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."

8 of 772 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Isn't There an Iron Maiden Song For This? by DrLang21 · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

    --
    I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
  2. Re:Isn't There an Iron Maiden Song For This? by Zocalo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?
    --
    UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
  3. Too obsessive by Jeff+Hornby · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?
  4. Re:Isn't There an Iron Maiden Song For This? by leamanc · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Was that the one called "Windows 386" that had the terrible rapping-office-chick promo video?

    --
    :q!
  5. Re:Isn't There an Iron Maiden Song For This? by syrinx · · Score: 3, Interesting

    And this is 6.1. If you're ignoring 2000->XP, then why are you counting Vista->Seven?

    --
    Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
  6. It should actually be called Windows 21 by DreadfulGrape · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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...
  7. Re:Isn't There an Iron Maiden Song For This? by electrictroy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Windows is actually TWO families of programs, and each family follows a divergent path:

    Family 1 (MS-DOS based shells)
    Windows 1.0
    Windows 2.0
    Windows 3.0
    Windows 3.1
    Windows 95
    Windows 98
    Windows ME
    DEAD (no longer updated by Microsoft)

    Family 2:
    IBM/microsoft OS/2 1.0 (joint venture)
    IBM/microsoft OS/2 2.0 (joint)
    IBM/microsoft OS/2 3.0 (never-released prototype)
    Windows NT 3.1 (the program that resulted after microsoft split from IBM)
    Windows NT 4.0 (1996)
    Windows NT 5.0 (Windows 2000)
    Windows NT 5.1 (XP in 2001)
    Windows NT 6.0 (Vista in 2006)
    Windows NT 7.0 (Windows 7)

    I hope that clears things up, and it makes sense when viewed in that manner. Windows 7 is a logical progression of programs over the last ~25 years.

    --
    The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
  8. Re:Western Civ 100 by Caboosian · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    I'm gonna have to go ahead here, and disagree with you on this one. See, the first years of colonization were fraught with native/colonist battles, skirmishes, and bitterness. From the beginning onwards, it really gave colonists this sense that they were truly "better" than these barbaric and uncouth natives. As time progressed, and colonies began to turn into nations (I'm going to stick with America here mostly), this notion of superiority transformed into one of the biggest driving factors in recent history; the idea of American Exceptionalism.

    Americans, from the beginning, felt they were exceptional for many reasons; overthrowing the king, bringing democracy to the land, being enlightened, what have you. However, I would contend that one of the biggest factors contributing to this mindset came during the period of American westward expansion. As America pushed into the frontier, they felt they were spreading civilization across the land - land that was formerly native. They felt they had a duty to the world, to spread this civilization.

    So they did. This is where Manifest Destiny came from - Americans are the biggest, baddest, and most enlightened people in town, and we're enlightening you too (whether you like it or not). Would America have grown to the size it is today without this ideal? Probably not. The Mexican-American war was started largely because of manifest destiny (James Polk ran on a platform of American expansion), and that's where nearly 1/4 our (continental) geographical size came from. However, geography isn't the big deal with American Exceptionalism; it's all about foreign policy.

    From the 1890s onward, America was openly expansionist; the Philippines were more or less ours, Hawaii was up for grabs, etc. However, American Exceptionalism was about spreading culture, not land. So damn near every chance America got, we exerted our influence (Roosevelt w/ "speak softly and carry a big stick", Wilson/WW1/League of Nations, Truman/UN). Even today, I would argue that our entire foreign policy is driven, at some points openly, and other points subtly, by the ideal of American Exceptionalism.

    A perfect example, I feel, is Iraq. We weren't invading Iraq for oil; we were invading for two reasons (according to our President, mind you). First and foremost, to overthrow the regime of Saddam Hussein, and his very terrible weapons of mass destruction. Second, to bring democracy to the Iraqis. Now, doesn't that sound an awful lot like the great, civilized, exceptional Americans making the "barbaric" parts of the world just like us?

    So to just brush aside the natives as a non-event is silly. They were the evidence that American Exceptionalism was "right"; if they could be civilized, so could the rest of the world. They were not the origin of American Exceptionalism, but they did a hell of a lot to justify that ideal, and the effects of that justification can be felt very clearly today.

    Note: I'm trying my best to be objective. Whether I feel America is exceptional or not, the fact of the matter, is that America felt it was exceptional, and has for 200 years.