microsoft

Microsoft confirms Windows 7 is final name

Tom Warren   on 14 October 2008 - 14:49 · 174 comments & 16625 views

Advertisement (Why?)
Microsoft has confirmed that Windows 7 will be the final name for the next generation operating system.

In a blog, Mike Nash, Corporate Vice President, Windows Product Management confirmed the news.

"Since we began development of the next version of the Windows client operating system we have been referring to it by a codename, "Windows 7." But now is a good time to announce that we've decided to officially call the next version of Windows, "Windows 7" Nash said.

This is the first time a Windows OS has been named by its codename. The decision was made for simplicity. Nash added "this is the seventh release of Windows, so therefore "Windows 7" just makes sense."

Microsoft is set to reveal a lot more about Windows 7 at its professional developers conference which starts on the 27th October. Neowin will be live all week so look out for some great information about the future of Windows right here.

View: Mike Nash Windows 7 Blog Post

Share this Article

About the Author

Full name: Tom Warren
User name: creamhackered
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: View All
More: View Bio   New!

Related news

Post a comment · Send to friend Comments · There are 174 additional comments
(13 replies) #1 lord_xenos on 13 Oct 2008 - 22:19
What a lack of creativity and effort.
#1.1 +GreyWolfSC on 13 Oct 2008 - 22:28
(lord_xenos said @ #1)
What a lack of creativity and effort.


I agree. How could they just name it a number? (OSX)
#1.2 Rob on 13 Oct 2008 - 22:31


Digg link is broken above for some reason so please Digg this story:

http://digg.com/microsoft/Microsoft_confir...7_is_final_name
#1.3 noPCtoday on 13 Oct 2008 - 23:16
(Rob said @ #1.2)


Digg link is broken above for some reason so please Digg this story:

http://digg.com/microsoft/Microsoft_confir...7_is_final_name

it won't likely to get popular, ppl on digg always want "direct link" shuns "blog spam"..
#1.4 TRC on 13 Oct 2008 - 23:39
Is it any worse than Vista, XP, Me, etc? Personally I'm glad, at least a version number means something.
#1.5 +Ely on 14 Oct 2008 - 00:31
Lack of creativity? I think it's a wonderful name and perfectly fits the OS. Would you say the same about OSX?
#1.6 reLapse on 14 Oct 2008 - 00:39
(lord_xenos said @ #1)
What a lack of creativity and effort.


Yea same goes for the OS as well.
#1.7 medium_pimpin on 14 Oct 2008 - 01:00
(GreyWolfSC said @ #1.1)
(lord_xenos said @ #1)
What a lack of creativity and effort.


I agree. How could they just name it a number? (OSX)


Maybe it will really be Windows VII
#1.8 39 Thieves on 14 Oct 2008 - 03:12
In a world of Leopards and Hardy Herons, I welcome simplicity.
#1.9 offroadaaron on 14 Oct 2008 - 04:44
(39 Thieves said @ #1.
In a world of Leopards and Hardy Herons, I welcome simplicity.


what about 8.10 for ubuntu and 10.5.5 for Mac OS X? thats not easy? Windows was made to be easy?
#1.10 Faisal Islam on 14 Oct 2008 - 04:46
(GreyWolfSC said @ #1.1)
(lord_xenos said @ #1)
What a lack of creativity and effort.


I agree. How could they just name it a number? (OSX)


Remember 'Windows 1.0', 'Windows NT 2.0'. They don't following MAC OS X. U Fool... they did it before Mac OS X in Nov 1985!
#1.11 AA0516 on 14 Oct 2008 - 05:25
(medium_pimpin said @ #1.7)
Maybe it will really be Windows VII


along with Windows Cloud...

hmmmm....

Final Fantasy anyone?

Last edited by AA0516 on 14 Oct 2008 - 17:24
#1.12 mrmckeb on 14 Oct 2008 - 06:33
(Faisal Islam said @ #1.10)
(GreyWolfSC said @ #1.1)
(lord_xenos said @ #1)
What a lack of creativity and effort.


I agree. How could they just name it a number? (OSX)


Remember 'Windows 1.0', 'Windows NT 2.0'. They don't following MAC OS X. U Fool... they did it before Mac OS X in Nov 1985!

No need to get defensive. I think GreyWolfSC was just making a preemptive point. Everything used version numbers once, and they are often easier to remember than wacky, relatively-meaningless names.
#1.13 TRC on 14 Oct 2008 - 09:15
(Faisal Islam said @ #1.10)
Remember 'Windows 1.0', 'Windows NT 2.0'.


There was no Windows NT 2.0
(1 reply) #2 MtDewCodeRedFreak on 13 Oct 2008 - 22:19
Interesting.
#2.1 offroadaaron on 13 Oct 2008 - 22:24
or not interesting... I'm Amazed they didn't copy the naming scheme of a certain other company seems of late they have been with there ad's. Anythings better than the name vista though.
#3 NeoFlux on 13 Oct 2008 - 22:23
I think it's fine to be honest, 7 is after a lucky number so to speak. At least, it's my lucky number anyways!
(1 reply) #4 lylesback2 on 13 Oct 2008 - 22:24
At least this name I actually like. Lucky number 7 indeed
#4.1 Faisal Islam on 14 Oct 2008 - 04:47
ya ryt
(11 replies) #5 Max™ on 13 Oct 2008 - 22:24
Good choice. No more bullcrappy rubbishy naming.

I wonder if it will be Windows 7 or Windows Seven?
#5.1 offroadaaron on 13 Oct 2008 - 22:26
it'll be 7 not seven, seven would look bad on logo's and stuff. and the article would've said seven.
#5.2 McDave on 13 Oct 2008 - 22:30
"Windows Seven" in spanish is "Windows Siete"
"Windows 7" in spanish is "Windows 7"

Makes more sence to use a number
#5.3 DJ-Light on 13 Oct 2008 - 23:26
Is better to use a word, because if they use a number and you want to say in spanish "Hey, usas a Windows 7?" the person is going to say "siete" because he/she is talking in spanish. But if MS use a word they will say "Hey, usas a Windows Seven?" using the pronunciation in english.

I speak spanish and belive me, I always said "Windows 7(siete)"
#5.4 TRC on 13 Oct 2008 - 23:43
What's wrong with Spanish people calling it Windows Siete? The number is the same, I don't see the big deal.
#5.5 aristofeles on 14 Oct 2008 - 00:00
Just like reading "Windows XP" - the letters always sound diferent on another language.
#5.6 TRC on 14 Oct 2008 - 00:09
I know but why does it matter if they use their native pronunciation? I don't see an issue here.
#5.7 Hell-In-A-Handbasket on 14 Oct 2008 - 02:38
Windows Slevin

(Max™ said @ #5)
Good choice. No more bullcrappy rubbishy naming.

I wonder if it will be Windows 7 or Windows Seven?
#5.8 +Kushan on 14 Oct 2008 - 03:28
XP was short for "experience", so it didn't really work for other languages (After all, what's the Japanese, Spanish, Korean, etc. for "experience"? I bet most languages didn't abbreviate to "XP", but the name stuck) and unless you spoke english, it didn't mean anything. If they'd renamed it to each languages version of "XP", it'd have caused a LOT of confusion, particularly for trouble shooting issues ("What version of windows are you using?" "Oh I'm on ".)
For the same reason, Windows "Seven" wouldn't work, because it'd translate into all sorts of different names, but Windows "7" will always look the same (Well, unless you're asian or something), yet it can still be pronounced correctly no matter what language you speak. It makes sense, really.
#5.9 AA0516 on 14 Oct 2008 - 05:28
(McDave said @ #5.2)
"Windows Seven" in spanish is "Windows Siete"
"Windows 7" in spanish is "Windows 7"


or Ventanas 7
#5.10 +mrbester on 15 Oct 2008 - 12:32
or, in cheese-eating surrender monkey "Fenêtre Sept"...
#5.11 Captain555 on 15 Oct 2008 - 20:51
Or what about "Windows Seven of Nine". In a skin tight shrink-wrap. Think of the possibilities. "Resistance is futile".

LOL
(2 replies) #6 gigapixels on 13 Oct 2008 - 22:24
I think it's an excellent choice. It just sounds nice, and I'm tired of the stupid names.
#6.1 Quillz on 13 Oct 2008 - 22:44
I agree, Windows 7 is a great name. Just like Windows 3 before it, it is simple, to the point and effective.
#6.2 TRC on 13 Oct 2008 - 23:41
My feelings as well, the stupid gimmicky marketing names were meaningless. Vista? XP? WTF...

Of course the nerdier side of me would have liked to see Windows NT 7.0 or just Windows 7.0, but I'll settle for 7.
(1 reply) #7 eck0 on 13 Oct 2008 - 22:24
Beats "Vista" imo
#7.1 Rudy on 13 Oct 2008 - 22:43
yes, Vista was a horrible name...
#8 Xerxes on 13 Oct 2008 - 22:27
You can say it's going back to it's roots, as prior to Win95, Windows was named by it's version number. It's simple yet elegant. The next question is, how many versions they gonna have of Win7?
#9 Chugworth on 13 Oct 2008 - 22:27
Yes! Someone at Microsoft finally got some sense! Back when they announced the name "Windows XP," I thought that was a bad idea. It doesn't give you a way to sequence the releases. Many years from now we will look back and say, "Now which came first, Windows XP or Windows Vista?"
#10 Gamerhomie on 13 Oct 2008 - 22:28
Most likely Windows 7. And I actually thought they would stick with it. A 7 is pretty simple yet elegant in itself. I think it's the best name to convey the OS.
#11 Dane on 13 Oct 2008 - 22:29
Wait for it, wait for it.

People will still bitch and moan because of the name. People didn't like vista.

People wanted it to be what its called now, and they are now saying that its a bad name.

Can't make everyone happy. Even with a simple name.
#12 neoxphuse on 13 Oct 2008 - 22:31
Love it with 7, it's my favourite number and I'm defintely going to be updating it. Looks like JIM is doing a great job.
(1 reply) #13 techbeck on 13 Oct 2008 - 22:35
Its better than Tiger, Leopard, Panther, and all other Mac names for their OS. I am not Mac bashing, but it gets confusing trying to remember who the newest edition is to the cat family.....is lyger next?

But seriously, Windows 7 is fine. I like that its simple
#13.1 offroadaaron on 13 Oct 2008 - 22:42
but its leeeeoooppard bro leeeeoooopppppaaaarrrrddd!

BTW Snow Leopard is next! Its Leeeeeeeooooppaaarrrrrddd bro!
#14 Ricardo Clérigo on 13 Oct 2008 - 22:39
Love it!
#15 IntelliMoo on 13 Oct 2008 - 22:40
Geez, they should just name it "Windows", like "The Beatles" (White Album). LOL
(1 reply) #16 +Nicholas-c on 13 Oct 2008 - 22:40
Kudos to the creator of that very creative simple name
#16.1 vetsanctified on 13 Oct 2008 - 22:42
Why it should have any other name?
#17 vetsanctified on 13 Oct 2008 - 22:41
I like it. Its simple, to the point, and in that it has certain attitude.
#18 Soldiers33 on 13 Oct 2008 - 22:43
i like it, its simple. and u can make some nice logo's with 7
#19 creamhackered on 13 Oct 2008 - 22:44
I think it's a good idea
#20 digitalsoft on 13 Oct 2008 - 22:47
Nice name, feels modern and fresh very much unlike what feels the already again Windows Vista
(13 replies) #21 kirkdickinson on 13 Oct 2008 - 22:50
I am having trouble counting Windows 7 as the 7th windows. No matter which path you take, it seems to me the next version is more than 7.

Windows 1 - 1985
Windows 2 - 1987
Windows 3 - 1990 (3.1 was the first usable windows and I had it in 1992)
Windows 95 - 1995
Windows 98 - 1998
Windows Me - 2000 (are we all counting 6 now?)
Windows XP
Windows Vista (I count to 8 here!

or.. my upgrade path

Windows 1 - 1985
Windows 2 - 1987
Windows 3 - 1990
Windows 95 - 1995
Windows 98 - 1998
Windows 2000
Windows XP
Windows Vista (did we all get to 8 again?)

Maybe they just completely threw out Windows 1 and Windows 2 because they sucked so bad and weren't usable by anybody.

Kirk
#21.1 J_R_G on 13 Oct 2008 - 22:56
It's not the 7th Windows, it's the 7th version of the NT kernel, which started at 3 (or 3.1, I forget).

Windows NT 3 (NT kernel version 3)
Windows NT 4 (NT kernel version 4)
Windows 2000 (NT kernel version 5)
Windows XP (NT kernel version 5.1)
Windows Vista (NT kernel version 6)
Windows 7 (NT kernel version 7)
#21.2 Xerxes on 13 Oct 2008 - 22:57
I could be totally wrong, but I think it's based of the kernel version, not the actual Windows release?

Since current Windows releases are from Windows NT. I'm not sure of the previous versions, so I'll start from NT 4.0;

Windows NT 4.0
Windows 2000 (NT 5.0)
Windows XP (NT 5.1)
Windows Vista (NT 6)
Windows 7 (NT 7)

Something like that anyway, correct me if I'm wrong.

EDIT: J_R_G beat me to it

EDIT2: Nevermind, looked it up and it was called Windows NT 3.1 and for sake of completeness, Windows XP x64 (and Server 2003) are listed as NT 5.2

Last edited by Xerxes on 13 Oct 2008 - 23:05
#21.3 Aaron44126 on 13 Oct 2008 - 23:13
(Xerxes said @ #21.2)
Windows 7 (NT 7)

This is one thing that hasn't been confirmed. Pre-release builds of Windows 7 are all labeled version 6.1 (in winver). :-P
#21.4 Xerxes on 13 Oct 2008 - 23:16
(Aaron44126 said @ #21.3)
(Xerxes said @ #21.2)
Windows 7 (NT 7)

This is one thing that hasn't been confirmed. Pre-release builds of Windows 7 are all labeled version 6.1 (in winver). :-P
Yeah, I was just reading about that just now kinda puts a hole in it been the 7th version of Windows. According to Paul Thurrott MS will change the 6.1 it though, so I dunno, have to wait and see I guess :unsure:
#21.5 MMaster23 on 13 Oct 2008 - 23:36
(Xerxes said @ #21.4)
(Aaron44126 said @ #21.3)
(Xerxes said @ #21.2)
Windows 7 (NT 7)

This is one thing that hasn't been confirmed. Pre-release builds of Windows 7 are all labeled version 6.1 (in winver). :-P
Yeah, I was just reading about that just now kinda puts a hole in it been the 7th version of Windows. According to Paul Thurrott MS will change the 6.1 it though, so I dunno, have to wait and see I guess :unsure:


Paul says allot
Remember Microsoft bumbing the build number to 6000 for no reason with the release of Vista?

I'm guessing something simulair will happen with 7.
#21.6 Nimitz on 14 Oct 2008 - 01:31
Actually if you wanted to argue for the client releases in just NT you can go:
Windows NT 3.1
Windows NT 3.5
Windows NT 4.0
Windows (NT 5.0) 2000
Windows (NT 5.1) XP
Windows (NT 6.0) Vista
Windows (NT 6.1?) 7
#21.7 Faisal Islam on 14 Oct 2008 - 04:55
(Xerxes said @ #21.2)
I could be totally wrong, but I think it's based of the kernel version, not the actual Windows release?

Since current Windows releases are from Windows NT. I'm not sure of the previous versions, so I'll start from NT 4.0;

Windows NT 4.0
Windows 2000 (NT 5.0)
Windows XP (NT 5.1)
Windows Vista (NT 6)
Windows 7 (NT 7)

Something like that anyway, correct me if I'm wrong.

EDIT: J_R_G beat me to it

EDIT2: Nevermind, looked it up and it was called Windows NT 3.1 and for sake of completeness, Windows XP x64 (and Server 2003) are listed as NT 5.2


Correction:

Windows NT 3.1
Windows NT 3.5
Windows NT 3.51
Windows NT 4.0
Windows 2000 (Windows NT 5.0)
Windows XP (Windows NT 5.1)
Windows XP 64-Bit/x64 Edition (Windows NT 5.2)
Windows Vista (Windows NT 6.0)
Windows 7 (Windows NT 6.1)


#21.8 Owenw on 14 Oct 2008 - 05:50
(Faisal Islam said @ #21.7)
(Xerxes said @ #21.2)
I could be totally wrong, but I think it's based of the kernel version, not the actual Windows release?

Since current Windows releases are from Windows NT. I'm not sure of the previous versions, so I'll start from NT 4.0;

Windows NT 4.0
Windows 2000 (NT 5.0)
Windows XP (NT 5.1)
Windows Vista (NT 6)
Windows 7 (NT 7)

Something like that anyway, correct me if I'm wrong.

EDIT: J_R_G beat me to it

EDIT2: Nevermind, looked it up and it was called Windows NT 3.1 and for sake of completeness, Windows XP x64 (and Server 2003) are listed as NT 5.2


Correction:

Windows NT 3.1
Windows NT 3.5
Windows NT 3.51
Windows NT 4.0
Windows 2000 (Windows NT 5.0)
Windows XP (Windows NT 5.1)
Windows XP 64-Bit/x64 Edition (Windows NT 5.2)
Windows Vista (Windows NT 6.0)
Windows 7 (Windows NT 6.1)


Hmm, I'm not 100% sure that's correct actually. The idea behind Windows 7 was originally:
A new evolution of the Windows NT 6 Kernel, NT 7 (and the reason it hasnt changed, is because this is normal in a milestone build! Come on people!
MS is trying to bring the build numbers together on their products (I.e Windows Mobile 7, etc)
#21.9 Neobond on 14 Oct 2008 - 06:23
It's the 7th client release, observe.

  1. Windows 95
  2. Windows 98
  3. Windows 98SE
  4. Windows ME
  5. Windows XP
  6. Windows Vista
  7. Windows 7

Windows 95 was the first real Microsoft OS intended for the "Home PC" before that they were workstations in a corporate environment.
#21.10 Skyfrog on 14 Oct 2008 - 10:00
(Neobond said @ #21.9)
It's the 7th client release, observe.

Windows 95 was the first real Microsoft OS intended for the "Home PC" before that they were workstations in a corporate environment.


Sorry but I don't agree with that at all. Windows 3.1, 3.0 and prior were just as much aimed at the home as Windows 95 was. In fact they had an entire line of software called "Microsoft Home". I'm pretty sure the 7 is going to be based on the kernel version. Has nothing to do with client releases.
#21.11 Jugalator on 14 Oct 2008 - 12:16
(Neobond said @ #21.9)
It's the 7th client release, observe.

  1. Windows 95
  2. Windows 98
  3. Windows 98SE
  4. Windows ME
  5. Windows XP
  6. Windows Vista
  7. Windows 7

Windows 95 was the first real Microsoft OS intended for the "Home PC" before that they were workstations in a corporate environment.

You forget Windows 2000 -- this is a client OS. There was Windows 2000 Server for the server edition.
#21.12 bangbang023 on 14 Oct 2008 - 12:30
(Jugalator said @ #21.11)
You forget Windows 2000 -- this is a client OS. There was Windows 2000 Server for the server edition.

2000 was never released or intended as a home consumer product. I think that's what Neobond meant.
#21.13 +rm20010 on 14 Oct 2008 - 12:37
(Skyfrog said @ #21.10)
(Neobond said @ #21.9)
It's the 7th client release, observe.

Windows 95 was the first real Microsoft OS intended for the "Home PC" before that they were workstations in a corporate environment.


Sorry but I don't agree with that at all. Windows 3.1, 3.0 and prior were just as much aimed at the home as Windows 95 was. In fact they had an entire line of software called "Microsoft Home". I'm pretty sure the 7 is going to be based on the kernel version. Has nothing to do with client releases.


Then take that list, merge Windows 98/Windows 98 SE, and add Windows 3.x as item number one.
#22 +lcg on 13 Oct 2008 - 22:51
I like it - it's a good idea
(2 replies) #23 J_R_G on 13 Oct 2008 - 22:52
People were going to complain no matter what name MS used, as long as it's physically possible to criticize MS for an action (read: forever because people can't be made to stop criticizing) MS will be criticized and people will act as if MS failed to make them stop as if that were possible. Anyways, I like 7, I always liked version numbers and years for product names, it makes it easier to keep track of which came when and so on. On the other hand, xp and vista aren't bad, it's just not that hard to remember such things as xp came before vista, etc. but whatever, almost any name would be good imo.
#23.1 zape on 13 Oct 2008 - 23:09
(J_R_G said @ #23)
People were going to complain no matter what name MS used, as long as it's physically possible to criticize MS for an action (read: forever because people can't be made to stop criticizing) MS will be criticized and people will act as if MS failed to make them stop as if that were possible. Anyways, I like 7, I always liked version numbers and years for product names, it makes it easier to keep track of which came when and so on. On the other hand, xp and vista aren't bad, it's just not that hard to remember such things as xp came before vista, etc. but whatever, almost any name would be good imo.


QFT
#23.2 Jugalator on 14 Oct 2008 - 12:22
(J_R_G said @ #23)
People were going to complain no matter what name MS used, as long as it's physically possible to criticize MS for an action (read: forever because people can't be made to stop criticizing) MS will be criticized and people will act as if MS failed to make them stop as if that were possible. Anyways, I like 7, I always liked version numbers and years for product names, it makes it easier to keep track of which came when and so on. On the other hand, xp and vista aren't bad, it's just not that hard to remember such things as xp came before vista, etc. but whatever, almost any name would be good imo.

And yet some will cheer regardless what. Yes, there are many kinds of people.
#24 CrazyK on 13 Oct 2008 - 22:53
Gotta say it - I like it
#25 The Tjalian on 13 Oct 2008 - 23:05
That's awesome, I was hoping it'd stay as Windows 7.
#26 virtorio on 13 Oct 2008 - 23:05
I like it.
#27 chaosblade on 13 Oct 2008 - 23:06
I definitely like it. Catch, short-handed, And just works. Communicates cleanliness, In my honest opinion. Although i like Vista, I thought the name was kinda.. Too marketing-like.
#28 guru on 13 Oct 2008 - 23:07
finally good windows name.
#29 caerma on 13 Oct 2008 - 23:07
(Y)
(6 replies) #30 noPCtoday on 13 Oct 2008 - 23:18
now, next thing: don't make too many versions. 1 is good enough for customer's sake. i don't care if you strip some functions like bit locker, if i need it ill get it seperately.
#30.1 2Cold Scorpio on 13 Oct 2008 - 23:35
They should go with 3: Consumer (Home), Professional (Business), and Ultimate (both combined). Pretty simple.
#30.2 TRC on 13 Oct 2008 - 23:46
I never liked the name Ultimate. It's too "marketing dweeb", like how the word extreme! is overused for everything. I think two versions are enough anyway, they always had been in the past. Just put everything in Business and give it the price of Ultimate.
#30.3 2Cold Scorpio on 13 Oct 2008 - 23:50
(TRC said @ #30.2)
I never liked the name Ultimate. It's too "marketing dweeb", like how the word extreme! is overused for everything. I think two versions are enough anyway, they always had been in the past. Just put everything in Business and give it the price of Ultimate.


Well, I could see why a lot of business users may not want some/all the consumer fluff, like Media Center, etc. That's why I said 3 versions (with the 'ultimate' one not needing to actually needing to be called Ultimate; I just used that to make a point). Of course, the third version could be eliminated but putting everything that's in Personal/Home into Business (like you said), but making it optional during install (and easily able to install later, if the user desires).
#30.4 random_n on 14 Oct 2008 - 01:30
Windows 7 is supposed to have a somewhat modular installation routine (last I'd heard, anyways), so having Home and Pro is plenty. If you look at the reality we have now with Vista, there's only Home Premium and Business sold in any meaningful numbers. Basic is non-existant, and the only thing Ultimate really has over Business is Media Centre (which should just be an optional install for both Home and Pro).

Special versions like Enterprise, Embedded, and "N" should still exist, but deviate little from the base Pro version. And yes, I want to see Windows 7 become efficient enough to make an Embedded version worthwhile.

That said, I like the name.
#30.5 Faisal Islam on 14 Oct 2008 - 08:09