Stupid
Sometimes, the simplest solutions are the best ones.
It seems Microsoft has finally learned to count.. :-)
No, not the joke alert icon, I think this is a serious achievement for them. Perhaps soon they will be able to code a simple bug-free program - "Hello world" springs to mind.
Windows 7 eh?
1) Windows 95
2) Windows 98
3) Windows ME
4) Windows 2000
5) Windows XP
6) Windows Vista
7) Windows 7
What about Windows 3.1x and everything that came before it? Or Windows 98 SE???
Did they use an old Pentium 1 to work this out????
So what they're really trying to say then is that they've run out of version numbers?
This is going to get confusing. I mean what's to say that Windows 95 isn't better than Windows 7 because it's version number is 88 higher than 7. Now I know that Windows 95 was internally Windows 4.00 etc but is Joe Public going to know this?
Maybe I'll be able to flog off my copies of Windows 95 & Windows 98 at £50 a pop. :-)
I still think Windows ME III would be a better name.
"Simply put, this is the seventh release of Windows, so therefore 'Windows 7' just makes sense,"
So why not call Vista Windows 6? And XP Windows 5?
I don't really give a toss about the name, I just don't think that HE makes sense.
Surely this is Windows 8?
Type SET into a Windows command prompt and you get "Microsoft Windows 2000 [Version 5.00.2195]" Thus XP should be Version 6, Vista should be Version 7 and thus this new version of Windows; Version 8.
"... to stay firmly rooted in our aspirations for Windows Vista ..."
So Vista Second Edition it is, then.
The version number system got silly when it got into 2 decimal places where the least significant digit heralded major functionality changes (Windows 3.1 to 3.11...). Plus if we increment the version number every time we put out a fix, we'll need at least four decimal parts (Windows 4.0.1190.4 etc.) It also gave the "dated" appearance of PC's as technical objects and larger numbers sound much cooler (e.g. Word 6 -> Word 95).
The date system was supposed to get us to always buy the latest version (Comic Relief Red Nose Syndrome) but failed miserably - all it did was make the only thing that worked looked very dated (newer numbers = worse product in the consumer's mind) and to show how long it is between major versions of Windows, plus it was ruined by SP numbers which harked back to the above point (Windows 98 SE... ffs).
Then the "moniker" titles were okay but confusing for the customer base (ME, XP, etc.) until eventually the word Windows was dropped by them altogether ("I installed XP the other day"). Additionally, Vista was such a dead horse that naming something Vista 2 would be commercial suicide and trying to find a non-trademarked, non-common-usage term which would fit the next version was nigh on impossible (Windows Vapour? Or Windows Commonsense?).
So let's do what everyone else is doing and go back to version numbers. And then we'll increment our version numbers by an overly large amount to keep up with the competition (Windows 2.6.27 anyone?) and then we'll scrap that and use the project codenames and then...
Long live the King!
The King is dead, long live the King!
Or should that have been: The work shy servant is dead, long live the King!
two, four, six, eight, alliterate
Why can't they be sensible like the Ubuntu people? I know times are hard but how much do joss sticks cost?
How about "Windows Wipeout", "Washy Windows" or, if they are stuck on the 7, "Secret Seven"?
This must have saved M$ a heap of money & laid of a few staff in the inspirational dept.
XP not a version?
Between Windows 7 and NT4 there was Windows 2000, XP and Vista. Vista was probably 6. Which by my counting, makes XP a service pack for 2000, but one they made you pay for.
Instead of now, say, 'Vista' getting a bad name, if it's another turkey, 'windows' will now get a bad name...
It will be ready when?
2007 or 2107?
Meh... We KNEW it was going to be Win7. The question is - will it be a repackaged Vista - with all the rubbish? Or is it going to be a sensibly enhanced XP?
It must be one of those, because at Micro$loth's normal development rate, there's no time for anything else?
Repackaged Vista will be another nail in M$'s coffin. XP 'super' might just save the day.
So. I guess that means repackaged Vista then?
And, what about all those people who got lumbered with Vista? A discounted update maybe?
Wait! Let me sit down and take a deep breath... I'm obviously loosing it here. Of COURSE not! Silly idea...
hmm 3.1 * 2 != 7
Does this mean it is more than twice as good as Windows 3.1?
Wake me up when somebody cares what Microsoft call their next flop any more
i'm not buying it
Why won't they call it Windows Vista 2.0? or Mojave?
we all know its just the vista codebase with knobs on, mostly just a search and replace name change.
Look out for features such as 3gb memory limit (that limit is a joke now, imagine 5 years time!)
Seventh verse, same as the first
CERT Advisories: 7932
"And since we do not ship new versions of Windows every year, using a date did not make sense."
Maybe that has something to do with MS not being able to deliver any of their products on time.
Sure they wouldn't want to call it Vista2009 or Vista2 (Vista 1.2?), since the Vista brand is tainted enough as it is.
Calling a turd a Mars bar doesn't automagically make it so though. Pushing out new turd and sprinkling some sugar on top this time, still doesn't make it a Mars bar.
On my way out to create another Vista...
I think this is the correct version.
Also, there have been a whole bunch of nominally point releases between Win3 and now, including Win XP (5.1).
If they called it Vista SP2 it would be hard to get people to pay more money for an "upgrade".
A year is no good? Like Server 2008, SQL 2008...
The seventh release of Windows? They must be skipping versions they want to forget me ME.
Windows 1,3,95, 98, ME. NT4W, 2000, XP, Visa. Even skipping the minor ones like 3.1, 3.11, 95 osr2, 98se there are more then 7 releases of desktop Windows.
So is that gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy, or pride? Surely not lust...
Ah...wonderful, "a rose by any other name" but it's still winblows!
Aspirations for Windows Vista?
Just so we are all clear, what may those be?
More like Vista is ...
Shit! So lets change our naming again so that Vista (aka steaming pile of dung) has nothing to do with our new name ... Windows 7.
Makes Sense to me
Why would they want to give up a name that is synonymous with success?
"Simply put, this is the seventh release of Windows, so therefore 'Windows 7' just makes sense,"
What base is he counting in?
I'm not a mathematician, but I do chew sugar-free gum :-)
I'm ignoring the 64bit flavours & the various versions of NT & "server" too.
Perhaps that's why Windows is as stable as a three-legged cow, Microsoft can't count.
Paris, even she can count past 7.
- Review Is it an iPad? Is it a MacBook Air? No, it's a Surface Pro 3
- Hello, police, El Reg here. Are we a bunch of terrorists now?
- Microsoft refuses to confirm 'Windows 9' unzip lip slip
- Netflix swallows yet another bitter pill, inks peering deal with TWC
- Barnes & Noble: Swallow a Samsung Nook tablet, please ... pretty please