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!

Next Version of Windows? Call it '7'

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the didn't-we-just-get-a-new-one dept.

Microsoft 488

CNet has the news that Microsoft is currently aiming to release the next version of the Windows operating system in about three years. Previously known as Vienna, the OS is now simply known internally as '7'. After achieving a quality product, the article states, Microsoft's big goal with 7 is to recapture a regular release schedule for their operating system product. From the article: "Like Vista, Windows 7 will ship in consumer and business versions, and in 32-bit and 64-bit versions. The company also confirmed that it is considering a subscription model to complement Windows, but did not provide specifics or a time frame. Next up on Microsoft's agenda is Service Pack 1 for Windows Vista, which is expected before year's end. The discussion of Windows' future isn't surprising, given that Microsoft has been criticized by business customers for delays related to Vista. Many business customers pay for Microsoft's software under a license agreement called Software Assurance."

cancel ×

488 comments

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

Best. Project Name. Ever. (5, Funny)

Skevin (16048) | more than 7 years ago | (#19939643)

Bill: [with a Fed-Ex delivery of the new version of Windows] Linus, I never got to tell you how much I admire you and your operating system.
Linus: What's in the box, Bill?
Bill: When I saw your operating system, I wanted all the features in it. Everything from the widgets on the desktop to the exhilarating smell of its security policies.
Linus: I said, what's in the box?
Bill: And when I implemented them into my commercial operating system, I realized I had committed the sin of Envy, for which I must pay.
Linus: [Shaking] Aurgh! What's in the the booooxxx?!
Stallman: [voice suddenly crackling over the radio] Torvalds! Do not open the box! I repeat! Do not open the box!

Solomon Chang

Re:Best. Project Name. Ever. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19940003)

Do they spell it "Se7en"?

Re:Best. Project Name. Ever. (1)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 7 years ago | (#19940321)

Bill: [with a Fed-Ex delivery of the new version of Windows] Linus, I never got to tell you how much I admire you and your operating system.
Linus: What's in the box, Bill?
Bill: When I saw your operating system, I wanted all the features in it. Everything from the widgets on the desktop to the exhilarating smell of its security policies.
Linus: I said, what's in the box?
Bill: And when I implemented them into my commercial operating system, I realized I had committed the sin of Envy, for which I must pay.
Linus: [Shaking] Aurgh! What's in the the booooxxx?!
Stallman: [voice suddenly crackling over the radio] Torvalds! Do not open the box! I repeat! Do not open the box!
Sorry, but I can never hear that scene without hearing it like this:

Brainy: What's tin the booooxxxx?

BANG!

Jokey: It's a surpriiiiise! *manic giggle*

Brainy: What the fuck is wrong with you?

Re:Best. Project Name. Ever. (1)

msauve (701917) | more than 7 years ago | (#19940359)

That's "7 of 9" to you, buddy.

You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.

They should really look to Leopard for inspiration (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19939657)

On one install disc, they're supplying PPC, ia32, and ia64 compatibility, and seamless support for all three integrated into the OS.

Re:They should really look to Leopard for inspirat (2, Informative)

RMingin (985478) | more than 7 years ago | (#19939817)

Ummm no, OSX is supplying PPC32, PPC64, ia32 and supposedly x86-64. Apple has no interest in IA64, and rightfully so.

Re:They should really look to Leopard for inspirat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19940067)

Microsoft have always looked to Apples OS for innovation. They look everywhere for innovation since they themselves are incapable.

Venice would be better (5, Funny)

__NR_kill (1018116) | more than 7 years ago | (#19939663)

I would call it Venice, it will be stinking and sinking anyway.

7? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19939667)

As in 7 of 9?

Re:7? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19940019)

Dang, that was my first take as well.

Perhaps the next major Linux release should be called 'RGH' (short for "Regain Your Humanity").

Didn't we just leave this party? (5, Insightful)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 7 years ago | (#19939675)

And of course Windows 7 will finally be secure, stable and simple. Which is always what Microsoft promises their new operating system will be.... a few months after they release their current version and victims start realizing that it wasn't any of those things. And they fall for it every time.

Just watch, all discussion of the shortcomings of Vista will now be answered with, "yes but Windows 7 is going to address that issue."

For about two years that is, then will come the talk of features being dropped on the cutting room floor to make it to a shipping date. But never to fear, they will only be leaving out stuff you don't really need and Windows 7 is still going to finally be THE secure, stable and simple to use OS you have been waiting for.

Then it will ship, after a four year development cycle (see, we beat Vista's development time!) and it will be wash rinse and repeat as people actually see it and realize it is Windows 3.1, Windows 95, Windows XP, Windows Vista all over again. And somehow the masses will escape coming to a 'sad realization' or will and still rationalize not doing anything about it.

But there is one ray of hope in the announcement, not that anything they say at this point can be believed of course, but if they are still staying with a 32bit version it means they have pretty much given up on ramming Trusted Computing down our throats.

Re:Didn't we just leave this party? (4, Funny)

Wellington Grey (942717) | more than 7 years ago | (#19939737)

Then it will ship, after a four year development cycle (see, we beat Vista's development time!) and it will be wash rinse and repeat as people actually see it and realize it is Windows 3.1, Windows 95, Windows XP, Windows Vista all over again.


Yes, but Windows 8 is going to address that issue.

-Grey [wellingtongrey.net]

Re:Didn't we just leave this party? (1)

hzeleye$ (1131249) | more than 7 years ago | (#19940253)

first time sorry, About 7, it didn't end good for pitt

Re:Didn't we just leave this party? (1)

Shabadage (1037824) | more than 7 years ago | (#19939741)

Uh, Win95 may have been a piece of shit; but it was a huge step up. I agree with the rest of your list though.

Re:Didn't we just leave this party? (1)

Tuoqui (1091447) | more than 7 years ago | (#19939775)

The *BIGGER* you make an OS, the *LESS* secure it gets.

This is a fact. The more lines of code inside of ANYTHING, introduces exponentially more potential for flaws that can be exploited by hackers because nothing EVER gets tested before it is released anymore. Thats the job of everyone who's paying for the wonderful pleasure of debugging your shitty software these days.

Re:Didn't we just leave this party? (1)

hpavc (129350) | more than 7 years ago | (#19939785)

Poor vendors and their driver certifications. Well at least someone will be buying 7 I guess.

Re:Didn't we just leave this party? (4, Informative)

Vellmont (569020) | more than 7 years ago | (#19939967)


and it will be wash rinse and repeat as people actually see it and realize it is Windows 3.1, Windows 95, Windows XP, Windows Vista


So it'll be progressively better operating systems (with the possible exclusion of XP over 2000 IMO) that aren't "perfect"? That sounds fine to me.

If your metric in measuring any product is if it lives up to the marketing departments hype, then ALL products are miserable failures in that regard. We all know products never live up to the hype, so I don't quite understand the criticism here.

Of course that's not to say I'm defending everything Microsoft has done, far from it. The problem I have with this announcement is the continued long lag times between releases. Vista wasn't originally planned at 5 years, but more like 2 or 3 years. Microsoft SAYS they've changed as far as release schedules go, but it sounds like same-old-same-old to me.

IMO software develops best with a mix of frequent releases of incremental change, and major releases that re-architect everything. Microsoft has done the major architectural changes on a regular basis, but has failed to produce very many good incremental releases.

For instance, Windows 95 was a pretty good product, while Windows 98 wasn't really much more than adding USB support. ME was of course utter crap. 2000 was the best product I've seen from Microsoft (and the best major release they've done). XP was useless IMO and added little to nothing to the OS. Vista is the buggiest Microsoft OS I've run so far, and doesn't live up to many of the claims (less reboots my ass). I _really_ like the menu search feature though, but wish the sleep feature worked a lot better (extremely buggy in my experience). Despite this I won't be going back to Windows 2000, though I might just go Ubuntu on my workstation. That would make me Microsoft free for the first time in 12 years. Everything else including my work machine is some variant of Linux.

Re:Didn't we just leave this party? (2, Insightful)

physicsnick (1031656) | more than 7 years ago | (#19940293)

So it'll be progressively better operating systems (with the possible exclusion of XP over 2000 IMO) that aren't "perfect"? That sounds fine to me.
Agreed. I'm quite surprised that no one in this discussion seems to have made reference to Ubuntu's release schedule. Ubuntu's six-month release plan is tremendously successful in both providing users with cutting-edge features and motivating developers to improve the operating system. It seems Microsoft is realizing the flaws in its own development model and is trying to fix it. This is good; it means better software for everyone.

Windows releases don't always have to have groundbreaking changes, and we don't all have to upgrade to the latest and greatest Windows before the next one comes out. It's okay for them to release a new Windows every year for $300; we can just pick and choose to which versions we want to upgrade, and their user base can be evenly spread over several different versions.

Re:Didn't we just leave this party? (3, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 7 years ago | (#19940301)

"... then ALL products are miserable failures in that regard."
OSX and the iPod and the iPhone have all lived up to the hype.

"Microsoft has done the major architectural changes on a regular basis, but has failed to produce very many good incremental releases."
Which shows you should be leary of anything they release.

There are two types of software:

Software that ages
Software that matures.

MS's software ages. It is the worse kind of software methodolgy.

If they focused on maturity, their security would be better, they could achive the goals they want a step at a time, and there reputation would be substantially improved.

IN my opinion it's time or the old gaurd to leave, or rethink the way they are trying to fullfill their goals.

Re:Didn't we just leave this party? (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 7 years ago | (#19939995)

M$ has said they are working a kind of VM like set that will sandbox all unsigned code for the next mayor release of windows as well as fully redone UI.

First of all if they are this alot of people will dump windows for mac or linux at that point and / or there may be a lot of anti Trust lawsuits.

also fully redoing the UT / forcing unsigned code to be locked down will brake so many apps that Up take of this will be a lot slower then Vista slow up take.

Re:Didn't we just leave this party? (2, Interesting)

dhavleak (912889) | more than 7 years ago | (#19940379)

What you said makes no sense from a technical or legal standoint
  • Unsigned code and antitrust lawsuits have no connection. There is no barrier (not even price) to getting your code signed.
    Forcing
  • Forcing unsigned code to run in a sandboxed environment is a huge security boost
  • Sandboxing does not kill performance the way you described. IE on Vista runs sandboxed. It's slower than Firefx, sure, but it's not a dog
  • Even if MS forces this policy, its unlikely that it will have a major impact on programs we use everyday. There is absolutely no reason why Adobe/Apple/ cannot get their code signed. It makes things safe for the end-user to know that what they are installing has not been tampered with. And it makes it safe for the OS to know that a module it is loading has not been tampered with. That being the case, only very random/sundry utils you download from the net will run sandboxed (for example, say, md5sum.exe or some random cd-burning utility from download.com). Trusting these blindly isn't wise in the fisrt place. Second, their performance isn't critical and it won't really be affected anyway.
That said, I don't know where you got this little nugget from -- I've not seen any news that confirms this. But you might want to actually suggest it to MS -- it seems like a damn good idea.

Lame joke waiting to be made #1 (1)

peu (163472) | more than 7 years ago | (#19939695)

And the worst seven bugs would be called the seven deadly sins?

Not the luck of the Irish... (3, Funny)

Shabadage (1037824) | more than 7 years ago | (#19939697)

7 eh?

I'm assuming they're using this name to tell us how many service packs it will take before it should function like advertised, right?

Re:Not the luck of the Irish... (3, Funny)

Tribbin (565963) | more than 7 years ago | (#19939727)

Yes, it will be a countdown.

The first service pack will be called 6.

7 years (4, Funny)

Wellington Grey (942717) | more than 7 years ago | (#19939709)

Microsoft is scoping Windows 7 development to a three-year time frame...

Somehow I think, like Visa, this will take a hell of a lot longer than expected. Anyone else think that MS will have to endure lots of we'll-see-it-in-seven-years jokes?

-Grey [wellingtongrey.net]

Re:7 years (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19939739)

I should hope not. I've shitted out funnier jokes.

Re:7 years (1)

supremebob (574732) | more than 7 years ago | (#19939837)

It sounds like Microsoft has their first unofficial release date of July 2010. Does anyone want to start taking bets on what the release date will be? I'm putting $5 on October 2012 myself.

We should also take side bets on whether or not Duke Nukem Forever will be released before this comes out. I think that I've give that bet even money at this point!

Re:7 years (1)

Wellington Grey (942717) | more than 7 years ago | (#19940073)

We should also take side bets on whether or not Duke Nukem Forever will be released before this comes out.


At this stage I would pay the people behind Duke Nukem Forever to release anything just so I don't have to read any more Duke Nukem Forever jokes.

-Grey [wellingtongrey.net]

Re:7 years (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19940079)

yes then later that year it will be installed on a missile control system later that year it will crash and start a war killing lots of people in DEC that year.

Re:7 years (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19939997)

I think we can expect something shipped in 2010, however it may just be a redecorated version of Vista.

7? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19939713)

Are they going to hire Jeri Ryan to promote it? If so, does that mean Windows versions are capped at 9?

Re:7? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19940195)

What's wrong with calling it "OS 10"?

Reminiscing about a crime movie (1)

oronet commander (1084507) | more than 7 years ago | (#19939717)

Seven? Who were they thinking on? Morgan Freeman, Brad Pitt... or Kevin Spacey

Windows Se7en (3, Funny)

The Living Fractal (162153) | more than 7 years ago | (#19939719)

My guess is its biggest sin is Gluttony. Any disagreements?

Leave it to computer geeks.... (4, Funny)

Brad1138 (590148) | more than 7 years ago | (#19939723)

To name it after a hot Star Trek character.

Re:Leave it to computer geeks.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19939833)

So that means there's only two more windows releases after 7 (of 9)?

woooooooot

Re:Leave it to computer geeks.... (1)

fermion (181285) | more than 7 years ago | (#19940075)

That hot chick was informally Seven of Nine, or more formally, Seven of Nine, Tertiary Adjunct of Unimatrix Zero-One.

The only character named Seven I know was the little boy randomly introduced into Married with Children, and later randomly removed in a desperate attempt, presumable perpetrated by lame TV executives, to broaden the appeal of the show. This is surely an absolutely appropriate name, as MS seemed intent on adding random features, then removing them a season later, rather than concentrating on core competencies and quality.

Re:Leave it to computer geeks.... (2, Interesting)

Loadmaster (720754) | more than 7 years ago | (#19940185)

Let's not forget that George Costanza's favorite name was Seven. Maybe the great new feature will be to remind us to shine up our Festivus poles. For the feat of strength you could wrestle a penguin.

Swi

Re:Leave it to computer geeks.... (1)

langelgjm (860756) | more than 7 years ago | (#19940151)

Well, at least we know there will only be two more releases after "7"...

32bit? (3, Interesting)

SolusSD (680489) | more than 7 years ago | (#19939729)

Is it really neccessary to support 32bit processors when it probably won't run on anything that doesn't support 64bit anyway? Kind of like Windows 3.1 being 16bit when it wouldn't run on anything older than a 386 (32bit) anyway.

Re:32bit? (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 7 years ago | (#19939815)

there are lot of 32bit drivers out there that don't work right in windows 64 as well as some apps unlike LINUX and MAC OS X where 32 and 64 bit apps can work just fine side by side.

Also calling it windows 7 is real bad name as it make it look like the windows 98 and 2000 are newer.

Re:32bit? (1)

SolusSD (680489) | more than 7 years ago | (#19939905)

windows 95 executed 32 programs and drivers with very few problems. My linux distro has both 32bit and 64bit drivers. The problem is most people will continue to install whatever they are told is "most compatible" and as long as that continues drivers are less likely to be rebuilt to support 64bit Windows. Honestly-- most of the time, it really is as simple as a recompile.

History lesson (4, Interesting)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 7 years ago | (#19939845)

> Kind of like Windows 3.1 being 16bit when it wouldn't run on anything older than a 386 (32bit) anyway.

From your profile it is clear you are too young to remember it first hand so I'll educate instead of flaming ya. :)

Recall that there were versions of Windows prior to Windows 3.1, the first clue to which should have been the version number. Moving to Win32 was a major upheaval in the software world, keeping compatibility with Win16 and more importantly, DOS were the major selling features of Windows 3.1. By 3.1 a lot of major software was running in Windows 16-bit AND business depended on a lot of DOS code, home users depended on DOS for the majority of games, etc. Heck, most of the software people were actually running on WinNT was 16-bit code. And most games were DOS based well into the Win95/Win98 era. It wasn't until XP was looming and game makers saw sticking with DOS as a death sentence that they drank the DirectX Kool-Aid for any project not depending on 3D.

And there were a LOT of 286 based machines not only in the installed base but still being sold. For example on the day Win3.1 shipped I was working at a Radio Shack in the D/FW area and the only 386 class machine in the store was the SCO Xenix box in the stockroom running the store. To buy a 386 class machine from Tandy you had to go to a Business Computer Center.

Re:History lesson (1)

SolusSD (680489) | more than 7 years ago | (#19939953)

i understand the point you set out to make-- but one would have to be an idiot to think windows 3.1 was the first version of windows, and i am *not* an idiot. So your sarcasm aside-- i am simply making the point that the industry does have to be pushed into advances sometimes. As much as I hate the windows 9x line it *did* force software companies and consumers alike to take a step forward. Also-- just because i'm 23 doesn't mean i don't remember windows 3.0 and some ncurses looking pile of crap that was part of the windows 2.x line.

Re:32bit? (1)

fireboy1919 (257783) | more than 7 years ago | (#19939931)

No, but it will be necessary to have it run in 32 bit mode in order to support the thirty-or-so years worth of binaries written with a 32-bit instruction set in mind.

It should also be noted that the jump from 16 bit to 32 bit is much more important than the jump to 32 bit.

16 bits wasn't enough to represent the common tasks that a computer does given the available peripherals that a human uses, and they had to do lots of tricks to make things smaller. 32 bits pretty much is. Adding more to that means making extra special instructions that are only good for very specific circumstances.

The added cost of that *may* not be worth it.

Re:32bit? (1)

doombringerltx (1109389) | more than 7 years ago | (#19939983)

Last I heard was that they were dropping 32 bit after Vista. So I'm a little surprised by this.

Re:32bit? (1)

Lord Crc (151920) | more than 7 years ago | (#19940135)

Kind of like Windows 3.1 being 16bit when it wouldn't run on anything older than a 386 (32bit) anyway.

I ran 3.1 on my 286 12Mhz for years...

Who needs a service pack? (1)

Tibor the Hun (143056) | more than 7 years ago | (#19939731)

No, seriously, is there really anyone even using vista?

What's next, firmware upgrades for Ngage?

Re:Who needs a service pack? (1)

Brad1138 (590148) | more than 7 years ago | (#19939769)

I agree, What does Vista give you except a really slow & bogged down machine and some eye candy.

Re:Who needs a service pack? (1)

elsJake (1129889) | more than 7 years ago | (#19939893)

proper memory management ?

Re:Who needs a service pack? (1)

Cap'nPedro (987782) | more than 7 years ago | (#19939903)

I for one, am using it.
I'm not loving it, but at the same time, I haven't loved any version of Windows. Not truly, anyway. HOWEVER, I am not hating it either. I have, so far, not actually experienced any problems.

Re:Who needs a service pack? (1)

Loadmaster (720754) | more than 7 years ago | (#19940369)

I agree. I upgraded to Vista Ultimate from XP Pro. I haven't had any problems so far. The update process went smooth and all my software still works. My system is faster than it was with XP Pro but not significantly. It's Windows. Nothing really fantastic about it. It looks nice, but that's not particularly important.

I paid $20 due to an agreement between MS and my university. That's about what it's worth. I like it better than XP--a little--but it's really a marginal upgrade at best.

Swi

The Quality bar. (1)

www.sorehands.com (142825) | more than 7 years ago | (#19939743)

the quality bar

Isn't that the bar on the MS campus that has free beer and test the Windows code quality?

If the beer is free, it would explains the quality of the Windows code.

Re:The Quality bar. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19940355)

No, the Microsoft "quality bar" is probably more like this type of horizontal bar [wikipedia.org] .

My my... (5, Funny)

Funkcikle (630170) | more than 7 years ago | (#19939745)

32bit operating system in 2010...I wonder how many floppy disks Microsoft will be supplying it on.

Re:My my... (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 7 years ago | (#19940251)

Funny..too bad I still see floppies being used to help fix major computer issues.

Why 32bit is beyond me though.

"7"? I saw the movie (4, Funny)

microcars (708223) | more than 7 years ago | (#19939759)

it does not end well for those that were involved

7 [imdb.com]

7 Vista (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19939765)

It seems to me that the FSF has a secret trigger in PHP5, because if you sort the list of recent Windows releases plus Windows7, you get them in descending badness [badvista.org] order.
# php
$a = array("Windows XP", "Windows Vista", "Windows 7");
sort($a);
print_r($a);
Result:

Array
(
[0] => Windows 7
[1] => Windows Vista
[2] => Windows XP
)

How will 7 be different than Vista? (0)

Lord Satri (609291) | more than 7 years ago | (#19939777)

I though Vista was the last of its kind [slashdot.org] ? Will 7 really be something deeply different? Can they dare try or is this road too risky (and do they know what to try)?

I'm amazed at the pace technology goes. Even if I don't (regularly) use their products, Microsoft still plays a very important role in the industry and 7 will (probably?) be important whether we want it or not. Between virtualization [wikipedia.org] and Web OSes [wikipedia.org] , where will 7 lead its customers? (Aero-like feats don't count as major contributions to operating systems...) And with Linux making (slow but real?) inroads into homes, as well as MacOS X, which innovations / killer features will 7 provide? (ok, I admit, I haven't read TFA... ;-)

Re: How will 7 be different than Vista? (1)

Dolda2000 (759023) | more than 7 years ago | (#19940105)

(Aero-like feats don't count as major contributions to operating systems...)
I would disagree with that, depending on exactly what you mean. It is true that the Aero theme and shell functions aren't very impressive at all, but the underlying compositing technology actually is pretty cool, if you ask me (of course, Microsoft was last to join that party). With the amount of memory today's computers have, I think it is a rather good call to give each window an actual backing store, rather than having to rely on expose events to redraw it every once in a while. It both makes the system more responsive with regard to a number of common windowing functions, and it most likely saves bandwidth, too (bus bandwidth locally, or network bandwidth if you run X11 over a network).

Add a compositing window manager, and you can actually do rather useful things with it. I'd say OSX has been the champion at actually doing useful things with compositing. If you care for such things, Beryl is probably the champion at doing eyecandy. I'm not sure where that leaves Vista, of course, but that's not my problem.

So Octo Core computers in 7 years then? (2, Insightful)

gelfling (6534) | more than 7 years ago | (#19939791)

Because that is what it will take to run it. And 16GB RAM, minimum. And you will need a new UltraMegaPCI spec to run a graphics supercomputer for the "NitroXtreme" interface. And security will still be for shit.

I have a better idea - why don't they morph whatever it is they run on Xbox360 into a full blown OS?

This could be awhile... (5, Funny)

Myrkridian42 (840659) | more than 7 years ago | (#19939793)

After achieving a quality product, Microsoft's big goal with 7...
So, will it be bundled with Duke Nukem Forever?

Fitting name... (1)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 7 years ago | (#19939797)

...because that's how many years we are going to wait until we see it.

It's just a version number (0, Redundant)

CityZen (464761) | more than 7 years ago | (#19939801)

Right-click on My Computer, click on Properties, check the version number.

Windows NT4 = 4
Windows 2000 = 5
Windows XP = 6
the next one = 7

Re:It's just a version number (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19939827)

The next one = Vista

Re:It's just a version number (1)

someone1234 (830754) | more than 7 years ago | (#19939877)

I always said Vista is unfinished. What is the version numbering on Vista?

Re:It's just a version number (1)

CityZen (464761) | more than 7 years ago | (#19939843)

I goofed.

Windows XP = 5.5?
Windows Vista = 6?

It seems they stopped putting the version number in My Computer's Properties.
It's probably still in the registry somewhere.

Re:It's just a version number (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19940191)

It seems they stopped putting the version number in My Computer's Properties.

Windows users don't do numbers. They're very low tech people. The confusing version number had to go.

Re:It's just a version number (1)

kc32 (879357) | more than 7 years ago | (#19940349)

XP is 5.1.2600.

Re:It's just a version number (1)

SatanMat (757225) | more than 7 years ago | (#19939867)

Right-click on My Computer, click on Properties, check the version number. Windows NT4 = 4 Windows 2000 = 5 Windows XP = 6 the next one = 7
-- So, Vista counts for nothing?.... interesting....

Re:It's just a version number (3, Funny)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 7 years ago | (#19940109)

vista is 6.66

Re:It's just a version number (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19939873)

Actually windows XP 32 bits is 5.1, XP 64 bits is 5.2, Vista and Server 2008 are version 6

Re:It's just a version number (1)

Eric Coleman (833730) | more than 7 years ago | (#19939881)

xp is officially 5.1, check the file version on the kernel

Re:It's just a version number (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19939887)

Actually, no. You almost got it right. NT3.5 = 3.5 (had to start bigger than the Windows 3.1 they'd already shipped), NT4 = 4.0, Win2K = 5.0, XP = 5.1, Vista = 6.0, Windows 7 = stillborn.

Re:It's just a version number (4, Informative)

KarmaMB84 (743001) | more than 7 years ago | (#19939901)

Erm no..

Windows NT4 = 4.0
Windows 2000 = 5.0
Windows XP = 5.1
Windows 2003/Windows XP x64 = 5.2
Windows Vista = 6.0

Re:It's just a version number (0, Troll)

Lord Kano (13027) | more than 7 years ago | (#19939933)

the next one = 7

the next one = 7 = VISTA
7 = the next next one = 8

LK

That's odd it says 10.4.10 (4, Funny)

John.P.Jones (601028) | more than 7 years ago | (#19939981)

I must be ahead a few versions, it says 10.4.10

Re:That's odd it says 10.4.10 (1)

newr00tic (471568) | more than 7 years ago | (#19940373)

Mine says so too, we must have the same "Windows System" then.. ;)

Re:It's just a version number (1)

Jorophose (1062218) | more than 7 years ago | (#19940211)

Sorry to bust your chops, but IIRC, Windows XP is NT 5.1.

SP2 might have changed that to 5.2, but it's not #6. Vista might be 6, I don't know, as I don't have a copy of Vista around, or a machine that could run it.

My next version of Windows? (2, Funny)

NeoGeo64 (672698) | more than 7 years ago | (#19939821)

Call it Ubuntu.

Re:My next version of Windows? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19939993)

The fcuked-up drivers edition?

Software assurance? (1)

cyber-vandal (148830) | more than 7 years ago | (#19939853)

You're assured that your software isn't as good as it should be?

Re:Software assurance? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19940331)

I always wondered how dumb you should be to pay in advance for software that might be released in the future...
It is like making advance payments to GM for a car that you may get in 2009. Or if it isn't finished, you get nothing.

Idiots (1)

CaptainZapp (182233) | more than 7 years ago | (#19939891)

To announce it's out in three years.

They should have told it's out in December, not specifying a year. So they wouldn't be the laughing stock of the industry when they have to admit in three years that it's expected for 2017, or so

Re:Idiots - OT (1)

aka-ed (459608) | more than 7 years ago | (#19940027)

check your waites quote...somebody (not waites, to my recollection) has confused phrases "frontal lobotomy" and "full frontal nudity."

Re:Idiots - OT (1)

aka-ed (459608) | more than 7 years ago | (#19940131)

and this chiastic reversal didn't originate with Waites, it's also been attributed to Red Skelton (as "I'd rather have a free bottle in front of me than a pre-frontal lobotomy") and was copyrighted by M.D./songwriter Randy Hazlick in the 70s.

Non-announcement (1, Troll)

Jeremy_Bee (1064620) | more than 7 years ago | (#19939947)

Looks to me like this is an announcement of a schedule, and not an announcement of a product.

There are no project goals here, and no definitive statements on what it will include or exclude, except the 32/64 bit statement (which seems to be more of a knee-jerk reaction than a firm plan). The subscription method of distribution (which recently was portrayed as "the future"), is mentioned as being possible, but not necessarily included in the plan?

IMO this is all about calming market fears about release schedules. This is about the marketing department asking the software engineers about what two or three "safe bet" features they can announce for the future version of Windows when the engineers probably don't even have pencil sketches on napkins at this point.

Windows Vienna/7 (1)

jsse (254124) | more than 7 years ago | (#19939957)

They change their name because windowsvienna.com [domaintools.com] has already been taken.

Oops, windows7.com [domaintools.com] and windowsseven.com [domaintools.com] have been taken as well!

I'm sure those who named new version of Windows are not smart enough to register domain name prior to announcing it.

Three Years?! (1)

cmacb (547347) | more than 7 years ago | (#19939961)

WOW that's pretty quick turn-around for Microsoft. Maybe they had better just stick to a few new 3-D icons, a more eco-friendly retail packaging, and a mandatory upgrade to 14 or so price levels. Now thats what I call INOVATION!

Well, that's what some people call it anyway.

Windows 7 (4, Funny)

qazsedcft (911254) | more than 7 years ago | (#19939989)

Let's see:

Glutony: It will probably require at least 32 GB of RAM.
Envy: They keep copying other peoples ideas.
Sloth: Too lazy to fix bugs, so they release new operating systems instead.
Lust: It's hard to beat all those porn trojans.
Greed: Well, it's M$ after all.
Wrath: That's how you feel after 5 minutes of using it.
Pride: And after all that they'll still pretend it's the best OS ever...

Yeah, Windows 7 is a pretty good name for it.

Seven Windows? How about Soda? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19940081)

George Costanza's gonna be pissed...

The "Osborne Effect" (5, Insightful)

realmolo (574068) | more than 7 years ago | (#19940089)

Three years isn't that far away, and most businesses aren't planning on moving to Vista any time soon. My guess is that many of them will just skip it entirely if the next version of Windows, which presumably will be what Vista SHOULD HAVE been, is right around the corner.

It just confirms the widely-held opinion that Windows Vista was rushed to market, and is really just a crappy "place-holder" operating system, much like Windows ME.

Sure (1)

bryan1945 (301828) | more than 7 years ago | (#19940097)

"Microsoft is currently aiming to release the next version of the Windows operating system [CC] in about three years. "

Ha Hee He Snarfle Ha Hee He Snarfle Ha Hee He Snarfle Ha Hee He Snarfle Ha Hee He Snarfle Ha Hee He Snarfle Ha Hee He Snarfle Ha Hee He Snarfle Ha Hee He Snarfle Ha Hee He Snarfle Ha Hee He Snarfle Ha Hee He Snarfle Ha Hee He Snarfle Ha Hee He Snarfle Ha Hee He Snarfle Ha Hee He Snarfle Ha Hee He Snarfle

Sorry

Magic 8 Ball! (1)

rueger (210566) | more than 7 years ago | (#19940115)

"Windows 7 will ship in consumer and business versions, and in 32-bit and 64-bit versions..."

Really, is there any point whatsoever in reporting stuff like this? I don't think that any of us have the foggiest notion where personal computing will be in three years, much the the five to seven that it likely will take for MS to deliver the next generation OS.

My prediction is that instead of hard drives and DVDs, the OS will be inserted into my head on a chip.

Hmmmm... what will a Blue Screen of Death look like from the inside out? Just imagine Windows on 'shrooms! Pretty screensaver......

System 7 ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19940155)

It must be something like 20 years behind this time?

Hey microsoft! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19940165)

Get off your asses and release XP SP3.

Jeesh, Microsoft is getting as bad as most OSS projects. busy working on new shiney crap while the core sits and rots.

3 years? then why Vista? (2, Interesting)

geekoid (135745) | more than 7 years ago | (#19940209)

WHy would anyone bother with vista is it will be reaplaced just as it begins to reach maturity?

A Most Uncivil Ceremony (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19940239)

Some people may rejoice over Windows stumbling but it's no reason to embrace Linux. Microsoft marketing and geek shilling is just as bad in my book. Windows on every desktop? Never gonna happen. Linux change the world? Never gonna happen. Watching this performance is like watching two queers do a ballet. Sure, it might be like some redneck cop being ass banged by a nigger but, hey, next week it will be the baton stick up Rodney King's ass. Jeez. You guys ought to get married.

That's about right (0)

tylersoze (789256) | more than 7 years ago | (#19940269)

Let's see, the Mac OS is up to version 10, so yeah, 7, that's about right. Windows is about 3 versions behind the Mac OS.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?