It was announced yesterday that the Microsoft OS code-named Windows 7 will be shipping as “Windows 7,” exciting and surprising many. There was much question, even in our own piece, as to how Microsoft arrived at 7 for an OS likely destined to be version 6.1. Microsoft answered our question in a post called “Why 7?” on the Windows Vista Blog.
Why 7?
About The Author
Adam Scheinberg
Technology Executive o Web Developer o Father o Foodie o Music Snob o OS enthusiast
Follow me on Mastodon @[email protected]
Now we know how they will call it, and we even know why. I really needed to know that. This is the key to my purchase decision. Thank you OSAlert for reporting the news that matter the most.
Yes, the same for me… For first time I understand that marketing is always the stride to sell Windows OS no matter of real facts.
Is again one of the blogs that markets MS like: “Windows 7 is a significant and evolutionary advancement of the client operating system. It is in every way a major effort in design, engineering and innovation. The only thing to read into the code versioning is that we are absolutely committed to making sure application compatibility is optimized for our customers”
Do it again cause you are great!
Good job OSAlert! (sarcastic)
No need to shoot the messenger
Like it or not, this IS OSAlert. It is news about an OS, and this very item has been discussed across the internet.
The fact that you aren’t interested doesn’t make it less relevant.
Well I think they would be better off using the year rather than a contrived number, atleast I can remember when Win95, W2000 came out and you can’t argue about that if it ships on time.
For the programmer though 6.x is fine,
I was kind of hoping that it would be Windows 2013, but Windows 7 is good enough I guess.
/crickets
So we decided to ship the Windows 7 code as Windows 6.1
So it’s Windows Six! Learn how to count, Steve!
Windows 2000 code was 5.0 and then we shipped Windows XP as 5.1, even though it was a major release we didn’t’ want to change code version numbers to maximize application compatibility.
Since when You tweak app compatibility by changing version numbers? Don’t You do keep them compatible by keeping API stable anymore?
Edited 2008-10-15 12:36 UTC
No. There are a surprising number of legacy applications that do hard checks for Operating System versions.
So in windows world apps do things like:
if $WINDOWS_VERSION != $KNOWN_GOOD {
crash();
}
??
That is amazing programming achievement! They should patent it!
I would think you’d be tasteful enough to conceal your trolls a little better.
Obviously, this is not Microsoft’s fault.
OK, so Microsoft are free to call it what they want, but if it’s really internally Windows 6.1 (to programmers), then I presume Microsoft are expecting to at some stage move to a version internally numbered ‘7’. When that time comes it will be confusing since a programmer may write an application for Windows 7, and the management demand it be compatible with the later version (which it is, as they’re thinking of Windows “Super-Dooper”).
However, it might be that after this next release (6.1, marketed as 7), Microsoft will do 6.2 (marketed as 8), 6.3 (marketed as 9), and then give up and start a fresh line of OS that is POSIX compliant or completely revolutionary. So to me this is a sign that Microsoft have a vision that an end to Windows will come.
How can you know the term posix but not know windows is already posix compliant? What do you do, just make random strings of words you collect from slashdot and try to make it look like an intelligent thought?
.. they name Windows 6.1 “Windows 7”.
As always Marketing prevails.
Hardly “only in Redmond”. Sun did a similar thing with both Java and Solaris. Slackware jumped from version 3 or 4 straight to version 7. Had this been anybody other than Microsoft no one would either care or notice.
Well does that come as a surprise to you.
Slackware did that jump specifically because of the version inflation that all the other distros have. Pat was kind of tired of having the oldest active distro still around with by far the smallest version number.
I know why Slackware did it, that’s not the point. The point is people are making it sound like Microsoft of doing something uniquely unethical and underhand in the way they’re naming their new OS.
Slackware did it to make fun of the version numbers of other Linux distributions, if I recall correctly.
It went something like this. Red Hat. “Ok, we’re up to version 8, let’s release Enterprise Linux 1.0. Oh wait, SuSE and Mandrake just released 9. Better hurry up and release 9 as well.”
Slackware “what’s wit all the version numbers? Screw it, let’s jump the gun and say our version is 7!”
I think Debian is the only one who sanely is still at 4.0 (hopefully sooner rather than later, 5.0 will be out). They only change major version numbers if there is a core ABI / API update. The rest of the distributions used to do that, but look at Fedora. It only ever releases full numbers (1, 2, 3, etc). Suse releases 10, 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 11.0, etc. Mandriva just does a year, then “spring” edition.
Really, shouldn’t Windows Vista have been 6.0, then with sp1 it should be 6.1? Or would that be 6.0sp1 like Debian does their 4.0r4?
Slackware did the version jump because really, what difference does the version of release really make besides telling the users that there is a newer version out that has more up to date software.
Granted when you’re talking about MS operating systems, a new version truly is a new version. Mainly because with the exception of the rather limited built-in games and built-in apps, the Operating System IS all the software you get.
I still maintain the ONLY good thing they did in Vista was FINALLY upgrade the Solitaire games (and included Mahjongg).
Vista *was* 6.0. Service packs don’t change the kernel enough to justify a point release (with the exception of 9x/4.x)
Just look at the comments in their blog – they’re hilarious!
Well, way to go.
Doesn’t matter 10 > 7! I’ve used Vista for a few weeks now and I hate it. Windows & (bad name!) will have to be something special to stop me moving to OSX.
Yeah, and Ubuntu is about to reach 8.10. 8.10 is greater than 7 so Ubuntu must be much better than Windows 7. Though I’m not sure if I should switch to Solaris — it is in version 10 already, so it must be superior.
I’m not sure about how I feel about Vista. I somehow can’t decide on its quality.
Anyhow, I’m relieved to know that Windows 7 will be called Windows 7 because… because. This was a great article.
Turbo Linux 12 > OpenSuse 11.1 > Fedora 10 > Ubuntu 8.10 > Windows 7, etc.
See my other post. for more details
Between here and Slashdot I’ve shrugged off the last few articles about the naming of a windows point release as non-news and moved on. But considering that articles are still being posted on the matter, I have to ask, is there a point to such nitpicking?
Will this in anyway affect the feature set, or the hardware requirements, or the severity of drm,…?
I just can’t image that we’re really so starved for information on the release that the top discussion on the matter is which numerical value they should have chose.
I must admit I’m disappointed.
vista = view, and ultimate = last
So logically Windows Vista Ultimate ™ must be the last version of windows ever seen.
They might be smarter to name it 6.1. People will (rightly) wait for windows 7.1
I think it’s more likely because they are working together with the marketing department of Intel… (Who are going to name their next generation processors “i7”)
So, some time next year, expect to see advertisements saying something like this:
“Brand new Intel i7 laptop optimized for Windows 7”
Edited 2008-10-15 15:41 UTC
6.1 because that is what the new version of Windows is
7.0 because Vista it is not (stigma be gone!)
My take anyway.
The explanation is pathetic. Says a lot that it is all they could come up with.
The Windows 7 name exists to distance it from Vista as much as possible. Grabbing into the coat tails of the now-trendy mac os numeral scheme is just a bonus.
Windows 7 is a small change rather than a big one, just like XP was, and just like its kernel version suggestions.
It may go down as the biggest red herring in software marketing history. We will see…
What a ridiculous statement.
Since when does features (of which the scope you have absolutely no idea) have any bearing on the name of a release?
Windows 7 is indeed Windows Vista + 1, that’s undeniable in that it is the direct successor to it.
Windows 6.1 is being used for compatibility reasons (much like how Windows XP was 5.1).
Does that mean that XP was not a monumental step up from the non-NT predecessors? No. It just means that they decided to preserve a major revision number.
It’s amazing there are so many articles over something so trivial. Accept it and move on.
think about this. you are in a logical black hole
the major version should be changed if backwards compatibility breaks. i see no other reason to change it.
a major version should not be changed if a lot of stuff has changed since this is not measurable. for marketing purposes alternative names can be used (like apple does). or in the worst case hide the major number from the product (like sun does). but not make up random names.
the 1/2/3/95/me/2000/xp/2003/vista/7 naming scheme is driving me nuts.
Why is this so important? Most users don’t even know what version of their OS runs on their computers. Heck, I bet a lot of people wouldn’t notice the name even if it was called “Windows Wang” or something.
Anyway, I’ll take a number over Vista, Fiesta or any other word in spanish anytime. Yeah, a good “View” through the “Windows”, pretty clever. My native tongue is spanish, and saying Windows Vista can’t sound any more stupid (also, Terminator memories, ugh).
Edit: Typo.
Edited 2008-10-15 18:57 UTC
Okay it’s the seventh version of windows but the 6.1 release of the application development base. Gotcha. To avoid Breaking Stuff.
Couldn’t they just up the build number to 7.0.0xxx? So at least the name and the build number match? It wouldn’t be the first time in history that an OS skipped a number.
This is so stupid.
So XP was a major release but it didn’t need a major version increment?!
This is why I didn’t then and don’t now consider XP to be a major NT release, just an “improved” (and more bloated) successor to 2000.
I was surprised that they were jumping from 6.0 to what should be “7.0” but then they jumped from NT 4.0 to 5.0 so why not, but at least the name reflected that “Windows NT 5.0 Workstation/Server”.
Just call it Windows 2010!
If they’re keeping a 6.1 version number just for the sake of application compatibility, the developers need a swift kick in the ass. I can understand checking for a specific version of a library, but doing a hard version check for the OS? I may be missing something here, and enlighten me if I am, but it just seems so bloody stupid. If I were writing an application, I’d have it check the system for the libraries it needs, not some arbitrary number that could have been picked at random. If I were to somehow alter the version number in Windows XP to something ridiculously high, would that break everything that was running before I did it? If it would, there is a serious problem in the way people develop for Windows.
Again, correct me if I’m wrong, I’m just expressing an underinformed opinion.
They don’t even know what consumers want and what they want themselves…
Windows 7 and Vista… If like Ballmer said Vista is good, why do they have to issue Windows 7, they can just go ahead with Vista SP1,2,3,4,5,6,7…
The fact is that Vista sucks, everybody knows that, but Microsoft just won’t admit it!
Why do apple and ubuntu release new OSes if their OSes are so good? And vista doesn’t suck, it’s actually a great OS, but you have to actually think for yourself to figure that out, if you just go to slashdot and repeat what everyone else says mindlessly, then ya, it does suck I guess.
[edit] Oops I thought this would be attached to the post I replied too, oh well.[/edit]
Edited 2008-10-18 01:48 UTC
Has it ever occurred to you that it doesn’t suck in your eyes because it used many of the ideas of Unix and Apple? And that those OS’s in many ways are still in front of MS offerings?
I use Apple since around 1990 and *nix since 1998 and all I see when I use Windows is a badly done copy of what others have to offer. If you don’t know anything else than Windows, then maybe Vista doesn’t suck. However, judging from a limited horizon gives you a very skewed view of the world*.
*) IMHO most Windows users don’t know anything else than Windows whereas most Mac / *nix users know Windows good enough to have an educated opinion.
Edited 2008-10-18 06:53 UTC