Slashdot Mirror
Windows 7 To Be Called ... Windows 7
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."
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?
My work here is dung.
I will wait for Windows 7.11 for Workgroups
I would have called it Vista 2!
.sig: No such file or directory
If the version is 7 and the kernel version is 6.1, maybe they should compromise and call it Windows 6.66
Does...anyone really care? It's just a name.
Frigging *pick* one and get back to work.
Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
Maybe Microsoft isn't counting Vista. And Windows 7 sounds way better than Windows Vista Do-Over Edition.
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!
Did it elope with DirectX 4?
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?
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
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
They're using their grammar skills there.
Win95, Win98, WinME
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
at least they didn't name it something like "Wii". Gah.
http://www.object404.com
Seven's the number of perfection. Maybe this time they will get it right!
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.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
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!
I didn't say it was your fault, I said I was going blame you for it!
Was the last usable Windows... Or give us a bare bones stripped down Windows release just for running apps like on a thin client.
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 ;-)
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.
body massage!
that's what they are hoping for.
Just close the casket already, we don't need Microsoft.
Maybe Microsoft is hoping to get lucky?
PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools
Blatant rip off of Slackware.
And here I was hoping they really would call it Windows $NEXT_VERSION. 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.)
http://rocknerd.co.uk
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.
"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.
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.
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?
.. 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.
- Arwen, I'm your father, Agent Smith.
- Well, you're just Smith, but my father is Aerosmith!
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.
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
"...and on the seventh day he rested".
Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
...a wiki-quote:
There are seven fundamental types of catastrophes. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven.
so this is the end of windows?
So basically, they pulled this number out of their heads?
...the tech community has been calling it "Windows 7" for awhile now.
It is by my will alone my thoughts acquire motion; it is by the juice of the coffee bean that the thoughts acquire speed
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.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
If the kernel verison is 6.1, 6+1 = 7. Therefore, Windows 7
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.
Full Tilt
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.
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 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.
In Cantonese, 7 is pronounced as qi(æY') /foolish looking stuff.
Which describe a stupid
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)
Don't think so. See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sforhbLiwLA
No sig today...
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.
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.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
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.
Is that they knew they wouldn't be able to get away with Windows 2041.
Deleted
Does it matter that it does not add up to 7 and the kernel version is 6.1? I am still waiting for winamp 4. I know.. I know.. Winamp 2+3 = 5
They're being preemptive about being behind schedule.
They are going to have Brad Pitt, Morgan Freeman, and Kevin Spacey act as the new promoters and use them in commercials committing sins by using Mac computers This will go over just as well as the Bill Gates / Jerry Seinfeld commercials
I've heard it said that MS needs to win over the geek crowd of early adopters. Maybe this is an attempt to get them with an implied Seven of Nine reference. All it needs now is an ad campaign featuring Jeri Ryan.
I know that slashdotters don't like Microsoft, but isn't it a little too obsessive to be criticising them for their version numbering scheme? Isn't that like hating someone because their hair is just the wrong shade of brown or the daiameter of the buttons on their shirt are a millimetre too small?
Why doesn't Slashdot ever get slashdotted?
Anyone remember how MS Word 6 came right after MS Word 2?
Wordperfect was already on version 5.1, so MS didn't want to seem behind the curve. Hence they just jumped to Word 6.
According to Wikipedia, the releases of Windows NT were:
NT 3.5 in Sept '94
NT 4.0 (NT 4.0.138) in July '96
Windows (aka NT 5.0.2195) in Feb '00
Windows XP (aka NT 5.1.2600) in Oct '01
Server 2003 (aka NT 5.2.3790) in Apr '03
Vista (aka NT 6.0.6001) in Nov '06 (volume) or Jan '07 (retail)
Server 2008 (aka NT 6.0.6001) in Feb '08
(*** technically the version information listed for Vista is incorrect; Vista RTM was 6.0.6000; Vista SP1 is 6.0.6001 and is the same kernel as Server 2008 RTM.)
What version Linux kernal are most of you running? I remember running Mandrake 8.0, and the kernal wasn't even close to that version - 2.3 or something...don't remember!
I don't get why people think it's kernel 6.1. Was there an about box on a leaked internal build's screenshot that perhaps hadn't yet bumped the kernel version # yet? I wouldn't be astonished if that's the sort of thing that's changed last (it doesn't even really need localization work!).
I thought Vista SP1 / Server 2008 were kernel 6.1 OS's, anyway. I hereby use my psychic powers to declare that the kernels are not in fact identical.
Windows 1.x = 1
Windows 2.x = 2
Windows NT / For Workgroups / 3.x = 3
Windows NT 4 / Win95 / Win98 (SE) / WinME = 4
Windows 2000 / XP / Server 2003 = 5
Windows Vista / Server 2008 = 6
Windows 7 = 7
Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows#Timeline_of_releases
(look at the "Current version/build" column)
They just liked "Seven". It's got cachet up the yin-yang!
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
Seriously, does this guy look like he could count to seven?
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
Where did versions 1-9 of OSX go?
And they've been on 10.x for the past 8 years?
Running ver on VistaSP1 returns: Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6001] So, yeah, it kinda makes sense calling the next major version 7.
for Windows 97. It's just shipping a little late.
At last, Bill Gates has gone farther than anyone down the road that leads to immortality!
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
They should try to get Jeri Ryan as a spokes persons and Majel Barrett's permission.
Do a few "sexy" ads. Try to get some geek love back.
Just call it Windows Sorry?
Somehow along the way I made a bad choice in life and now must live with 0 Karma.
The answer is obvious: they used Excel to do the calculations
rewriting history since 2109
Windows
Windows 2
Windows 3
At this point Windows "forked" into Win9x and NT. As we all know, the 9x branch died with WinME and NT took over for consumers with WinXP.
Windows NT 3.5
Windows NT 4
Windows 2000 (5)
Windows XP (5.1)
Windows 2003 (5.2)
Windows Vista & 2008 (6.0)
Windows 7
If you want to verify, just type "ver" on any of these operating systems and they'll show you the same thing.
Nobody posting here will ever be rich so long as their product names depends on obsessing over kernel numbers.
No sig today...
for all you Star Trek fans out there.
And here I thought they'd call it Windows Mojave!
Reviewing just the first hour of video games.
The actual list is more akin to... Win 95 Win 98 Win 2000 Win ME Win XP Vista Win 7 (although I had to overlook Windows Server 2003 and 2008 - not sure how MS perceives them internally) Forget the "Windows 1.0," to "3.X" stuff - they were merely crippled GUI shells.
For give me if I don't know my chinese numerology but I've heard that 7 is a lucky number in china and people like to see multiple repetitions of the number.
The word "Windows" is seven letters long so that makes it 77.
As stupid as that sounds, I'm sure MS is looking to China as a much easier place to grow than battling for marginal market share in the saturated western market.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Makes me wonder how much money Microsoft shelled out to a PR firm to come up with a winning name. This brilliant idea reaks of focus group thinking...
So I'm currently running 8.04 Hardy, and after come checking you're never going to believe what I've found. It's running kernel version 2.6! What a freaking scam.
Plus, after some more checking I've come to realize that it's NOT EVEN THE 8th VERSION OF LINUX! Believe me, I tried counting in all sorts of different ways, there's absolutely no way to come up with 8 unless you buy into the whole "4 is the new 1" idea.
a: Hey, I have an idea guys, lets start our versioning at 4!
b: You sir, are a genius, let us drink to your success!
Or... maybe you should all get over it because it's impossible for one version number to convey what version of the plethora of component softwares that any complex software has are.
I happen to like the name Windows 7. My guess is it's because there is lots of buzz about skipping to Win7 from XP, combined with the fact that "win-dows" and "se-ven" have the same number of syllables, which makes the name sound good (you know, just like "Vis-ta" and "X-P") to the ear.
Of course, that won't satisfy the anti-M$ crowd here, so try this one: Vista was a word before it was an OS. X and P were just letters that often stood for things (eXperience Points, etc). M-e used to spell 'me'. M$ is now trying to EEE our numbers. I realize it's not as ambitious as some of their other attempts at numbers (3.11, 2000, etc), but A) they're better at writing operating systems now and are less likely to fail and B) they have picked a much smaller number.
... at least it's not cutsey.
Millennium was close to cutsey, but even that's not in the same league as Ubuntu's childish and unprofessional naming convention.
A few additions... for example there were two major releases of NT 3.x. And some pre-release names:
Major DOS-based Windows:
Windows
Windows 2.0
Windows 3.0
Windows 3.11
Windows for Workgroups
Windows 95
Windows 98
Windows 98 Second Edition
Windows Me
I don't know what kinds of internal numeric designations the post-3.11 versions had, though WfW was 3.11 based. I don't recall exactly how much distinction there was between WfW and Windows 3.11, but there was definitely separate install sets for both.
Major Windows NT releases:
Windows NT 3.1
Windows NT 3.51
Windows NT 4.0
Windows 2000 (NT 5.0, Cairo)
Windows XP (5.1)
Windows 2003 (5.2)
Windows Vista & 2008 (6.0, Longhorn)
Windows 7 (6.1, Windows 7)
There's also Pen Windows (a fork of Windows 3.x for tablets) and Windows CE.
Seven's the key number here. Think about it. 7-Elevens. Seven doors. Seven, man! That's the number! Seven chipmunks twirlin' on a branch, eatin' lots of sunflowers on my uncle's ranch! You know that old children's tale from the sea? It's like you're dreamin' about Gorgonzola cheese when it's clearly Brie time, baby!
Makes as much sense as anything else.
According to their webpage, the current version of Ubuntu is called '8.04 LTS'. A new release called '8.10' is coming out at the end of the month. What's this unprofessional naming convention you're talking about? Perhaps you have some internal development codenames in mind?
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Why didn't they do something like for vista?
Numbers in Chinese culture
It's 8 that's lucky.
The OP may want to check his math, and his rabid MS hatred.
Windows NT 4.0 is... well, version 4
Windows 2000 is... Windows 5.0
Windows XP is.... Windows 6.0
Windows 7 is... Windows 7.0
See how that works? It's pretty easy to understand, once you get the hang of simple math.
there will be:
Windows 7 Ultimate 1 - $99
Windows 7 Ultimate 2 - $109
Windows 7 Ultimate 3 - $129
Windows 7 Ultimate 4 - $139
Windows 7 Ultimate 5 - $259
Windows 7 Ultimate 6 - $319
Windows 7 Ultimate 7 - $419
Smells like a plot. Remember, neither really make any sense with respect to the version history of the two companies' products.
Windows 3.x
Windows 95 (4)
Windows 98 (5)
Windows ME (6)
Windows XP (7)
Windows Vista (8)
Windows 7
However, if you look at 95/98/ME as one OS you get...
Windows 3.x
Windows 95/98/ME (4)
Windows XP (5)
Windows Vista (6)
Windows 7 (7)
And that's how many of us feel about 95/98/ME. It was one OS with some major service packs and very few feature ads or interface changes.
So I can see it being Windows 7. XP was a significant change from 9x, Vista was an awful change from XP.
No, in China 8 is the luckiest number. Partly because the word (ba) sounds like that for "prosperity".
It's actually in western countries that 7 is lucky.
are all you little goose steppers happy that you got your daily two minutes hate in or do we need to dredge up something else that is technically correct for people who care to look past the ends of their noses but doesn't make sense to fanbois who can't be bothered to understand?
sounds more and more like some fundie religious cult to me.
Whats up with 200 posts with exactly same theory of Windows version numbering`?
How about writing something useful?
windows + version number, year, "new technology", year+new technology, xp and vista... so next one could be new technology+version number, 7 name style changes over the product history.
Anyway, if you plan already into buying it, probably your counting system is "1... 2... big numbers" so the 7 don't matter a lot.
I think they should've gone with Windows Soda.
I don't know what you think an OS is, but let me tell you what it is. Operating system is a layer in the computing platform that arbitrates the sharing of resources among several processes which run under it. Game that comes with its own device driver does not necessarily qualify for an OS. For the same reason, I don't consider DOS an OS because it doesn't arbitrate the sharing of computing resource. It never needed to because all DOS programs monopolize the computing resource on that computer.
Windows has always had an API which allows cooperative multitasking and sharing of, at the very minimum, GUI resources. Windows 3.0 introduced a 386 enhanced mode which runs a 32-bit virtual machine hypervisor that makes Windows fully capable of preemptive scheduling of MS-DOS programs, although it's still vulnerable to ill-behaved 16-bit Windows programs. Windows 3.1 came with more device drivers, relying only on MS-DOS for networking and networked drives. In Windows 95, each WIN32 application has their own address space that is isolated from the 16-bit programs. However, since its UI framework (USER.EXE) is still a 16-bit program, misbehaving WIN16 programs are still able to bring WIN32 to its knee. That does not negate the fact that Windows 95 is managing the sharing of pretty much all computing resources, though poorly.
That said, Windows Vista almost disqualifies as an OS because the OS itself utilizes most of the resources on the computer, leaving little for application programs.
It's not unusual for an OS to exit back to its underlying platform. Did you know that Minix (the OS that inspired Linux) can exit back to the boot loader, and Solaris (Sun OS) can exit back to OpenBoot (similar to OpenFirmware), much like how Windows 3.0, 3.1 and 95 exit back to DOS?
I once had a signature.
I read the first 10 comments.
$pattern="(silly explanation for the following 7 lines)
1. (win release)
2. (win release)
3. (win release)
4. (win release)
5. (win release)
6. (win release)
7. Windows 7"
scrolling down to comment ~#240 preg_match($pattern,$comment_body) still deosn't return 0 /* regexp addicts please press cancel and don't bother. I know my regexp is not a regexp. But guess what? It's not supposed to! */
I remember when BG came to Romania and presented the (then) new Vista BS in some hospital and it ran soooooooooo sloooooooooow that a doctor asked "It runs kinda slow! What should we do if we need fast access to medical data?"
(...)
The idea being that maybe Windows 7 will run faster being modular and sht (at least that's what they say)
mov ax,4c00h
int 21h
Windows 1.0
Windows 2.x
Windows 3.x (and to be nice we'll toss in WFWG)
Windows 95
Windows 98
Windows ME (I know, they like to forget about this one)
Windows NT 2.x (this one too)
Windows NT 3.x
Windows 2000
Windows XP (or win2k+)
Windows Vista
Windows 7 (sounding more and more like fixed Vista, or Vista+)
M$ math? as I'm having a hard time making groupings that are both logical AND add up to 7...
Even if I dump Windows 1 & 2, as they we never popular or wrap them all up together under windows 3.x, and combine the two Windows NT named releases this is still adding up to more than 7 unless we also round up the 9xs + ME together... ugh... my head hurts... then 2k + XP
Windows 1.0-3.x + WFWG
Windows 9x/ME
Windows NT
Windows 2000/XP (they're nearly the same thing, more so than 95/98)
Windows Vista
hmmm...
I give up, no grouping makes the slightest sense in adding up to the next one will be the 7th release, especially considering that I haven't even included the server releases a few of which could/probably should be considered separate releases in their own right.
Copy/paste error formatting that post.
should have been:
'7' is certainly a less interesting name. 'XP' was certainly more interesting in that, as I understand it, Microsoft's code word for the convergence of the 9x & NT platforms was "Cairo," which became the Greek letters Chi & Rho or X & P.
-CR
"So is the BSD licence even more 'free' (than GPLv2)? Yes. Unquestionably." --Linus Torvalds (TinyURL.com/2vugzl)
Found this amusing critique buried in the comments of TFMSB (the fine MS blogpost):
Win 3.1 (Normal)
Win 3.11WG (Good)
WinNT (bad)
WinNT3.5 (normal)
Win95 (bad)
Win95+Patch (normal)
Win98 (bad)
Win98SE (good)
WinME (pathetic)
Win2000 (bad)
Win2000 SP1 (less bad)
Win2000 SP2 (normal)
Win2000 SP3 (good)
Win2000 SP4 (excellent)
WinXP (bad)
WinXP SP1 (less bad)
WinXP SP2 (normal)
WinXP SP3 (good)
WinVista (bad)
WinVista SP1 (less bad)
sig has been sent away for a few small repairs...
Windows 1.x = 1 (1.01)
Windows 2.x = 2 (2.03)
Windows 3.x = 3 (3.0)
Windows 95 = 4 (4.0.950)
Windows 98 = still 4 (4.10.1998)
Windows XP = 5 (5.1.2600)
Windows Vista = 6 (6.0.6001)
Windows 7 = 7 (6.1.6801 ----> they better frickin' release a "7.x" version)
One day all 7 will die.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
if the 'watch me pull a number out of my hat' days of Windows NT v3.1 didn't tell you that, there are dozens of other examples. IIRC, they jumped MS Office or MS Word version numbers in the early 90s also. Who cares what they call it as long as they don't call it GNU/Linux or infringe on any of the names the OSS community know and use. IMO.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
You're right! I just saw the poster!
The 7 deadly sins are..
1. Lust
2. Gluttony
3. Greed
4. Sloth
5. Wrath
6. Envy
7. Pride
It's left blank because I have nothing to say to you punks!
I like how most commenters completely ignore the fact that there was a Windows ME (not that we want to remember)
and
now we can finally compare Windows to Mac!
7 < 10.6
Of course so is Google.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRUdaWZ4FN0
Even though I'm completely used to the flow of Microsoft hatred around here, you guys are really topping yourselves with the pointless bashing on this non-story.
Congrats! Very entertaining, although in a somewhat ironic way.
Hard to believe, I know, but we actually don't have any ads on AeroXperience. Thanks for your concern, though.
Viable Slashdot alternatives: https://pipedot.org/ and http://soylentnews.org/
1) Win 3 - MS Envyed Apple's GUI
2) Win 95 - Greedy MS wanted more market share!
3) Win 98 - Created due to users Wrath
4) Win ME - MS was pretty Slothful when thet made ME
5) Win XP - Consumers Lusted after NT stability
6) Vista - Gluttony, enough said.
7) Win 7 - MS hopes to get back some Pride
Oh the irony of code-naming any version of windows a dog.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
Up until XP, Windows always improved (if you look at it retroactively), by the following mathematical property:
1 Vista > 7
Since XP>Vista has already been proven, the validity of the > operator has been proven.
Then maybe they'll get back to "inspirational" names.
If you consider the first release of NT (NT 3.1) to be the fourth generation of windoze, then NT 6.x = seventh gen does make sense. This should include vista (NT 6.0), but if they are trying to forget then that makes sense too... they are trying to restart the series by saying they have "now" arrived at the new generation. In the end, everyone agrees this is just product rebranding.
As long as it runs, and is stable, they could call it Widows sniffling snake, or Windows Cheshire, or any damned thing they please. I remember when Vista came out people were arguing that the VI in vista was because it was windows 6, so, okay, MS accepted that and made this 7, who gives a damn. Do we argue which cat should supersede which cat for MacOS, do we care which animal Ubuntu cares to use. Reall? Is this what we have to complain about it. I think they should start fresh with the naming and call it Microsoft Desktop Operating System v1.0. Really confuse you fucks when we start talking about MS-DOS 1.0 again. Come one, this is not news, lets move on.
If you only count 32-bit consumer Windows, it works out just fine:
1. Windows 95
2. Windows 98
3. Windows Me
4. Windows 2000 (yes, it came out before Me, nobody cares)
5. Windows XP
6. Windows Vista
7. Windows 7
This list does it from a MARKETING point of view, and not from a TECHNICAL point of view, because that's what Microsoft cares about. It doesn't matter how much the kernel changes from one version to the other when counting versions... it cares what the lay people identify as a different version of Windows.
I beta tested (officially) most of the Windows releases except for 3.11 and anything after longhorn. Each major release would often be refereed to by a sequence number and a code name. For instance, 95 was Win 4.0 a.k.a "Chicago". The numbering seems confusing because a lot of you are trying to incorporate NT, which for most of Windows life span was an independent product, and because 95 through ME were only incremental revisions to 95, not new projects in the same way Chicago, Whistler, and Longhorn were.
1 = Win 1.0
2 = Win 2.0
3 = Win 3.0, 3.1, 3.11, Some code shared with OS/2
4 = Win 95, Win 95 OS/R 2, Win 98, Win 98 SE, Win ME
5 = Windows XP (Move to the NT kernel.)
6 = Vista
7 = Windows 7
They just liked the name and are stealing it from George.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
Windows
1.0
2.0
3.0
3.1
3.11
3.11 for Workgroups
3.1 NT
4.0 NT
95
98
98SE
2000
Millenium
XP
Vista
7
Most every post on his subject argues about the versioning.
Does anybody have any images of any RC/Alpha versions of Windows 7?
I want to see if it is any good - otherwise, I think I'll roll out a lab of Ubuntu 8.10 machines to see how well they catch on (I work as a sysadmin in a school)
120 characters should be enough for anybody
It will be called 7, perceived as Vista, adopted as crap, remarketed as Mojave 2.0.
Actually, it's more like "and on the 7th day, he was arrested":
http://www.absolutenow.com/mugshots/bill_gates.html
From a marketing POV, calling things Windows 2000 etc. was brilliant. It was built in planned obsolecence. This is a sure sign MS is slipping
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
I dunno, it works out if you do consumer OSs:
Win 3
Win 95
Win 98
Win ME
Win XP
Vista
Win 7
If 7 is based on Vista, then they should just be honest and call it Windows Crap.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
'Vista II' = Windows VII
"I'm a PC and I can count in Roman numerals too!"
you know when you type 1,2 into adjacent cells in excel, you can expand the series using the little box on the last cell, drag it out and excel will fill in 3, 4, ...
Well if you type in 2000, 2003, and do the same trick, excel will expand it to 2007, 7...
Now if you change the cell format to "roman numeral" it will show...
ME, XP, MM, MMIII, MMVII etc.
Logical really.
Nullius in verba
Much better than Vista and rumored Vienna! :-)
I couldn't care less what they call it... if it works well, and I like using it, they can call it "turd on a stick" for all I care... my fear is that it'll turn out to ACTUALLY be a turd on a stick! I actually like Vista for the most part, and if they took it and fixed the couple of complaints I have (why in the BLUE HELL is copying and deleting files so f'ing slow?!?) I'd be more than happy frankly with it being the next version of Windows. And I *definitely* couldn't care less what they call it in any case.
If a pion (n-) collides with a proton in the woods & noone is there to hear it, does lamdba decay into the source pa
Otherwise all Linux distros would be at version 2.6 something, and OS X would be OS 8 something.
Star Trek, there maybe hope.
They called it 7 because they are finally catching up to the revolutionary MacOS, "System 7," which featured mind-blowing advances in computing like virtual memory and Balloon Help!
Let's see.
Windows 286
Windows 386
Windows 3.0
Windows 3.0a
Windows 3.1
Windows 3.11
Windows 95
Windows 95b
Windows 98
Windows 98SE
Windows NT 3.0
Windows NT 3.5
Windows NT 3.51
Windows NT 4.0
Windows ME
Windows 2000
Windows XP
Windows Vista
More than seven. Did I miss any?
But it's pronounced "Windows Vee-Eye-Eye".
I'm Shocked! Shocked I tell you! Microsoft marketing didn't speake the truth?!?!? Oh the shame of it all :-)
This was supposed to be in fun but I'm sure it will be "Trolled".
Banjo - The more I know about Windoze, the more I love *nix
Long ago, one of the superusers at work tried Windows/286 and Windows/386 (nominally 2.11). Ick. Obviously OS so ugly that their own mother couldn't love and prefers to forget. Even more than ME or Vista. From Wikipeida: "Windows 2.0 was supplemented by Windows/286 and Windows/386 in 1988. Windows 2.0, Windows/286 and Windows/386 were superseded by Windows 3.0 in May 1990."
I heard they named it "7" after Mickey Mantle's number. It's a beautiful name for a boy or a girl or an OS.
Actually OS/2 version 3.0 (kernel version, not marketing version) was supposed to be more then NT. OS/2 Version 3.0 was supposed to feature what today is called a hypervisor which would allow for multiple OSs to be loaded at the same time. At the time talk was to load OS/2, Windows, AIX and DOS concurrently.
But then M$ grabbed some former digital VMS developers, tool there share of the joint OS/2 venture and created NT.
Can we call that an OS?
What do you thing a Snow Leopard does with a poodle?
Microsoft falsely twisting the version number to be seven is something Hitler and the Nazi's might have done!!!!
okay, discussion is now finished. Nothing to see here, move along.
> Well, some of us live in a Country that just celebrated "Columbus Day" when Christopher Columbus "discovered" America.
Well allow me to help fill in the gaps your education apparently left. You see, once upon a time we were all part of something called Western Civilization.
History, as it was taught and once generally thought of in the lands of the West, was the story of a great Civilization coming up from the muck to finally stand upon the threshold of space. It is a great story, full of mighty deeds, terrible mistakes, great men and the most horrible villians. It is the story of the rise of science and reason and of the religious and philosophical ideas that made science and learning seem worthy things. It is the story of the rise of capitalism and the madness of the failed experiment of fascism and communism since both spring from the Western tradition. It is the story of the birth of ideas such as individual liberty whose logical consequences lead to the West ending slavery, the rule of law instead of the whim of kings which has allowed us to govern ourselves in peace and prosperity.
Now we face our greatest challenge. Will we throw off the rot within which seeks to destroy our civilization; and thus regaining the confidence of old prove worthy to take our place in space or will our civilization fade away in a fog of post modern doubt. We get to live in most interesting times. We get to see one of the greatest struggles of all time play out. Real history is more exciting than even JRR Tolkien's fiction if ya know how to approach it.
From the perspective of Western Civ, Columbus indeed 'discovered' America in that he introduced the 'New World' into the story. That there were primitives already here didn't really matter in the bigger story. And they didn't, they are little more than local color in any serious history. Their culture was so far below the Europeans they simply ddin't stand a chance. Not passing judgement here, not saying whether it was 'right' or 'wrong', just that it is what happened. Now by modern (and especially post modern...) notions of morality what happened was wrong. But remember that ideas of right and wrong have been evolving almost as fast as science and tech and it is just as important to view the past through the lens of the morals of the day as it is to take into account their lack of modern tech.
Democrat delenda est
Anyone remember the chorus to Prince's 7?
"All 7 and we'll watch them fall
They stand in the way of love
And we will smoke them all
With an intellect and a savoir-faire
No one in the whole universe
Will ever compare
I am yours now and u are mine
And together we'll love through
All space and time, so don't cry
One day all 7 will die"
I expect a Linux-flavored version in 5, 4, 3,...
I vote that they call it Windows 2010. Sort of has a HAL(AKA UAC) feeling to it.
"Open the iPod bay doors HAL"
"I'm sorry Bill Gates, I can't allow you to do that."
"During My Service In The United States Congress, I Took The Initiative In Creating The Internet." -Al Gore
I dunno, it works out if you do consumer OSs: Win 3 Win 95 Win 98 Win ME Win XP Vista Win 7
You left out a few: Windows 1.x, Windows 2.x, Windows 286, Windows 386. All of them pre-dated Windows 3.0 and sucked almost as much as subsequent versions of Windows, except that they lacked the BSOD. I was afflicted by them all.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
I prefer DOS Version 7. It's been running for years, and it's more stable.
The big difference was 3.1 to 3.11.
Interestingly, if you used the Windows calculator to do the calculation: 3.11 - 3.1 it gave the answer as zero! So according to Windows, there was no difference between 3.1 and 3.11
This was one manifestation of the rotten programming in calculator. The bug existed in Windows 3.0 and remained unfixed even in Windows 95. It was eventually corrected in Windows 98.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
If you wanted to, you could nearly double the length of this list:
You skipped Windows 2.1, and 2.1/2.11 came in both 286 and 386 editions; you skipped all the Windows 95 subversions like 95B, OSR2, OSR2.1, etc; you skipped Media Center Edition; you counted XP versions for different processors but didn't count the NT 4 or Windows 2000 release for the DEC Alpha; you didn't include any Windows CE or Windows Mobile versions; and you didn't include non-Microsoft Windows-plus operating systems such as Modular Windows or HP NewWave.
-Graham
Windows 3.x, Windows 9x, Windows XP, Windows Vista, Windows 7.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
A lot more important than the name, is what kind of godawful hardware is it going to take to run it?
We already know from the Vista experience that "Windows 7 ready" isn't going to mean anything, and that "minimum requirements" mean "yes, it'll boot". I own five PCs (not including the mac) and not one of them is fast enough to run Vista acceptably, not even my media center. I despair of ever catching up.
Especially during an economic downturn...
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Andy
The only thing Microsoft does well (without breaking any laws) is marketing. I expect they'll call it Windows SeXen, so when reviewers say it's a dog, people will think doggie style...
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
No matter how much lipstick you put on a pig, it is still a pig.
A very... sexy pig.
"seven at one stroke", remember where you heard it first.
yes, it does not make sense - yet. i leave the hard work of making this funny to you.
Do not trust this signature.
who wants to bet the new xbox going to be the 720.
we all know that the 360 is just becouse of marketing so why not windows 7 aswell ?
Windows 7
Kernal 6.1
6+1 = 7
hence Windows 7.
...when's the last time you saw a poodle chasing a leopard?
Windows 7 definitely isn't the 7th version of Windows, but it will probably be the 7th version that I use:
1. Windows 3.1
2. Windows 95
3. Windows 98
4. Windows 2000
5. Windows XP
6. Windows Vista
7. Windows 7
I would also be willing to bet that it will be the 7th version of Windows that many consumers use.
Although, I doubt that's why it has the name.
They're still burning, and I didn't even watch the whole thing. May you burn in hell for posting that link!
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
Any chance that they'll fix the problems of Win1? Like having the machine lock-up when you press the DoorOpen button on a CD drive when a disk is playing?
Or how about having Alt-F4 actually close a command-line window like it closes every other open window?
The non-othorginalities of the Windows user interface just drive me crazy when they won't fix them version after version. And exactly why is it necessary to change the user interface with every version of Windows?
Don't these bozos know that the operating system is supposed to be invisible (and it's supposed to work, hint, hint) and all the importance of a computer system is its user interface? If the user is aware that there is a new operating system then something is wrong with the design of this new operating system.
Computers are tools that increase their user's productivity; that's why people buy them. When you're spending time trying to understand how the stupid new version of a program works, then you're not being productive. Kind of defeats the whole purpose of having the suckers.
This morning somehow a large blue panel appeared on the left side of my File Explorer. Don't know how; don't know why. It just made it impossible to have many file explorer windows open at once because it took up so much screen real-estate for no reason at all. It took me about twenty minutes of web research to discover that I could get rid of it by selecting the 'Classic Windows Display Option' that was buried deep in the interface options. It seriously pisses me off that there is some schuck in Redmond making a lot more money than I am who thought that I would need a big blue panel on the left side of my file listings. These people should be making fries at the Burger King, not fooling around with productive people's user interfaces!
I'm waiting for Windows 42
> Then you get it home and it actually turns out to be the "tofu and long meaningful discussion about where our relationship is going" edition.
Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
Anyone who has spent any amount of time on support forums or has dealt with Geek Squad is familiar with the "reformat-and-reinstall" advice inept "techs" constantly recommend.
Considering the "reformat-and-reinstall" mantra that has gone on for years, and the generally true rule of thumb that "upgrades" are best done as clean installs, I nominate "Windows Reloaded" for the product name for the next Windows. ;-)
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
HOLY GOD, That was worse than Bill and Jerry and Don't Copy That Floppy combined. Unfortunately, I can't have a nervous break down just yet, I still have to work another 5 hours.
You'll be lucky if you still have a job in 5 hours. Don't Copy That Floppy is a copyrighted work by the Software Publishers Association(1992, see the end-credits), and your mention of it has spiked YouTube viewings of that clearly illegally hosted video. When we take Google down today, you are next for being an accomplice.
Sincerely, the SPA
greed maybe ? but greed is not the 7th sin. then again this windows is version 6.1
nothing about this adds up - what kind of madness is that .
Read radical news here
why they don't just call it Windows "you're going to buy it, like it or not", or perhaps just Windows Rape....
Microsoft must be into trying everything once... Hmm... Okay XP was successful. Now we need a prettier name... Vista, and it needs to be secure... Oh what the hell lets remove total user freedom, unless they're an IT guru... Okay let's see how it takes to the public... (1 week later) ? Oh it's crap? oh okay... Let's start again. The exact oppisite... Windows 7. Basic, easy to use, freedom filled with a nice clean ribbon... Silly bugga's.
01001001 00100000 01101100 01101111 01110110 01100101 00100000 01001111 01101100 01101001 01110110 01100101 01110011
GetVersionEx() returns the Major OS version in numeric form. Currently, the values are as follows:
4 - The operating system is Windows NT 4.0, Windows Me, Windows 98, or Windows 95.
5 - The operating system is Windows Server 2003 R2, Windows Server 2003, Windows XP, or Windows 2000.
6 - The operating system is Windows Vista or Windows Server 2008.
Thus, Windows 7 will probably return a GetVersionEx() Major Version number of.... 7.
Nearly half of all people are below average
Use this list:
Win 3.1(1)
Win 95
Win 98
Wine 2000
Win XP
Vista
Win 7
It makes perfect sense. These were all the "dominant" Windows releases of their times, marking "eras" in dominant Windows use in terms of application compatibility requirements.
Too late microsoft! too late!
I already migrated 7 systems in home to Apple Macs... wonderful systems, better and me and my family are very happy with the change.
Goodbye MS! FOREVER!
In the blog supposedly xp and vista were both kernel 5, so that too. ~
NoName
Shoot Yourself In the Foot
1 = Win 1.0
2 = Win 2.0
3 = Win 3.0, 3.1, 3.11, Some code shared with OS/2
Okay so far.
4 = Win 95, Win 95 OS/R 2, Win 98, Win 98 SE, Win ME
What about NT 3.5 and NT 4.0? Where those not "3" or "4" ?
Also, why did msft keep throwing in an NT kernel, every time they established a dos sequence?
i.e. 3.1, 3.11, Then 3.5 is the first version of NT. WTF? Why did NT start at 3.5?
The msft did the same thing, only they established a year pattern:
i.e. 95, 98. Then 2000 was NT kernel, while the DOS based went to ME. WTF?
I wonder if msft was not trying to trick users into thinking that NT, then 2000, respectively were not the next upgrade in the logical progression.
5 = Windows XP (Move to the NT kernel.)
I thought 3.5 was the move to the NT kernel, then 4.0, then 2000.
Soda would've been a nice name too...
Slashdot is getting more stupid as time passes.
At least Windows 7 is better then the name apple comes up with.
Thank you, that little voice within was telling that it really was version 7 but I just couldn't make that jump between thinking so and showing it to be so.
It is just moot to me now though since I stopped using Windows when ZoneAlarm stopped supporting Windows 2000 and these days I study at the University of Buntu instead.
... then I guess they succeeded.
They touted alot of great stuff about vista, and we all know the crapfest that turned out to be. Now they're touting the "7" and all we can talk about is the name? Is there any evidence that it won't be the same crap with a new name?
You're missing three empires: Azteca, Maya and Inca
The best way to predict the future is to invent it