Critics argue that the next Microsoft OS should actually be 'Windows 8'
Microsoft settles on 'Windows 7' for new OS
/v3-uk/news/1952627/microsoft-settles-windows-os
14 Oct 2008, Rosalie Marshall , V3
Microsoft has confirmed that the next version of its operating system will be called Windows 7. But the decision has invoked surprise and confusion among some observers.
The announcement was made in a blog posting by Mike Nash, Microsoft's corporate vice president of Windows, who explained that the codename of the operating system would remain when the product is officially released.
"While I know there have been a few cases at Microsoft when the codename of a product was used for the final release, I am pretty sure this is a first for Windows. You might wonder about the decision," Nash wrote.
The name was chosen to keep things simple, Nash explained. "This is the seventh release of Windows, so therefore 'Windows 7' just makes sense," he said.
Nash added that Microsoft had decided against using an aspirational name because the company's aspiration lay with Windows Vista.
Windows 7 will represent an evolution and refinement of the "substantial investments" made in the Windows Vista technology, he said.
But responses to Nash's blog suggest that Microsoft may not be keeping things simple after all. A number of commentators point out that the release is not Microsoft's seventh at all, whichever way you look at it.
According to the general consensus, there have already been seven versions of Windows: Windows, Windows 2, Windows 3.0, Windows NT, Windows 2000, Windows XP and Windows Vista. This new edition should therefore be Windows 8. If Windows XP is not counted because it is Kernel 5.1, then 'Windows 7' should be Windows 6.1.
"What will happen when the 'real' Windows 7.0 comes around in x years? Wait a second I thought Windows 7 was released years ago," said a posting under the name of 'PatriotB'.
"I guess you guys thought Windows 6.1 didn't slip off the tongue. But still, don't lie to people and muddy everything up."
Another reader, called 'Resplendent', said: "It does seem like an odd shift to go from 'names' (Millennium/XP/Vista) back to numbers again."
Further details of Windows 7 will be released at Microsoft's Professional Developers Conference and WinHec events, at which Microsoft will share a pre-beta developer only release with attendees.
© Incisive Media Investments Limited 2010, Published by Incisive Financial Publishing Limited, Haymarket House, 28-29 Haymarket, London SW1Y 4RX, are companies registered in England and Wales with company registration numbers 04252091 & 04252093
Do you agree?
MAYBE WINDOWS 9 ?
OF COURSE YOU COUNT 'XP' AS A RELEASE, AND YOU ALSO FORGOT ABOUT "WINDOWS MILLENIUM" !
MAYBE WINDOWS 9 ? 10 ?
Posted by OBLIO_A, 14 Oct 2008
everyone forgets
Everyone forgets something, I think MS references the core changes. Count everything you have:
Windows 1
Windows 2
Windows 386
Windows 286
Windows 3.0 and 3.1 (count them as 2 releases?)
Windows for workgroups 3.1 and 3.11
Windows NT 3.51, 4.0 updated and released as Windows 2000
Windows 95
Windows CE 1, 2 & 2.1
Windows 98 & 98SE
Windows ME
Windows XP (loads of flavors here, but remains XP)
There have only been 6 (now 7) Core systems.The others listed are upgrades and modifications of things already released.
Posted by Richard McLaughlin, 14 Oct 2008
Windows 7 name
This would be the 7th consumer release of windows. Windows NT does not count.
Posted by Adam, 14 Oct 2008
You missed one
Windows 95 came after Windows 3. So Microsoft got it right.
Posted by Somebody, 14 Oct 2008
Windows 7 ?
If your looking at Desktop OS'es only, there was Windows, Windows 2.0, Windows 3.0, Windows 3.1, Windows 3.11 (Windows for Workgroups), NT had several releases including 3.0, and 4.0, then Windows 2000. In between were Windows 95, Windows 98, and Windows ME, XP and Vista. This should be Windows 2009. Seven makes it sound like it was last years technology.
Posted by RandomJoe, 14 Oct 2008
Who's counting?
You list "Windows, Windows 2, Windows 3.0, Windows NT, Windows 2000, Windows XP and Windows Vista" as the evolution of Windows releases. What about "Windows ME", "Windows 98" and "Windows 98 SE"..?
Posted by BiasHunter, 14 Oct 2008
Windows 7?
If windows 7 is anything similar to carpy vista, I'll advise all my customers and friends to stay with xp. Why change something that isn't broken?
Posted by Rick, 14 Oct 2008
ya missed a couple
what about windows 98, windows ME, and wfw 3.11, shouldn't those also count as releases?
Posted by John Hall, 14 Oct 2008
I hope that Windows 7 is an upgrade, unlike Vista
My new computer with Vista stalls all the time and then freezes. WWW now stands for Wait Wait Wait on Vista. After the computer is paralyzed, I have to reboot and wait. To pass the time I have started to read Apple ads while I wait.
If Bill Gates is reading this, this is your last chance. Make Windows 7 better or I am switching to Apple forever.
Posted by Ian Campbell, 14 Oct 2008
Me?
With Windows Me included does that not make it Windows 9?
Posted by Mike, 14 Oct 2008
Dont for get there other great ME
Who for forget that other great windows version. The only one with more problems than vista - Windows ME
Posted by Brian, 14 Oct 2008
Really??
This is worth an article? Who cares what it is called, Windows 7, 10 or some other name pulled from the sky. Heck as long as the code is shrunk, resource requirements reduced and "versions" offered limited to 1 or 2 I will be happy.
Posted by Eric, 14 Oct 2008
Why not just call it "Windows OS 7"
They copy Macs on everything else
Posted by b, 14 Oct 2008
Windows 7?
1)Windows
2) Windows 2
3) Windows 3
4) Windows NT
5) Windows 95
6) Windows 98
7) Windows ME
8) Windows 2000
9) Windows XP
10) Windows Vista
Not knowing the kernel numbers for each release, I see 10 versions of Windows so far. Of course they can name it anything they want, just say "we've decided to go back to numbering...it's easier!"
Posted by E. Fronck, 14 Oct 2008
8 Releases?
How does Windows ME fit into the topology of Windows?
Posted by Jim Burke, 14 Oct 2008
What is your deal
"I guess you guys thought Windows 6.1 didn't slip off the tongue. But still, don't lie to people and muddy everything up."?????
When you are smart enough to write your own software or own your own company OR do anything other the criticize someone's work the YOU can name the software. Last time I checked Microsoft wrote the software so they can call it what ever they want.
Posted by mj, 14 Oct 2008
Are you kidding me?
It is their prodcut? Your thoughts on what *you* think it should be called don't mean jack. If you are REALLY and TRULY concerned about WHY they are calling it Windows 7, you need to get out more. There is a world out there.
Posted by Dave, 14 Oct 2008
Windows users love to complain...
What a petty thing to gripe about -- I think they are referring to the consumer line of OS's - 3.11, 95, 98, Me, XP, Vista, and 7. You cant really count previous windows versions prior to 3.11 because who used em'? and the NT/2K OS's were a seperate OS entirely used for Business until XP converged the the NT Kernel with a consumer OS.
Posted by Justin, 14 Oct 2008
What about the older windows such as?
You forgot to mention Windows 95, 98, ME...
Your list only mentioned Windows, Windows 2, Windows 3.0, Windows NT, Windows 2000, Windows XP and Windows Vista?
I would say to be correct, Microsoft should call it Windows 11...
Also it would also tell a user it is better than Mac OS 10 because it has a higher version. I wonder if Microsoft Marketing Department is thinking or just out to lunch.
Posted by JJJ, 14 Oct 2008
windows 11
also 95 98 and ME versions of windows were not mentioned along with those mentioned that make 10 previous versions of windows making this windows 11
Posted by j, 14 Oct 2008
Windows 9??
What about Windows 98 and Windows ME?
Posted by jd, 14 Oct 2008
Windows 9?
You failed to mention Windows 95, 98, and ME.
Posted by John, 14 Oct 2008
Whaddaya mean Windows 7.0?
I have worked on the following OS systems:
Windows
Windows 3.0
95
98
ME
2000
XP
Vista
To me that is 8 and I favored 2000 as the best overall. I will not go to vista nor this new system. NSA helped develop the security, and that can mean only one thing, well, maybe 2.
They can spy at will or it will be easy as pie for anyone to break and offer greater risk to exposure to viruses, trojans and root kits.
Let's abandon the windows platform period. Bill Gates has developed the only business plan in the world that can make a product everyone hates, and still make billions. Enough with that.
Posted by jon Mellos, 14 Oct 2008
Windows ME
You forgot one... But I think most of us tried to forget that one as well.
Posted by Aaron Caldwell, 14 Oct 2008
Windows 7
Seriously, who cares? How about "Virus 7"?
If it's Windows, it sucks.
Posted by Black Barack, 14 Oct 2008
A lot of you are missing the point
Windows 7 woudl be the seventh..
Windows NT is not, i repeat NOT another one it was side by side with ME/98... so your counting is messed up. 98/ME were not designed for networked Operating Systems and Windows NT was designed just for that.
Posted by Ben, 14 Oct 2008
Actually shouldn't it be Windows 12?
Windows
Windows 2
Windows 3.0
Windows 3.1
Windows For Workgroups 3.11
Windows NT Workstation
Windows 95
Windows 98
Windows ME
Windows 2000
Windows XP
Vista
OK even if we decided to lump the various 3.x versions together as one release, that's still 9 desktop versions. Not 7, but surely not 6.1 as you didn't even count the days of 95, 98 and unfortunately we still have to count ME even though it was the Vista of the 9x series.
Posted by Todd, 14 Oct 2008
Windows 8?
Come on, Windows 8, Kernel version 7.0 that is more confusing.
Learn to speak in version numbers instead of fancy names.
Windows 7 will be the 7th major kernel version released.
If we want to get down and dirty, Windows 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 3.1,3.11, NT 4.0, 95a/b/c, 98, 98se, ME, 2k, XP, Vista, 7.
So, maybe Windows 16 didn't quite have the same flare Windows 7 does.
Posted by Random IT, 14 Oct 2008
UGGH.
I don't care what they call it as long as it does not debut like Vista did. I personally have had no problems with Vista Home but it seems that it was "rushed to market".
As a Non-Uber-Geek I have to say that (and most folks may agree) there have been 9 Windows releases:
1. windows
2. windows 2
3. windows 3
4. windows 95
5. windows 98
6. windows me
7. windows 2000
8. windows xp
9. windows vista
So, it is my opinion that it sould be called:
Windows 10 or
Windows X (kinda like OSX huh)
Posted by Jeff Boothe, 14 Oct 2008
Query
Did you count Window ME?
Posted by Aemaeth, 14 Oct 2008
16 would be good
The suggestion of 16 might work.
It could have the nickname "Sweet 16".
7 will be efficient, though, it takes less effort to type "7 sucks" than it does to type "Vista sucks". Good for the carbon footprint.
Posted by Chuck Baggett, 14 Oct 2008
Why Windows 7
Windows 1.x
Windows 2.x
Windows 3.x (last being 3.1)
Windows 9x (ie Windows 4.x, includes 95, 96, ME)
Windows NT (ie Windows 5.x, includes all the NT and Server OSs)
Windows XP (ie Windows 6.x, includes vista as well)
Windows 7
This is based of the kernel of the OS and not the release names.
Posted by Tom, 14 Oct 2008
Looking at windows versions and names
While I admit that it becomes confusing to people when Microsoft changes "naming strategies" every few years, here is what I recall.
Windows 1.0, [Windows 2.0, 2.11], [Windows 3.0, 3.1, 3.11] [NT 3's also], [Windows 95 a/b/c and ME were all 4's and so was NT 4], [Windows 2000 and XP were both 5's and also the merging of what had been parallel running kernels], Windows Vista was 6], and the next would be 7.
I personally wish Microsoft had always stayed with version numbers.
Posted by Dwayne, 14 Oct 2008
the business editions don't count...
How ever you count it...
Windows NT & Windows 2000 are business edition OS's...
ME was basically windows 98 third edition...
Posted by Chad, 14 Oct 2008
None of you are counting correctly
Obviously they meant the 7th Windows version that I've personally used as my main OS at one point or another. Windows 3.1, Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows Vista, Windows 7. All the others don't really count.
Posted by Dylan, 14 Oct 2008
Ookay..
For the record:
Windows up to 3.11 and Windows NT up to 4.0 kept their kernel versions in their name.
Windows 95 was Windows 4.0
Windows 98 was Windows 4.1
Windows Me was Windows 4.9
Windows 2000 was Windows NT 5.0
Windows XP was Windows NT 5.1
Windows Vista was Windows NT 6.0
Windows 7 is.. Windows NT 6.1. What?
Seriously, they could have just labeled the kernel as Windows NT 7.0. Maybe they will later down the line.
Posted by The Chill, 14 Oct 2008
Who cares?
Who actually gives a damn what it is called? All I want is that it works, smoothly, inconspicuously, fast. Function over form, working rather than pretty for its own sake. I'd like icons that look like something obvious - not like those in Vista which I constantly have to double check. I don't want it nannying me. I do want error messages that are in English. I do want menus and folders that will do what I want, consistently across the OS. I'd like a system that doesn't bloat, that doesn't fragment files when saving them - for goodness sake hard disks are now big enough. Ah well.
Posted by Jim, 15 Oct 2008
Windows
You're all very lucky - my computer's so old it only had arrow slits!
Posted by stuart Kynoch, 15 Oct 2008
Windows ME
Windows ME blighted my life for about a year. Doesn't that count?
Posted by R James, 15 Oct 2008
Vista was already the 13th ( and it shows )
Here is my view ( as I had all of them ) :
1) Windows
2) Windows 2
3) Windows 3
4) Windows 3.11 ( workgroup)
5) Windows NT 3.51
6) Windows NT 4
7) Windows 95 ( a, b and C releases )
8) Windows 98
9) Windows 98SE (second edition)
10) Windows ME
11) Windows 2000
12) Windows XP
13) Windows Vista
13th edition for Vista is well named ;-)
The next one has to be the 14.
lop
Posted by lop, 15 Oct 2008
Windows whatever
I really dont care what they call it, I want a basic OS that will start the machine and allow me to get online, and sold to me at a basic fee. All the rest of the bloat should then be available if I want to buy it, e.g. media player, IE, fancy desktop, etc, etc. and not included in this basic package. It should be lean, efficient and stand alone, and all other packages should not be integrated into it in any way so if they crash the OS will continue to work regardless.
Posted by BigT, 15 Oct 2008