Next Windows name unveiled: Windows 7 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 …
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!!
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"
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 they're paving the way for subsequent higher numbers to once again make previous versions look even older and out of date?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!"
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.
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.
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.
"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."
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.
This post has been deleted by its author
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.
Rob
More likely...
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...
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...
"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...
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.
"Simply put, this is the seventh release of Windows, so therefore 'Windows 7' just makes sense,"
What base is he counting in?
V1.0
V2.0
V3.0
V3.11
95
98
98SE
ME
2K
XP
Fista
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.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
