Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Windows 7 To Be Called ... Windows 7

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the but-most-folks-call-me-jim dept.

Microsoft 772

An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft's Mike Nash came forward today in a blog post on the Windows Vista Blog and revealed the official name for Windows Code Name '7' as simply 'Windows 7.' The reasoning, by Mr. Nash, is that Windows 7 is 'the seventh release of Windows.' As much wonderful sense as this makes on first glance, it seems as if Microsoft's marketing teams pulled this number out of thin air: the Windows 7 kernel is version 6.1, and there's no way Windows 7 adds up as the seventh release of Windows anyway."

cancel ×

772 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Isn't There an Iron Maiden Song For This? (5, Funny)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 5 years ago | (#25367805)

the Windows 7 kernel is version 6.1

Perhaps they simply wanted to avoid the inevitable Windows 6, SP 6, Revision 6 ... of the beast?

Re:Isn't There an Iron Maiden Song For This? (5, Insightful)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 5 years ago | (#25367839)

I dunno, it works out if you do consumer OSs:
Win 3
Win 95
Win 98
Win ME
Win XP
Vista
Win 7

Re:Isn't There an Iron Maiden Song For This? (5, Informative)

Renstar (142001) | more than 5 years ago | (#25367913)

Per the wiki, Win 95, 98, and ME are all revisions of version 4, which makes xp 5, vista 6, and 7 7.

Re:Isn't There an Iron Maiden Song For This? (5, Funny)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 5 years ago | (#25367925)

They called it Windows 7 because 7 is a lucky number, and they need all the luck they can get.

Isn't There a biblical passage For This? (4, Funny)

Ostracus (1354233) | more than 5 years ago | (#25368079)

"...and on the seventh day he rested".

Re:Isn't There an Iron Maiden Song For This? (5, Funny)

Kjella (173770) | more than 5 years ago | (#25368169)

Actually it made me more think of Windows Seven [imdb.com] , but that's just me. A few parts bloat, some OS X envy and some lust for world dominance and you're pretty much there.

Re:Isn't There an Iron Maiden Song For This? (4, Funny)

pcolaman (1208838) | more than 5 years ago | (#25368351)

No, no, NO! They called it Seven because they saved it from the collective, and it no longer needs the full name Seven of Nine. So just Seven for short.

Re:Isn't There an Iron Maiden Song For This? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25368237)

I love how this gets modded insightful :)

Re:Isn't There an Iron Maiden Song For This? (1)

freddy_dreddy (1321567) | more than 5 years ago | (#25368289)

They called it Windows 7 because 7 is a lucky number, and they need all the luck they can get.

Elaborate please.

Re:Isn't There an Iron Maiden Song For This? (3, Insightful)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 5 years ago | (#25368185)

What wiki? So you are saying that it goes:
Win 1
Win 2
Win 3
Win 4 (95, 98, ME)
Win 5 (NT 3, NT 4, 2000, XP)
Win 6 (Vista)
Win 7

That's plausible except for grouping the entire history of NT up until Vista as one big version. Then again, it also fits into what I was saying if they only count consumer OSs and XP is the only version of NT that "counts" prior to Vista.

Re:Isn't There an Iron Maiden Song For This? (1)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 5 years ago | (#25368227)

not sure why you got troll modded overrated. but even TFA says

1. Windows
      2. Windows 2
      3. Windows 3.0
      4. Windows NT (NT 4)
      5. Windows 2000 (NT 5)
      6. Windows XP (NT 5.1)
      7. Windows Vista (NT 6)

The article is clearly trolling some slashdot love/ad-money the windows 7 agument works quite well if you could vista as 6 and accept that 6.1 doesn't sound good (6.11 for ...oh nvm)

Re:Isn't There an Iron Maiden Song For This? (3, Informative)

jfruhlinger (470035) | more than 5 years ago | (#25368329)

Yeah, but that's insider stuff for geeks. As far as Microsoft's branding was concerned, they were three separate OSes. Importantly, if I'm remembering right Windows 98 wasn't a free upgrade from Windows 95, for example.

Re:Isn't There an Iron Maiden Song For This? (5, Interesting)

DrLang21 (900992) | more than 5 years ago | (#25368007)

You forgot Windows 2.1. Yes it existed... I have a copy.

Re:Isn't There an Iron Maiden Song For This? (5, Funny)

Migity (1199059) | more than 5 years ago | (#25368187)

Is that you Bill?

Re:Isn't There an Iron Maiden Song For This? (4, Funny)

armer (533337) | more than 5 years ago | (#25368339)

Rookie... I have Windows 1 on 5.25 360k floppies...

Re:Isn't There an Iron Maiden Song For This? (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 5 years ago | (#25368389)

Also "Windows 3" can't be grouped together as a solid unit. Windows 3.0 and 3.1 were at least as different as Windows 95 and 98 were from each other.

Re:Isn't There an Iron Maiden Song For This? (2, Insightful)

aliquis (678370) | more than 5 years ago | (#25368033)

It also works with:

NT 4
Win 2k
Vista
Windows 7

So I don't see the problem, I've always seen it as "the next version of NT"

Windows
Windows 2
Windows 3.x
Win 95/NT/98/Me
Win 2k/XP/2k3
Vista
Windows 7

works to.

Or this, but very non-logical:

MS-DOS
Win 3.x
Win 95
Win NT
Win 2k
Vista
Windows 7

Re:Isn't There an Iron Maiden Song For This? (4, Funny)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 5 years ago | (#25368139)

There's something (XP), missing (XP) from your list (XP).

I wonder (XP) what it could be (XP)?

Re:Isn't There an Iron Maiden Song For This? (1)

springbox (853816) | more than 5 years ago | (#25368063)

That works if you ignore the first two versions

Re:Isn't There an Iron Maiden Song For This? (4, Informative)

Bogtha (906264) | more than 5 years ago | (#25368099)

I dunno, it works out if you do consumer OSs:
Win 3

There were two versions of Windows before Windows 3, that's why they called it Windows 3. And Windows 3 wasn't an OS, it was a shell that ran on top of DOS. Some people say that Windows 3 was an OS because it had drivers for certain pieces of hardware. I disagree, unless you are willing to call all the contemporary games with Soundblaster drivers "operating systems" too. The first consumer OS Microsoft produced was Windows 95. It still used DOS as a makeshift bootloader, but that's about it.

Re:Isn't There an Iron Maiden Song For This? (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 5 years ago | (#25368349)

that's why they called it Windows 3

LOL, I was aware of 1 and 2... just that maybe they weren't counting those. Someone else pointed out that the numbering makes sense if you stick with the NT line and only count major releases:
Win 1 (NT 3)
Win 2 (NT 3.5)
Win 3 (NT 4)
Win 4 (Win 2000)
Win 5 (XP)
Win 6 (Vista)
Win 7

Re:Isn't There an Iron Maiden Song For This? (5, Interesting)

Zocalo (252965) | more than 5 years ago | (#25368127)

I know they sucked and hardly anyone used them, but that kind of overlooks Windows v1 & v2. I think it makes more sense if you go with the major steps of the UI:

  1. Windows 1 - Initial release.
  2. Windows 2 - Now with over-lapping Windows!
  3. Windows 3 - And pseudo 3D effects!
  4. Windows 9x (& ME) - Look Ma, we can multitask without... Oh, never mind.
  5. Windows XP - So easy a toddler could use it... Which might explain why it looks a lot like Duplo.
  6. Windows Vista - UAC: Making your PC more secure by training you to click "Yes" to everything!
  7. Windows 7 - What do you want us to fsck up today?

Re:Isn't There an Iron Maiden Song For This? (1)

omkhar (167195) | more than 5 years ago | (#25368369)

Windows 3.1 and 3.11 included rudimentary networking, which was major for its time.

Re:Isn't There an Iron Maiden Song For This? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25368153)

You forgot Windows 2000 ...

Re:Isn't There an Iron Maiden Song For This? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25368157)

I think your math is a bit wrong.

The older "consumer" versions of Windows went something like:
1 - Windows 1.0
2 - Windows 2.0
3 - Windows 3.0, 3.1, 3.11
4 - Windows 95, 98, ME

The NT series went something like:
3 - Windows NT 3.1, 3.5
4 - Windows NT 4.0
5 - Windows 2000 (5.0), Windows XP (5.1), Windows Server 2003 (5.2)
6 - Windows Vista (6.0)

Up to that point, it all makes sense. Except for the consumer / NT split, each version of Windows with the same basic version number is similar to the others. Windows ME was not much different than Windows 95, and the NT 5 series were pretty much cross-compatible.

Since Windows 7 is basically an enhanced version of Vista, pretty much as XP was to 2000, calling it Windows 7 doesn't really make a whole lot of sense. Especially considering that the internal version number is 6.2.

Re:Isn't There an Iron Maiden Song For This? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25368251)

Don't forget Windows BOB.

Re:Isn't There an Iron Maiden Song For This? (1)

martinmarv (920771) | more than 5 years ago | (#25368337)

Only if you count Win 3 as Win 1, otherwise you come out with Win 9!

Re:Isn't There an Iron Maiden Song For This? (2, Insightful)

kamikazearun (1282408) | more than 5 years ago | (#25367931)

Or maybe they just wanted to send /. into a tizzy.

Re:Isn't There an Iron Maiden Song For This? (1)

sheph (955019) | more than 5 years ago | (#25368233)

They could change the kernel version to match. It would be less confusing. Windows 7 just doesn't have that marketing ring to it. I'll bet it tanks worse than Vista (that was a dumb name too). Previous version names probably took their marketing department weeks and numerous meetings to come up with. I remember seeing Windows for WG 3.11 in Sears. That was the vision I had when I read the summary.

Hmmm (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25367815)

I will wait for Windows 7.11 for Workgroups

Re:Hmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25368253)

Windows 7.11
Now with Slurpees!

Re:Hmmm (4, Funny)

eebra82 (907996) | more than 5 years ago | (#25368307)

Windows Vista XP 2009 Me SE Professional sounds catchier.

What a lame name (1, Funny)

Atti K. (1169503) | more than 5 years ago | (#25367829)

I would have called it Vista 2!

Re:What a lame name (1)

xs650 (741277) | more than 5 years ago | (#25368363)

I prefer Vista ME

version? (5, Funny)

tritonman (998572) | more than 5 years ago | (#25367833)

If the version is 7 and the kernel version is 6.1, maybe they should compromise and call it Windows 6.66

(blinks) (5, Insightful)

ErikZ (55491) | more than 5 years ago | (#25367841)

Does...anyone really care? It's just a name.

Frigging *pick* one and get back to work.

Re:(blinks) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25368373)

Not quite... They also have to spend a few millions researching the perfect font, size, color and position of the 7.

not counting vista (5, Funny)

BobVila (592015) | more than 5 years ago | (#25367849)

Maybe Microsoft isn't counting Vista. And Windows 7 sounds way better than Windows Vista Do-Over Edition.

Lets count: (4, Funny)

CrackerJackz (152930) | more than 5 years ago | (#25367855)

Windows 1.x = 1
Windows 2.x = 2
Windows 3.x = 3
Windows NT 3.5 = um... 3.5?
Windows NT 4 = 4
Windows 2000 = 5
Windows XP = 6
Windows Vista = null
Windows 7 = 7

Ta-da!

and you forgot... (1)

ckotchey (184135) | more than 5 years ago | (#25367895)

Win95, Win98, WinME

Re:and you forgot... (1)

asdir (1195869) | more than 5 years ago | (#25367945)

Actually he (she?) wasn't if only NT-kernels (and versions before the split) counted. 95,98 and ME had there own branch of kernels.

Re:Lets count: (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25368045)

D'oh! you made the noob mistake. The offset starts at 0, not 1.

Windows 1.x = 0
Windows 2.x = 1
Windows 3.x = 2
Windows NT 3.5 = um... 2.5?
Windows NT 4 = 3
Windows 2000 = 4
Windows XP = 5
Windows Vista = 6
Windows 7 = 7

Ta-da!

Re:Lets count: (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 5 years ago | (#25368111)

How much difference is it in kernel version between 2k and XP then? I know XP got some parts of 2k3 to but.

I'd still rather say:
Win 2k/XP/2k3 = 5
Vista = 6

Though wasn't it true that "NT 5" took forever and that Vista which should had been "NT 6" never got finished but released in advance as well?

So I'd like to see it as "finished version of Vista."

Re:Lets count: (0, Redundant)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#25368121)

XP was NT 5.1, with the 64-bit version being NT 5.2. Windows Vista is NT 6.0. Windows 7 is going to be NT 6.1, hence the confusion.

Re:Lets count: (5, Informative)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#25368359)

*sigh*

No, Windows 1.x, 2.x and 3.x aren't part of the NT line. TFA and everyone are conflating two completely different operating systems just because they all happen to be named Windows:

1 = Windows NT 3.1
2 = Windows NT 3.5
3 = Windows NT 4.0
4 = Windows 2000
5 = Windows XP
6 = Windows Vista
7 = Windows 7

So, you see it makes perfect sense.

Now someone tell me why I'm defending Microsoft because I have no idea.

What happened to Windows 6? (0, Redundant)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 5 years ago | (#25367865)

Did it elope with DirectX 4 [msdn.com] ?

Question to Mr Nash: exactly what's wrong with the Windows 5.x kernel? (2K / 2K3 / XP / Vista)? Really, I'm still pretty happy with my 2K Pro install. What's wrong with me, Mr Nash?

Re:What happened to Windows 6? (4, Funny)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 5 years ago | (#25367911)

You are _happy_ with Windows and you ask what's wrong with you? On Slashdot? You must be new here.

Re:What happened to Windows 6? (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 5 years ago | (#25368159)

His UIN is much lower than yours, so maybe it's just that he was used to DOS/3.11/95 and finds 2K a huge improvement :)

Re:What happened to Windows 6? (1)

SargentDU (1161355) | more than 5 years ago | (#25368071)

I suppose, the only thing wrong is you are not spending more money to support the company that gave you your 2K Pro. They are propriety and need you to send your money in so they can keep their stock prices high and keep the cash flow positive. I have an XP Pro machine myself but it shares its computer with Mandriva 2009 now! :) In fact, I use my Linux system for almost all my internet transactions from home. I have some software that is windows only for the XP Pro side, but am considering using Wine to try to run that software too.

check the count. (5, Informative)

DragonTHC (208439) | more than 5 years ago | (#25367883)

1.) November 1985 Windows 1.01
2.) November 1987 Windows 2.03
2.) March 1989 Windows 2.11
3.) May 1990 Windows 3.0
3.) March 1992 Windows 3.1x
3.) October 1992 Windows For Workgroups 3.1
4.) July 1993 Windows NT 3.1 NT 3.1
3.) December 1993 Windows For Workgroups 3.11
3.) January 1994 Windows 3.2 (released in Simplified Chinese only)
4.) September 1994 Windows NT 3.5
4.) May 1995 Windows NT 3.51
5.) August 1995 Windows 95
6.) July 1996 Windows NT 4.0
7.) June 1998 Windows 98
8.) May 1999 Windows 98 SE
9.) February 2000 Windows 2000
10.) September 2000 Windows Me
11.) October 2001 Windows XP
11.) March 2003 Windows XP 64-bit Edition
12.) April 2003 Windows Server 2003
11.) April 2005 Windows XP Professional x64 Edition
13.) July 2006 Windows Fundamentals for Legacy PCs
14.) January 2007 (retail) Windows Vista
15.) July 2007 Windows Home Server
16.) February 2008 Windows Server 2008
17.) 2010 (planned) Windows 7

Re:check the count. (0, Redundant)

apathy maybe (922212) | more than 5 years ago | (#25368009)

Know what? The fucking number doesn't matter at all.

It isn't just Microsoft that makes up version numbers to fit marketing "needs". But they have certainly done it. Look at the above list.

"4.) July 1993 Windows NT 3.1 NT 3.1" - Actually the first Windows in the NT line. Whoops.

The Netscape browser skipped version 5 to catch up with MSIE.

And I can't think of any others just now, but the point remains, it's just a marketing gimmick and doesn't matter shit.

Anyone (including "geeks") who gets upset by it needs to have a look around. There are far more important things to get upset about (war, hunger starvation, capitalism, the state, the lack of anarchy, etc.). Of course, if you are just laughing, then go ahead. I'll be sitting here wondering why.

Re:check the count. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25368249)

Oh dear, looks like someone forgot to take his lighten up and stop being such a whiny bitch pills today.

Re:check the count. (1)

Nimey (114278) | more than 5 years ago | (#25368011)

I'll just point out again that Windows NT 3.1 was really Windows NT 1.0, which makes NT4 NT 2.0, W2K NT 3.0, XP NT 3.1, and Vista NT 4.0, and therefore this Windows 7 will be NT 4.1.

But it's one higher... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25367899)

they have to outpace apple since they're on 10.5, with snow leopard on the horizon as 10.6. So Windows 7 is one higher (=better apparently) than 10.5/6

Re:But it's one higher... (1)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 5 years ago | (#25368109)

Except 10.6 is more like

1) System 1
2) System 2 ..
7) System 7
8) MacOS 8
9) MacOS 9
10) MacOS X 10.0
11) MacOS X 10.1 ...
16) MacOS X 10.6

Re:But it's one higher... (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 5 years ago | (#25368175)

Yeah, I though about that to but 10.7 will probably be out around the same time, and it will be rather inconvenient for them when Apple have 10.8 and 10.9 out while they are still at 7 in that case.

Could have been worse... (3, Funny)

naz404 (1282810) | more than 5 years ago | (#25367903)

at least they didn't name it something like "Wii". Gah.

Re:Could have been worse... (1)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 5 years ago | (#25368059)

"Windows P*ss." Yeah, I can see some problems there.

perfection (2, Funny)

freg (859413) | more than 5 years ago | (#25367905)

Seven's the number of perfection. Maybe this time they will get it right!

Re:perfection (2, Funny)

Compulawyer (318018) | more than 5 years ago | (#25367969)

Actually, 6 is the first perfect number [wikipedia.org] so they missed it.

6.1? (2, Funny)

syrinx (106469) | more than 5 years ago | (#25367907)

Here I figured "Windows 7" actually made sense. But if the kernel is only 6.1, then never mind. Don't know why I would assume MS would do something that made sense.

95 = 4.0
98 = 4.1
ME = 4.9
2000 = 5.0
XP = 5.1
Vista = 6.0

So I assumed if they're calling it "Windows 7", that this was going to be 7.0. Oh well.

Kinda makes sense... (4, Insightful)

thompson.ash (1346829) | more than 5 years ago | (#25367933)

I think M$ saw the whole 666 thing coming.

I don't blame them for picking them a different name!

And quite frankly they can call it whatever they like - no one is going to trust it straight up after the fiasco of Vista.

You can call it Microsoft Windows Affordable-Beautiful-And-Absolutely-Fucking-Bombproof. Noone will buy it!

Re:Kinda makes sense... (3, Funny)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 5 years ago | (#25368089)

"Windows Steak And Blowjobs Edition"? Think people'd buy that?

Bring back win2k (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25367941)

Was the last usable Windows... Or give us a bare bones stripped down Windows release just for running apps like on a thin client.

kernel version vs marketing version (3, Insightful)

krischik (781389) | more than 5 years ago | (#25367949)

Nothing new here really, marketing always start to exaggerate the version number when no mayor changes happen any more.

OS/2 Warp 3 had kernel version 2.3
OS/2 Warp 4 had kernel version 2.4

And 2.x they where (the planned 3.x was supposed to feature what today is called a hypervisor).

Solaris won't mention the mayor version for ages - still stuck at 2.x as nothing fundamental new happen any more.

Only new to windows is the adding factor: 6 + 1 = 7. So my guess is that Windows 8 will be kernel version 6.2 ;-)

Re:kernel version vs marketing version (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 5 years ago | (#25368213)

Reminds me of when Slackware went from Slackware 2 to Slackware 7 just because Redhat was on 6 and they looked behind.

Or something like that :)

Re:kernel version vs marketing version (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 5 years ago | (#25368271)

Digital Illusions took it to the extreme with Battlefield, Battlefield 2, Battlefield 2142!

Re:kernel version vs marketing version (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 5 years ago | (#25368313)

And Team 17 with Worms, Worms 2 (,Worms 3?), Worms 3D = 61!

Re:kernel version vs marketing version (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25368319)

Java did this too:

Java (1.0, 1.1)
Java 2 (1.2, 1.3, 1.4)
Java 5 (1.5)
Java 6 (1.6)

Just ignore the inconvenient major version number. It's probably too hard to sell if it seems like just a minor revision. Even though the difference between 1.1 and 1.6 is massive.

It's just release date phobia (5, Insightful)

gravyface (592485) | more than 5 years ago | (#25367953)

If they tacked on a year to the product name, they'd be bound to that date and would never hear the end of it when it's late.

Re:It's just release date phobia (1)

Arc the Daft (1340487) | more than 5 years ago | (#25368001)

'Windows 2009' makes *no* sense - who wants to buy 'Win 2009' if it's 2010 or 2011? Makes it sound obsolete.

Re:It's just release date phobia (1)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 5 years ago | (#25368017)

Like Windows 94, whoops renamed?

Re:It's just release date phobia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25368183)

Diemphobia?

Can I get some disability for it?

Lucky 7 (0, Flamebait)

McNihil (612243) | more than 5 years ago | (#25367961)

that's what they are hoping for.

Just close the casket already, we don't need Microsoft.

7 = lucky number (1)

pjrc (134994) | more than 5 years ago | (#25367967)

Maybe Microsoft is hoping to get lucky?

Been done before (3, Funny)

The Slashdot Guy (793685) | more than 5 years ago | (#25367989)

Blatant rip off of Slackware.

And here I was hoping (1)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 5 years ago | (#25367999)

And here I was hoping they really would call it Windows $NEXT_VERSION [today.com] . Or, to be more Windowsy, %NEXT_VERSION%.

(I'm sure it'll be a perfectly decent OS, based on Vista but not sucking nearly as badly. But the news articles will resemble that link in the previous paragraph, like every news article on Windows since 1994.)

Tech Support nightmares (1)

Toadee (735997) | more than 5 years ago | (#25368005)

Tech Support > Right, what version of Windows are you using. Client > Windows Tech Support > Yes Sir, but what version? Client > Windows! Tech Support > Yes Sir, I realize that, but what version? Is it Windows 98 or Windows XP? Vista? Client > WINDOWS!!!! Tech Support > Let me call my supervisor.

Article is Misleading (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25368019)

"7" will be just a maintainance release for Vista.

The really new Windows version will be called "Ubuntu". It has new "chocolate" artwork and they have switched to a Unix-based core and a modular architecture. It is going to be much more stable, user-friendly and fast.

You can download preview releases at ubuntu.com [ubuntu.com] .

Code versions (3, Insightful)

91degrees (207121) | more than 5 years ago | (#25368037)

So he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. Up to Windows 3, the version and the name correlated.

95 was version 4. So was 98 (4.1) and ME (4.9).

XP was version 5. Vista was version 7. Each substantialy different from their predecessor.

Presumably Microsoft has some internal policy of when they have a new version

The workstation/server versions started their numbering at 3 for various reasons that make sense to MS marketing. NT3.5 = version 3, NT4 = version 4, Windows 2000 = version 5. At this point the consumer and server versions merged.

MS may well be on version 6.1 of their code. It may have evolved into version 7 by the time it's released. This is similar to the Linux kernel releases being extremely similar to the development versions that precede them.

Re:Code versions (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#25368311)

XP was version 5. Vista was version 7. Each substantialy different from their predecessor.

Incorrect. NT version numbers started at 3.1. Windows 2000 was NT 5. Windows XP reported itself as NT 5.1, with 2003 and 64-bit versions of XP being NT 5.2. Vista is NT 6, not 7.

No way? (1)

javelinco (652113) | more than 5 years ago | (#25368043)

1. Windows 3.1 2. Windows 95 3. Windows 98 4. Windows 2000 and/or Windows ME (arguably, they are different product lines) 5. Windows XP 6. Windows Vista 7. Windows 7 No way, huh? It didn't take too much work to come up with that list, and there are good reasons for it to be an accurate one, no?

Re:No way? (1)

Arimus (198136) | more than 5 years ago | (#25368269)

other than you forgot Windows 1 and 2..

Using your list

  1. Windows 1
  2. Windows 2
  3. Windows 3.0
    1. Windows 3.1 for workgroups
  4. Windows 95
  5. Windows 98
  6. Windows ME
    1. Windows 2000
    2. Windows 2003
  7. Windows XP
  8. Windows Vista
  9. Windows 7

So depending on how you count ME/2000/2003/WfW that's either the 9th Windows release or about the 12th..

Can't wait for Windows codename 95... (1)

sw155kn1f3 (600118) | more than 5 years ago | (#25368049)

.. running 94.1 NT kernel.
Dear God, I hope I won't die before this happens, just to get my last laugh. Also please make so I can play Duke Nukem Forever in my flying car.

Windows Spinal Tap (5, Funny)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 5 years ago | (#25368073)

Mike Nash : The OSes all go to seven. Look, right across the board, seven, seven, seven and...
PHB : Oh, I see. And most OSes top off at Vista?
Mike Nash : Exactly.
PHB : Does that mean it's better? Is it any better?
Mike Nash : Well, it's one better, isn't it? It's not Vista. You see, most blokes, you know, will be using Vista. You're on Vista here, all the way up, all your CPUs burning, all the way up, you're on Vista on your PC. Where can you go from there? Where?
PHB : I don't know.
Mike Nash : Nowhere. Exactly. What we do is, if we need that extra push over the cliff, you know what we do?
PHB : Put it up to seven.
Mike Nash : Seven. Exactly. One better.
PHB : Why don't you just make Vista better and make Vista be the top number and make that a little better?
Mike Nash : [pause] These go to seven.

Time for... (1)

cosmocain (1060326) | more than 5 years ago | (#25368087)

...a wiki-quote:

There are seven fundamental types of catastrophes. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven [wikipedia.org] .

so this is the end of windows?

Pulled out of thin air, makes sense (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 5 years ago | (#25368097)

As much wonderful sense as this makes on first glance, it seems as if Microsoft's marketing teams pulled this number out of thin air

So basically, they pulled this number out of their heads?

That's strange... (1)

mdm-adph (1030332) | more than 5 years ago | (#25368101)

...the tech community has been calling it "Windows 7" for awhile now.

Others do this as well. (1)

houghi (78078) | more than 5 years ago | (#25368129)

openSUSE uses numbering that is based on nothing but marketing for a LONG time. The meaning of the x.0 in openSUSE is pure marketing and has no technical background. If there are any things that could make it any of them an x.0 release, it is purely based on coincidence.

Basicaly it goes a bit like
openSUSE x.0
SLE x
openSUSE x.1
opensuse x.2
openSUSE x.3
openSUSE x+1.0
SLE x+1 ...

All of that is not set in stone.

That said, it is a bit disappointing that they choose such almost random numbers and names. The sort of names they had
1.0 2.0 3.1 3.11
95 98
Millenium
2000 2003
XP NT Vista
7

Looks like a big mess.

Makes Sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25368171)

If the kernel verison is 6.1, 6+1 = 7. Therefore, Windows 7

Trollish summary (1)

eebra82 (907996) | more than 5 years ago | (#25368191)

As much wonderful sense as this makes on first glance, it seems as if Microsoft's marketing teams pulled this number out of thin air: the Windows 7 kernel is version 6.1, and there's no way Windows 7 adds up as the seventh release of Windows anyway.

Why must it have anything to do with the kernel version anyway? 7 has as much to do with 6.1 as Vista has with 6.0. Fact is, 7 sounds nice and fresh. They probably used this name internally for a long time and ended up settling with it because they liked it.

And to be fair, Microsoft has not used the kernel version in its branding ever since Windows NT 4.0. They have no reason to start doing so anytime soon either.

Technically (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25368193)

This is all just speculation, by the way. Technically, it _is_ windows 7. NT4 was just that, then XP was actually like NT5, and Vista was NT6, and now this is 7. I'm sure they're unrelated, but by going on Microsoft's numbering convention it is 7. It seems that 95/98/2000/ME/2003 were a separate line from NT4/XP/Vista/7. I only say this because if you enable the little version number thing in XP and Vista then you get 5 and 6 respectively.

Yay, numbers are back (1)

Lord Lode (1290856) | more than 5 years ago | (#25368207)

good trend imho! Version numbers in names are much better than random letter combinations like XP, FX, GTX, or years like 98, 2005, ...

the reason (1)

Larryish (1215510) | more than 5 years ago | (#25368223)

The reason that they are calling it "Windows 7" is because if they called it "Windows 6", people would refer to it as "Windows 666" and that is way too close to the truth for the MS marketing department.

Definitely NOT a good name in Cantonese (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25368229)

In Cantonese, 7 is pronounced as qi(æY')
Which describe a stupid /foolish looking stuff.

For example...

That guy is very "7"
(That guy is acting like a fool)

and...

Windows is very "7". It show up blue screen again.
(Windows is stupid that always halt)

Microsoft naming conventions are absurd (1)

walterbyrd (182728) | more than 5 years ago | (#25368265)

Okay, it goes like this:

DOS based Windows 1.x, 2.x, 3.x, then the 'ol switcheroo and the NT based picks up right DOS based left off:3.5, 4.0, and the DOS based goes to years: 95, 98, the then 'ol switcheroo again, and the the NT base again picks up where DOS based left off and the NT based goes to 2000, and the DOS based goes to the double letter convention ME. Confused yet?

Then, for the third time, the NT based picks up on the DOS naming convention (now the double letters) and msft comes out with XP. Okay, that's three naming conventions so far: numbers 1.x, 2.x, 3.x, years: 95, 98, 2000, and double letter: NT, ME, CE, XP; and now msft abandons all of those conventions for newest OS: Vista.

Okay, so what comes after Vista? Msft - for about the 8th time - changes their naming convention again to go back to the numbering convention with Windows 7.

They need to be cool like Apple. (5, Funny)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 5 years ago | (#25368327)

Apple names their versions after cats and what chases cats?
So Windows CE/Mobile will be called Windows Poodle.
Windows 7 will be Windows Jackal.

version 7 for consumer OSs (1)

nycguy (892403) | more than 5 years ago | (#25368371)

For the OS version, I think it's like this:

(1) Windows 1.x
(2) Windows 2.x
(3) Windows 3.x
(4) Windows 9x (95, 98, Millenium--all just iterations of the same OS)
(5) Windows XP
(6) Windows Vista
(7) Windows 7

Kernel 6.1 is the NT numbering.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>