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 …
Lessee now. Windows 1 was never released and was followed by ...
Windows 2, Windows 3, Windows for Workgroups [4], W95 [5], 98 [6], ME [7], 2000 [8], XP [9], Vista [10]
and now Windows 7. Its not the seventh version. M$ can't count.
Lets try again: Windows 2000 was preceded by NT4, so its really NT5. Then we have XP [NT6], Vista [NT7] and Windows 7 [NT8]
Nope, they still can't count.
To cut the numbering thread in the bud, here's the version numbering...
Windows NT 3.1 and NT 3.5. I don't think these were used much. NT 4.0 came out roughly when 95 did. Windows 2000 is NT 5.0, XP is 5.1, Server 2003 and some XP variants is 5.2, Vista is 6.0. The Windows 1.0-3.11, 95, 98, and ME line is a seperate lineage.
According to Wikipedia, Windows 7 is 6.1.6801 (M3 beta release). Hopefully, I would think they'd consider Windows 7 once it's out as 7.0.xxxx. But, I know for sure the Solaris "uname" and marketing versions are totally screwy too.
It sounds to me like the main plan with Windows 7 is to hope machines have sped up enough by then for people to tolerate a Vista-sized OS. But, maybe Microsoft will surprise us, only time will tell. I'm running Ubuntu personally.
The way I see it, this is either the 8th or 9th version of Windows, depending on where you count from. If you start from Windows 3.x, then 95=4, 98=5, 2000/ME=6, XP=7, and Vista=8, so this one should be 9. If you start from NT (the mother of this kernel), then the last NT was 4, 2000=5, XP=6, and Vista=7, so it should be 8. So how do they figure this is the 7th version of Windows?
However you count it, if the goal is to be better than (or at least suck less than) Vista, then the bar is pretty low. Makes no never mind to me, though. No Vista for me so far. No Win007 for me either.
Firslty: Seems to me that someone already posted the numbering convention, and it's based on the NT version (see earlier post by Henry Wertz)...
I imagine it could be wiki'ed or googled easily to find out if you don't believe him. How many more times must people post along the lines of "But I can name 27 Windows varieties, why isn't it Windows 27".
Secondly: I don't like Vista much (though I've thrown enough RAM at mine that I can at least ignore it for the purposes of my needs). However, I simply cannot see the connect between "MS calls new version a number" and "MS totally bankrupt of ideas, or creativity, and this shows the next version is going to sux!"
Paris, because it's my first post here, and who else would I use?
I have the answer
Windows 1.0 - Version 1
Windows 2.0 - Version 2
Windows 3.1, 3.11, NT 3.51 were all variations of Version 3.0
Windows 95/98/ME and NT 4 were all varitations of Version 4.0
Windows 2000/XP were all variations of Version 5.0 (2000 was 5.0.nnn, XP 5.1.nnnn)
Vista was version 6.n.nnn
Therefore the next will be 7.
PHEW thats that arguement sorted...............i think ;-)
Now wheres the straightjacket
This post has been deleted by its author
7 is supposedly a lucky number in a few cultures, perhaps they're playing on that angle? Personally the arty, whispy Vista thingy didn't really pan out, irrespective of whether was any good or not, so they are obviously heading back to something simple in a bid to make the marketing a lot easier. I don't see Apple having problems with numbers and names, Ubuntu manages to maintain supporters with it's comical naming conventions, why do MS find it so much trouble? Constantly chopping and changing, Win31, WfW, NT, Win98, WInXP, 2003, Vista, 2008, 7!
Surely they're simply going back to using year numbers.
win95
win98
win2000
and now win07, which obviously is shortened to win7 because we all know that numbers don't have leading zeros.
Of course, that means they're already a year late, but that's par for the course...
I am surprised that no-one has tried to count up all the previous releases of Windows, in order to find out whether Windows 7 is actually the seventh release, or not. Here, let me be the first:
(list)
There you go. As you can see from my list, Windows 7 is in fact the umpteenth version of Windows, and should be named accordingly. I shall now press the refresh button on my browser, and see what the other commentators have written.
it just goes to show how many people on here who actually comment on windows and flame it along with M$ do not know what they are talking about... if they did they would know how Microsoft number the OS....
Microsoft had two lines of OS, and after the mess that was windows ME they dropped one...
3.11, 95, 98,98se and ME were one line and 3.5NT, 2000, XP, Vista and now windows 7 are the other...
its simple really... if you cant follow it, it says a lot about you !!!
mines the one with the MS logo on the back
...it's about bloody time they went back to a sensible versioning convention. Silly names like "XP" and "Vista" give you absolutely no clue as to where they fit in the Windows timeline.
Hopefully, all the idiots have stopped complaining about "ZOMG MS CAN'T COUNT!" by now. Perhaps MS should have clarified that this is the seventh release of Windows NT. As anyone who can click Start > Run and type "winver" can verify...
Windows 2000 is Windows NT 5.0
Windows XP is Windows NT 5.1
Windows Server 2003 (and probably XP x64) is Windows NT 5.2
Windows Vista (and Server 2008) is Windows NT 6.0
So yes, the next major version number is 7. Now if Windows 7 actually ends up using kernel version 6.1, bricks will be shat.
Who cares about the name - are Microsoft going to give those of us who have made the jump to Vista (with the sole exception of UAC being a *bit* annoying, it really isn't that bad you know) a nice cheap way of upgrading to 7 or do we have to pay full price like the XP-loving refuseniks?
First off, how many morons jump right to "MS Can't count" comments without reading the 38 already posted? We must be on the Internet here or something for that sort of behaviour. That goes along with posting complaints on subjects of which you are ignorant, like the previously pointed out fact that 95/98/ME are counted seperately.
And then there are the comments about how much Windows7 will blow ass, since it'll be like Vista. I'm no Windows fan (I use it because they require me to at work, other than that it's Slackware or nothing,) but I have reasonable expectations for Win7. That's because I've used Win2008 a bit, and it was quite a slick OS, even running on my 2.5 year old desktop. From what I've heard, Win7 is supposed to be more closely related to 2008 rather than Vista, which makes sense, since 2008 is just an incremental improvement upon Vista with some server software thrown in.
Honestly 2008 ran faster on my desktop than XP did, and it's just about the first Windows release that I've ever enjoyed - I tend to keep the older version as long as I can to avoid the performance hit on the new version. And for reference I wasn't running Aero or anything to waste cpu/gpu power needlessly.
So Windows 7 could be decent. And they shouldn't have all that much development to do for it on top of what they've already done for 2008, so it might not even take them that long. There's always the great chance that MS will screw it up royally though.
I can remember a time when people argued about what the operating system should do, rather than what it should be called (eg pre-emptive vs co-operative multi-tasking, the battle of the GUI's, plug-and-play, network management etc).
My problem is apart from 'support new hardware' I struggle to think of a 'feature' that would make one OS really better than any other. XP is stable enough now that I can't remember the last BSOD, Ubuntu is knocking rough edges off Linux and is usable 90-95% of the time. OS10 is OK if a little one-app-at-a-time in terms of usability. But I switch between the three daily and it's relatively painless. With things like Open Office and open source cross-platform and web-apps the OS is becoming irrelevant.
So what one OS feature would really make a difference?
windows 7 is apparently going to be a complete core strip down and de-bloat re-write. new filesystems, new file handlers and protected kernal, blah blah blah, and apparently it'll be faster than sh1t of a shovel.
if i recall correctly,
vista was going to be a complete core strip down with bloat removal re-write. new file system that was going to rock, kernal protected from drivers.... sounds familier... not what we got in the box.
I don't get your point! If you can remember the version number sequences why have you got your underwear in such a twist?
if you have not commented on why its V7 and there have been lots more versions of windows released than 7, then the comment did not relate to you, therefore why the twisted undies?
And FYI i am not thirteen, And have been involved with computers since way before windows was around. And, just because i find that Microsoft products good, maybe not perfect, but still better than the penguin branded variety of OS as a desktop environment.
so wind your neck in !!!
"refining the substantial investments in platform technology in Windows Vista into the next generation of Windows."
ewwww...I just threw up in the back of my throat reading that.
@ac - "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."
Thank you. I narrowly avoided soaking everything in the vicinity by NOT having a mouthful of coffee. I only need to dry my britches.
Shame, Shame on you wankers for hurting Sarah! Begone back to your dank basements where you lurk in the corner!
when I type SET into my cmd window
i get:
Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6001]
Copyright (c) 2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
in XP i would get something like
Microsoft Windows [Version 5.1.2600]
Copyright (c) 2002 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
IT's going by NT version numbers/codebase, not the old, and now legacy "386"/DOS codebase
Windows 7 should therefore TECHNICALLY (speculation) be NT version 7
The fac tthe Milestones are on 6.x codebases still is fine, Vista was too til later beta's. They're still in alpha dont forget.
I guess the true test will be, wait until RTM, and see if it registered as 6.1/6.2/6.5 or as NT 7.0.xxxx
This post has been deleted by its author
another 1 that might work.
need more optimization, nano cpus arnt here yet,.
blah blah blah., i dont have vista. i dont have dual core cpu etc. if i bother getting a new pc. i know i could near enough reverse engineer vista removing all the junk. and make any game run on ultra settings at 60+ fps. most of what slows down XP are all the network services most people dont actually need running. which are set to automatic startup
Someone above noted the various versions - but there was also Windows/286 and Windows/386, back in the day, so I'm not sure where those fall in this.
I guess one could argue that the Windows 3.x series all fall under just "3" - so that combines 3 into 1. Still, though, that leaves us with:
1.0
2.0
286 and 386 (did they fit into a "version" anywhere?)
3.0 / 3.1 / 3.11
95
98
XP
Vista
So that's 8 or 9 (depending how you look at it). If they knock out 286/386, that still is 7 - so this nexst version should be Windows 8.
I think.
Aren't version numbers arbitrary now? I remember a few years ago some companies skipping versions numbers to make their product look more mature.
I wonder if Paris knows ...
Oh, it will be even worse! They will see that Windows 2000 (or more!) has been out already, so darn Win 7 must be from the times of Jesus... </joke>
Now, y'all pointing out the "two lineages" of Windows and how Win 7 is actually being considered the 7th NT, etc.... Well, you are technically right, I guess (but don't really care much). But you forget the simple fact that you are not human beings; you are El Reg readers. You see, them normal human beings will say something like "but it was called Windows 98! Then Windows XP! It's all Windows!!1!2!" So it is a Windows release, no matter what their slightly sick-in-the-head (i.e., they actually care about software naming conventions enough to memorize them) techie friends might say. That's what happens when marketing is driving the process, I guess.
Vista would've already been YQ. I say let's go with ++Y++Q leaving us with...Windows ZR! Two reasons:
1) Chevrolet already has the Corvette ZR so that'll be great for marketing (Hmmm...Windows ZR...Corvette ZR...this must be the FASTEREST WINDOWS EVAR!!!)
2) Brits and Merkins can have a fun shouting match over the pronounciation.
Zee-R
No, Zed-R
NO, ZEE-R
NO, ZED-R
See what I mean? Endless fun.
Perhaps someone omitted punctuation when printing the name -
Instead of calling it "Windows 7"
They meant to name it "Windows 7!"
Because 7! = 5040, so maybe it should be "Windows 5040"
That’ll give plenty of spare for the thousands of incremental changes and experimental versions that MS have created en-route to their current waste of space.
From the screenshots I've seen so far, 7 looks suspiciously like minor tweaks to Vista (6.0). And since MS have a habit of a major release followed by a minor release (sometimes followed by an even more minor release) (3.0 --> 3.1 --> 3.11, 95 --> 98 --> 98SE, 2k --> XP), it would seem logical for Windows 6.0 to be followed by 6.1...
But then again, you never know with MS. Once the codebase for XP had been stabilised, they concentrated development on "Blackcomb" - "Longhorn" was originally going to be a point release, until the "Bill Factor" crept in (Bill suggesting various tweaks and additions that caused it to bloat into a full-blown OS). Eventually engineers were seconded from the "Blackcomb" project in order to get Vista out - probably a rush job since development work restarted from the Server 2003 codebase a few years into the project...
I suppose the real indicator of whether it's a minor release or a full-blown thing is if they implement WinFS and an alternative means of accessing drives other than through letters. Oh, and do something useful with UAC (making sure all supported graphics drivers can manage the switch to the secure desktop without blanking the screen for 5s would be a start!). But don't disable it entirely - anyone used to using *NIX system knows you have to authenticate as root to do sysadmin stuff like installing applications to be accessible by all users.
Yes i think i see what you mean.
I intentionally ignored Vista there primarily because i would *really* want them to either start from NT 5.x again or hope the 6.0 was just most royally possible fuckup of the 6.x kernel codebase and other branches will be good. (Something like what mittfh talks about. And i'm explicitly saying kernel there because seemingly the rotten fish in Vista is not just in the GUI or other peripheral things)
I fear "ZR" because it would implicitly put a line going from XP over Vista to that new thang, whereas calling it YQ would singal "we are back on track, that Vista thing never happened or if it did it was someone else" :)
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
