Neowin.net

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

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"..

Is it any worse than Vista, XP, Me, etc? Personally I'm glad, at least a version number means something.

Lack of creativity? I think it's a wonderful name and perfectly fits the OS. Would you say the same about OSX?

Yea same goes for the OS as well.

Maybe it will really be Windows VII

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?

along with Windows Cloud...

hmmmm....

Final Fantasy anyone?

Last edited by AA0516 on 14 Oct 2008 - 17:24

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.

There was no Windows NT 2.0

I think there were a Windows NT 4.0 and Windows NT 4.5

NT4, yes. NT4.5, no.

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.

ya ryt

it'll be 7 not seven, seven would look bad on logo's and stuff. and the article would've said seven.

"Windows Seven" in spanish is "Windows Siete"
"Windows 7" in spanish is "Windows 7"

Makes more sence to use a number

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)"

What's wrong with Spanish people calling it Windows Siete? The number is the same, I don't see the big deal.

Just like reading "Windows XP" - the letters always sound diferent on another language.

I know but why does it matter if they use their native pronunciation? I don't see an issue here.

Windows Slevin

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.

or Ventanas 7

or, in cheese-eating surrender monkey "Fenêtre Sept"...

Or what about "Windows Seven of Nine". In a skin tight shrink-wrap. Think of the possibilities. "Resistance is futile".

LOL

I agree, Windows 7 is a great name. Just like Windows 3 before it, it is simple, to the point and effective.

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.

yes, Vista was a horrible name...

but its leeeeoooppard bro leeeeoooopppppaaaarrrrddd!

BTW Snow Leopard is next! Its Leeeeeeeooooppaaarrrrrddd bro!

Why it should have any other name?

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)

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

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.

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

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)

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.

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.

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.

Then take that list, merge Windows 98/Windows 98 SE, and add Windows 3.x as item number one.

QFT

And yet some will cheer regardless what. Yes, there are many kinds of people.

They should go with 3: Consumer (Home), Professional (Business), and Ultimate (both combined). Pretty simple.

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).

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.

i agree with u. but i'm adding another thing
I want 4 editions of Windows 7

1. Windows 7 Fundamentals for Legacy PCs
2. Windows 7 Home Edition
3. Windows 7 Business Edition
4. Windows 7 Ultimate

Windows 7 just isn't going to run on Legacy PCs so there's no chance at all of that happening.

Well they did remove Messenger, Windows Mail, Photo Gallery and Movie Maker. Looking like they're heading in the right direction.

Let's not forget AMD's Athlon XP ;0

No, service packs never changed the version number. NT 4.0 had six service packs, NT 3.51 seven I think, etc. The version always stayed the same. Even Windows XP shows up as "Windows NT 5.1 Service Pack 3" during bootup (when you disable the silly splash screen).

It was a joke.

Oh, ok. I don't get it though.

The kernel version of Windows 7 is still 6.1, and there has no indication that will change.

Frankly I don't get the reasoning at all... It's not the seventh release.

Windows 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 (I can even skip the intermediate 3.x's), 95, NT 3.5, NT 4, 98, Me, 2000, XP, Vista.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. Eleven major releases.

OK... So let's only count the NT line if they are...

NT 3.5, NT 4, 2000, XP, Vista.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Five releases. Windows 7 would be the sixth. Seriously, how are they counting?

The problem with names like Mojave, Vista, XP, Me...which is newer? What is the latest version? To a consumer who isn't a total nerd the names are completely meaningless and confusing. However even grandma knows that version 7 is newer than 6.

But will they know that 7 is newer than Vista?

No, which is why I said names like Vista are meaningless. I know there is no version named 6, just using that as an example of why numbers make more sense. If they'll stick with this and make the next version 8 though we'll finally be able to get past all the stupid names.

But then what if grandma thinks Windows 2000 is almost 300 times as good as Windows 7!? :0

I'd tell her to go watch her soap operas and leave the computer alone.

Off topic: lol, after reading some of the sad comments above, you made me smile

On topic: I think its a good decision, simple and easy on the tongue. Also, now their desktop OS version will match their mobile OS version (WinMo 7 is said to be released sometime next year)

it would be just Tweakse7en

There's no way I'm the only person tired of the nerding for spelling it 'se7en'. That was a lame joke for Win7 when it was first thought up, and for some reason it keeps getting repeated. o.O

Windows 7. Not Windows Seven, Windows VII, or Windows se7en. None, not, nope.

It DOES actually make sense to have different versions aimed at different folks, but I'd far rather it was one unified version with a few tickboxes on the installation screen for your "features of choice".
But then again, from a business standpoint, it probably does make sense to charge less for when you don't want to use certain features.

Exactly!

And hopefully if they play their cards right there won't need to be a modular version, because it'll all be optional anyway.

windows codename blackcomb >> vienna >> 7

If only they could achieve the same qualities with the operating system itself...

Agree

You do know that was just the code name, right? It's just Ubuntu 8.04, that's all. Nobody calls it Hardy Heron.

Alot of people call it Hardy Heron, google it.

Most of those results are from before it was released, others point out that it's the code name. The official name for the final product is Ubuntu 8.04, it's name is not Hardy Heron. A few geeks may still call it that but it doesn't matter. Just pointing that out since we're talking about official product names like Windows Vista here. I don't know why I'm bothering since you went on to call people dumb for not learning the Windows names and version numbers.

I'm guessing your comments are based on what I said a few posts above you so I might as well respond. Yeah, I know that Linux and Mac releases have version numbers that correspond with their names (i'm not a newbie you know - I do work in IT for a living) but my point was that I just dislike marketing driven names that have no actual bearing on the product. Windows Vista was a prime example of that, and I laughed every time I read about how Vista would bring 'clarity' to my world. Ugh.



Ooh sorry.. I won't DARE base my judgements. Hey - they're MY judgements so i'll base them however the hell I want! As far as I see it, the old adage about food which goes "The first bite is with the eye.." rings true in many other arenas. Vista was clearly a marketing department driven product name and I think that reflected badly on the product.. Windows7 makes you feel like the engineers / creators of the product are in charge and that's a reassuring feeling.

Just a reminder that various Ubuntu release notes, announcements and web pages do refer to 8.04 has "Hardy" as well. 8.04 may be the "official" designation, but official references are still made to call it "Hardy Heron".
http://wiki.ubuntu.com/HardyReleaseSchedule
http://www.ubuntu.com/testing/hardy/beta
http://releases.ubuntu.com/8.04/
http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/releasenotes/804

It is more than, as you say, "a few geeks" when the Ubuntu team references it by "Hardy", and (see the last link for this), you will get nowhere unless you know it is "Hardy", because the commands to open the repos up on their official page will need "hardy" in there, and there is no reference to "8.04" in their commands at all.

Those links you have provided:
#1 is Hardy's Release Schedule -- before Hardy is released -- telling people when it will be released. Hence, codename is in effect.
#2 is a Beta testing version. That is, not released. Hence, codename is in effect.
These are the only two links you provide with hardy in the URL.

#3 Hardy Heron is in brackets after the actual official name. All the filename have '8.04' and hardy does not appear in the links at all!
#4 is the release notes *after* it is released. Note that the word 'hardy' is never used at all on the entire webpage text! 8.04 is mentioned many times, however. This reflects canonicals stance that the codename ends when it is released. It is only used in the repository commands which are commands you copy/paste, not read.

So, no, the Canonical team is not referencing it as Hardy. Especially not in the last link.

^^^ How clever that you actually ignore the fact that many download links (where space permits) that say 8.04 also has the name "(Hardy Heron)" right in the description of what is being downloaded. Bloody brilliant of you to focus only on the URL!

Also a brilliant piece of misdirecting to say that "hardy" doesn't appear in any of the release notes page. You say it "is never used at all on the entire webpage text!", when you are just plain... umm... WRONG. The commands you have to enter refer not at all to "8.04", but to "hardy". I made that point perfectly clear in my post. I guess you didn't read it?

Why does everything need an abbreviation? Could society possibly get any lazier?



No, it sounds like they finally figured out that the stupid names they've been using were too confusing and made no sense.

I think it makes the name roll off the tongue more easily. I mean, if Windows 7 feels awkward, saying oh'essex must make you giggle every time.

Q: What OS are you running?
A: Windows 7

Fixed that for you. Anyone that just calls it 7 is an idiot.

Idiots run Windows too. These are the same idiots who ask how to turn the computer on. Same idiots who don't know the mouse can leave the table. Same idiots who don't know what an OS is.

Didn't they already say the minimum required specs would be very similar to Vista?

wat? yes it is...

They weren't consumer-orientated.

That indeed may be correct, I'm just going off an email I got from a "Softie"...your analysis does seem to be better than my email was.

thank god.

QFT