After the web learned earlier this week that the final name of Vista's successor was Windows 7, all hell broke loose. The general consensus was that Windows 7 wasn't a bad name, but the reasoning behind it wasn't very clear. Many couldn't figure out how Microsoft had reached the number 7 (I'll give you a hint: they were looking at the kernel version number, instead of counting every single minor and major Windows release). But then others wanted to know why the current builds of Windows 7 were at kernel version 6.1, not 7.0. Mike Nash, Corporate VP of Windows Product Management, chimed in again on the Windows Vista Team Blog with the official explanation:
"So we decided to ship the Windows 7 code as Windows 6.1 - which is what you will see in the actual version of the product in cmd.exe or computer properties. There's been some fodder about whether using 6.1 in the code is an indicator of the relevance of Windows 7. It is not. 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."
You're taking those semantics waaaay too seriously (and out of context). How is it not a significant and evolutionary advancement just because the number isn't that different?
Last edited by Zoom7000 on 17 Oct 2008 - 23:39
+1. And it is their choice. By looking at what has been released on the net so far, this looks like the best OS from Microsoft so far.
+1. And it is their choice. By looking at what has been released on the net so far, this looks like the best OS from Microsoft so far.
I might not have been completely right, but i was close enough. Ed Bott clarifies the situation here: http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=569
Yes, that is "The fundamental problem".
We should call microsoft and tell them that's the "fundamental problem".
So, since it's "The fundamental problem", i guess that's what you will blame each time something is wrong?
Someone; "Windows 7 tells me there is a problem with my display driver, what could it be?"
You: "It's the name, sorry,nothing you can do about it"
... But seriously, seems that you thought it well through :p
6 - Vista
5 - XP/2000
4 - NT4
3 - NT3
2 -Windows 2
1- Windows 1
I think...
Because XP and 2000 were both Version 5. XP was 5.1 and 2000 5.0 And 98 was version 4.9 or something like that
1. NT v3 (WinNT 3.1/3.5/3.51)
2. NT v4 (WinNT 4)
3. NT v5 (Windows 2000)
4. NT v5.1 (XP / Windows FLP)
5. NT v5.2 (XP (x64/IA) / Server 2003 / Home Server)
6. NT v6 (Vista / Server 200
7. NT v6.1 - (Windows 7)
However according to this logic... Windows 7 should be included with Vista... So I am assuming that they believe 7 is going to be a large change from Vista.
Uhoh, sounds like "Vista Reloaded" coming. LOL
Uhoh, sounds like "Vista Reloaded" coming. LOL
Do you want to explain how?
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.