Windows 7 to also be version 7 of the Windows kernel?

(1 reply) #1 Glendi on 20 Apr 2009 - 16:37

Erm, that would defeat the purpose about that project of OEMs making drivers to work for 6.1! Or am I wrong?

#1.1 +Smigit on 21 Apr 2009 - 02:33

I can't imagine it breaking things that much unless they are doing some very specific things. That said, I can't see them changing it.

Last edited by Smigit on 21 Apr 2009 - 02:40

(14 replies) #2 Kevin. on 20 Apr 2009 - 16:39

I have my doubt the kernel will be bumped up from 6.1 to 7.0. Not only would this affect compatibility, nothing has been confirmed from Microsoft yet.

#2.1 /- Razorfold on 20 Apr 2009 - 16:43

Kevin. said,

I have my doubt the kernel will be bumped up from 6.1 to 7.0. Not only would this affect compatibility, nothing has been confirmed from Microsoft yet.

The kernel version number is always bumped up isn't it?

Xp was 5.0
Vista was 6.0
7 is 7.0 or should be anyways

Unless of course I'm wrong

#2.2 Phemo on 20 Apr 2009 - 16:48

Well yes, but your numbers are wrong:

2000 was 5.0, XP was 5.1, Vista was 6.0 and Windows 7 is 6.1.

Every MAJOR release gets a major revision number, all the MINOR releases get a minor revision number. XP was a refinement of 2000, so only got a .1 increase and Windows 7 is a refinement of Vista, so also has only got a .1 increase.

I'd be very surprised if MS bumped the revision from 6.1 to 7.0 at this stage, personally.

#2.3 gt2437 on 20 Apr 2009 - 16:56

/- Razorfold said,

The kernel version number is always bumped up isn't it?

Xp was 5.0
Vista was 6.0
7 is 7.0 or should be anyways

Unless of course I'm wrong

2000 = 5.0
XP = 5.1
Server 2003 = 5.2
Vista/2008 = 6.0
7 Beta/2008 R2 Beta = 6.1

#2.4 +Brandon Live on 20 Apr 2009 - 18:27

Kevin. said,

I have my doubt the kernel will be bumped up from 6.1 to 7.0. Not only would this affect compatibility, nothing has been confirmed from Microsoft yet.

Bumped?

Windows 7 is Windows 7.0. It has always been "kernel 7.0" if that even means anything. The 6.1 version number, as has been explained many many times, is returned by the versioning APIs for compatibility purposes.

#2.5 Philip Hristov on 20 Apr 2009 - 18:37

It does mean A LOT Brandon. Windows 7 was supposed to be Windows 6.1 and 7 was just a marketing trick. Typically when MS changes the kernel a lot they select higher number for the major version part. In the most common case that means different driver acrhitecture which is not the case with Windows 7. Windows 5 (Windows 2000) was complete overhaul over the previous generation for example.

#2.6 +Brandon Live on 20 Apr 2009 - 18:42

Philip Hristov said,

It does mean A LOT Brandon. Windows 7 was supposed to be Windows 6.1 and 7 was just a marketing trick. Typically when MS changes the kernel a lot they select higher number for the major version part. In the most common case that means different driver acrhitecture which is not the case with Windows 7. Windows 5 (Windows 2000) was complete overhaul over the previous generation for example.

What?!?

We named it Windows 7 from the beginning, it wasn't even marketing that originally chose that brand, it was our internal "code name." The builds were versioned at 7.0. It broke compatibility for too many apps/drivers, so we changed the versioning APIs to report 6.1 to reflect the level of compatibility that should be expected by pre-existing software.

I thought we'd been over this. Windows 7 is Windows 7.0. There are far more important things than driver architecture that change (and hell, there are driver architecture changes in Win7).

So no, there is no "Windows 6.1 kernel" and never was. There's just the Windows 7 kernel. This is how it's always been, this article is just silly.

#2.7 Kevin. on 20 Apr 2009 - 19:40

Brandon Live said,

Bumped?

Windows 7 is Windows 7.0. It has always been "kernel 7.0" if that even means anything. The 6.1 version number, as has been explained many many times, is returned by the versioning APIs for compatibility purposes.

Well that explains it. Thank you for clearing things up.

#2.8 krustylicious on 20 Apr 2009 - 20:36

I can understand why it was left at 6.1 - so that existing vista based installers will install under win7...

But
"The following example shows an INF Manufacturer section with various INF Models sections that will prevent Setup from installing a device on x86-based systems not running Windows Vista.

[Manufacturer]
%Msft% = Msft, NTx86.6.0, NT.7.0

;For Windows Vista only

[Msft.NTx86.6.0]
%NetVMini.DeviceDesc% = NetVMini.ndi, rootNetVMini ; Root enumerated
%NetVMini.DeviceDesc% = NetVMini.ndi, {b85b7c50-6a01-11d2-b841-00c04fad5171}NetVMini ; Toaster Bus enumerated

;For Windows 7 and later

[Msft.NT.7.0]"

Doesn't that thus allow different xp,vista, and windows 7 installs ? so if win 7 sees "Msft.NT.7.0" it will install that branch instead of the 6.0 branch?

#2.9 crazlunatic on 20 Apr 2009 - 21:01

Philip Hristov said,

It does mean A LOT Brandon. Windows 7 was supposed to be Windows 6.1 and 7 was just a marketing trick. Typically when MS changes the kernel a lot they select higher number for the major version part. In the most common case that means different driver acrhitecture which is not the case with Windows 7. Windows 5 (Windows 2000) was complete overhaul over the previous generation for example.

For the record, you're talking to an MS employee

#2.10 krustylicious on 20 Apr 2009 - 21:13

crazlunatic said,

For the record, you're talking to an MS employee

lol I think he didn't gather that some how..

#2.11 sphbecker on 20 Apr 2009 - 22:54

Regardless of when the number 7 was decided I think we can be sure that it was chosen for marketing reasons. When you look at the history of the NT product line you see that any other of this level of would have been a point release; the 2000 to XP is a perfect example. Also, Windows Server 2008 is based on the same code base as Vista. Windows Server 2008 R2 is based on the Windows 7 code base. You can't tell me that an "R2" upgrade represents a major upgrade to the product line yet is the same code that on the client side they claim is a major upgrade. Regardless of what it actually is, the kernel version number should be 6.1, dispite what any 24 year old MS employee may tell you.

#2.12 Owenw on 20 Apr 2009 - 22:55

Brandon Live said,

What?!?

We named it Windows 7 from the beginning, it wasn't even marketing that originally chose that brand, it was our internal "code name." The builds were versioned at 7.0. It broke compatibility for too many apps/drivers, so we changed the versioning APIs to report 6.1 to reflect the level of compatibility that should be expected by pre-existing software.

I thought we'd been over this. Windows 7 is Windows 7.0. There are far more important things than driver architecture that change (and hell, there are driver architecture changes in Win7).

So no, there is no "Windows 6.1 kernel" and never was. There's just the Windows 7 kernel. This is how it's always been, this article is just silly.

Yeah, I would listen to Brandon Live. He's right, you know.

#2.13 Steven77 on 20 Apr 2009 - 22:58

Isn't at this point in 2009 a way to just write windows to make it say 6.1 if the app HAS to have it and 7.0 by default? This is coming from someone who knows very little about writing code.

#2.14 dodgetigger on 21 Apr 2009 - 08:06

crazlunatic said,

For the record, you're talking to an MS employee

That doesn't necessarily mean much. Microsoft is so big, one hand doesn't know what the other does (This is something I have been told by a Microsoft employee, btw

) (not want to question Brandon's credibility, I don't know him, just want to comment on the being MS employee part)

Shouldn't compatibility mode take care of apps that need to see something like version 6.1 to run fine on Windows 7? Programs that rely on such version checks seem to be badly designed anyway. This argument seems to me more like marketing talk.

Last edited by dodgetigger on 21 Apr 2009 - 08:20

#3 GreyWolfSC on 20 Apr 2009 - 16:42

I highly doubt they'll bump the kernel version of their new OS right before it hits release candidate. That would send OEMS that are busy building PCs for Windows 7 scurrying for months making sure the software and drivers they've probably already staged work properly. I think that article is old.

#4 StealMySoda on 20 Apr 2009 - 16:50

From what I read. 7.0 is used for drivers SOLELY for windows 7. It doesn't mean that it wont be using 6.1 to improve compatibility.

(2 replies) #5 winkento on 20 Apr 2009 - 17:07

Look at the "parent" page "Combining Platform Extensions with Operating System Versions" :

OSMajorVersion
A number that represents the major version number for the operating system. The following table defines the major version for the Windows operating systems.Windows version Major version
Windows 7 6
Windows Server 2008 6
Windows Vista 6
Windows Server 2003 5
Windows XP 5

OSMinorVersion
A number that represents the minor version number for the operating system. The following table defines the minor version for the Windows operating systems.Windows version Minor version
Windows 7 1
Windows Server 2008 1
Windows Vista 0
Windows Server 2003 2
Windows XP 1

#5.1 Owenw on 20 Apr 2009 - 22:53

winkento said,

Look at the "parent" page "Combining Platform Extensions with Operating System Versions" :

OSMajorVersion
A number that represents the major version number for the operating system. The following table defines the major version for the Windows operating systems.Windows version Major version
Windows 7 6
Windows Server 2008 6
Windows Vista 6
Windows Server 2003 5
Windows XP 5

OSMinorVersion
A number that represents the minor version number for the operating system. The following table defines the minor version for the Windows operating systems.Windows version Minor version
Windows 7 1
Windows Server 2008 1
Windows Vista 0
Windows Server 2003 2
Windows XP 1

You would be correct, sir, if Windows 7 and Windows Server 08R2 were minor versions.

....but they aren't.

#5.2 Steven77 on 20 Apr 2009 - 22:59

I think he is referring to the actual number version, NOT the OS itself. In that case they are minor versions.

(2 replies) #6 Luis Mazza on 20 Apr 2009 - 17:17

That's what actually would make sense. So Windows 8 would be version 7.0? This is insane.
Call it version 7.0. Everybody that matters know the OS is a medium kernel evolution over Vista. Not a big one, like from XP to Vista.

#6.1 Steven77 on 20 Apr 2009 - 22:59

I agree.

#6.2 Jugalator on 21 Apr 2009 - 08:02

That's what actually would make sense. So Windows 8 would be version 7.0? This is insane.

I think rather 6.2, again to not break compatibility with Vista.

(1 reply) #7 Intelman on 20 Apr 2009 - 17:23

We'll find out with time.

#7.1 Avee on 20 Apr 2009 - 20:59

ThE kernal wudnt change anything else in the OS itself just compatibility issues... I wish they wud change some of the Visual styles and the themes and some new features maybe wud do the job!!

#8 SVG on 20 Apr 2009 - 17:27

Name: en_windows_driver_kit_release_7_0_7000_1_dvd_x86_x64_ia64_x15-29102.iso Date Posted (UTC): 12/30/2008 7:17:15 PM

On MSDN Subscriber downloads page

(7 replies) #9 M_Lyons10 on 20 Apr 2009 - 17:31

Yeah, this doesn't make any sense. Almost since Vista Microsoft has been saying that the compatibility issues were due to devs tieing the application to the windows kernal version. So in order to avoid this causing compatibility problems (They they said a number of times that this was a bad programming practice), Microsoft was just going to use a minor revision. Not sure what happens when they do have to make a major revision...

#9.1 +Brandon Live on 20 Apr 2009 - 18:28

There is no such thing as a "kernel version." The version of the kernel is the same as the version of the OS.

#9.2 Marshalus on 20 Apr 2009 - 19:20

So the kernel will be 6.1 or 7.0?

#9.3 Slimy on 20 Apr 2009 - 19:41

Marshalus said,

So the kernel will be 6.1 or 7.0?

7.0 but it will report itself as 6.1

#9.4 Avee on 20 Apr 2009 - 21:01

Yep it dependzz

#9.5 Steven77 on 20 Apr 2009 - 23:01

Slimy said,

7.0 but it will report itself as 6.1

Thats an oxymoron if i ever heard one.

#9.6 Shiranui on 21 Apr 2009 - 01:55

Steven77 said,

Thats an oxymoron if i ever heard one.

You have obviously never heard one.

#9.7 Jugalator on 21 Apr 2009 - 08:03

7.0 but it will report itself as 6.1

As Brandon said, there is no kernel version. The OS name is Windows 7, and it will identify itself as 6.1, and that's that.

(1 reply) #10 blehbleh on 20 Apr 2009 - 17:41

I thought the driver-devs learned their lesson with the Vista release.
DO NOT CHECK FOR VERSION NUMBER, CHECK FOR CAPABILITIES!
The version number should be removed completly imo.

I don't know how many times i've had to bypass the version-check on installers and still be able to complete the installation without any problems at all.

#10.1 Steven77 on 20 Apr 2009 - 23:01

I think that would make too much sense.

#11 Jugalator on 20 Apr 2009 - 18:54

Msft.NT.7.0

This sounds like something else than the kernel build string though.

I have never seen anything quite like it; it could be how it identifies itself to various drivers? Hmm, a driver dev could probably clear this up.

(4 replies) #12 +Kirkburn on 20 Apr 2009 - 19:05

I suggest everyone looks up the page at Brandon Live's comments. He's in a position to know what he's talking about.

#12.1 rakeshishere on 20 Apr 2009 - 19:12

Ok.. i partly agree with what Brandon Live says... but wont this break the apps,drivers etc ?? OR will it still be reported v6.1 internally

#12.2 +Kirkburn on 20 Apr 2009 - 19:23

rakeshishere said,

Ok.. i partly agree with what Brandon Live says... but wont this break the apps,drivers etc ?? OR will it still be reported v6.1 internally

I think you need to read what he said again. It will be reported as 6.1.

(Disagreeing with him would be a little foolish, as he works for MS)

#12.3 Steven77 on 20 Apr 2009 - 23:04

I do not disagree with your subject matter Kirk, but unless it is Bill Gates or Steve Ballmer, and even then, no one knows EVERYTHING. I don't think they go to every MS employee and tell them every last thing that has happened in the past, present, and what will happen in the future.

#12.4 +Kirkburn on 21 Apr 2009 - 00:50

Steven77 said,

I do not disagree with your subject matter Kirk, but unless it is Bill Gates or Steve Ballmer, and even then, no one knows EVERYTHING. I don't think they go to every MS employee and tell them every last thing that has happened in the past, present, and what will happen in the future.

I would think that when you're about to go into RC stage, you don't suddenly pull the rug from under your own employees.

#13 Airlink on 20 Apr 2009 - 19:22

Did you all miss the very first line where it reads (and I quote, brackets and all):

[This is preliminary documentation and subject to change]

That should have been your first clue that this "obscure MSDN page" is obscure for a reason. And that reason would be the fact that it contains:

1) Merely preliminary information.
and
2) Information that is subject to change.

I suppose that we do actually have (conveniently enough) Microsoft to blame for lack of clarity on what that "Msft.NT.7.0" means, considering nobody at Microsoft thought it was important to actually date the document. You know, a timestamp would have been nice, so we would know how old this document is, and if it's out of date or what the deal is, but that's still no reason to go nuts with the speculation.

(3 replies) #14 sp3ciali5t on 20 Apr 2009 - 19:46

this is minwin?

#14.1 +M2Ys4U on 20 Apr 2009 - 21:14

MinWin is a continuing effort to componentise NT.

NT is MinWin and MinWin isNT.

#14.2 Owenw on 20 Apr 2009 - 22:54

M2Ys4U said,

MinWin is a continuing effort to componentise NT.

NT is MinWin and MinWin isNT.

Windows 7 has most of MinWin integrated in it. If you didn't see the article, it's here: http://www.neowin.net/news/main/08/12/03/windows-7-is-minwin

MinWin is essentially just the Kernel tidied up.

#14.3 Macalicious on 20 Apr 2009 - 23:59

Owenw said,

M2Ys4U said,

MinWin is a continuing effort to componentise NT.

NT is MinWin and MinWin isNT.

Windows 7 has most of MinWin integrated in it. If you didn't see the article, it's here: http://www.neowin.net/news/main/08/12/03/windows-7-is-minwin

MinWin is essentially just the Kernel tidied up.

IIRC MinWin is more than just the kernel; it is the complete stack being componentised - it is a large a complex project and it isn't finished. There is still more work that apparently has to be done.

Jim Achlin was interviewed as to how Windows got to the situation it did.

(5 replies) #15 jjrambo on 20 Apr 2009 - 20:09

Originally there was NT 3.0, NT 3.1 and NT 4.0 and it's used to name Windows itself and kernel at the same time. Then Microsoft gave Windows more meaningful name like Windows 2000. XP etc and that's where the confusion starts. I wish they kept old naming. So call Windows 7 as Windows NT 6.1 and Vista would be Windows NT 6.0

2000 = 5.0
XP = 5.1
Server 2003 = 5.2
Vista/2008 = 6.0
Windows 7 = 6.1

You can say Windows 7 Kernel, Version 6.1. (Name / Version)

#15.1 Hitchhiker427 on 20 Apr 2009 - 20:28

As it's been said before, it is not "Windows NT 6.1". The version of the kernel is and always has been 7.0. It merely reports 6.1 for app and driver compatibility.

Also, calling it "Windows NT" nowadays is silly, because there is no version of Windows available that is not NT.

Therefore, the most meaningful name for it would theoretically be "Windows 7"... oh, wait.

#15.2 jjrambo on 20 Apr 2009 - 22:04

Hitchhiker427 said,

As it's been said before, it is not "Windows NT 6.1". The version of the kernel is and always has been 7.0. It merely reports 6.1 for app and driver compatibility.

Also, calling it "Windows NT" nowadays is silly, because there is no version of Windows available that is not NT.

Therefore, the most meaningful name for it would theoretically be "Windows 7"... oh, wait.

Microsoft created confusion there, that's all to it.

#15.3 Steven77 on 20 Apr 2009 - 23:06

Was XP REALLY version 6.0 then? No, it is closed source software, we do not know how much has been changed in reality. With marketing being #1 right now, i don't really see them saying "Ya this is just a minor upgrade" even if it was the truth.

#15.4 Hitchhiker427 on 20 Apr 2009 - 23:08

jjrambo said,

Microsoft created confusion there, that's all to it.

Yep, you're right.

However, a bit of confusion that can be absolved by a single statement "Its version is 7.0, but it reports itself as 6.1 for legacy compatibility" is well worth the app/driver compatibility.

#15.5 Macalicious on 21 Apr 2009 - 00:05

Hitchhiker427 said,

Yep, you're right.

However, a bit of confusion that can be absolved by a single statement "Its version is 7.0, but it reports itself as 6.1 for legacy compatibility" is well worth the app/driver compatibility.

But it doesn't change what has happened when Microsoft originally came out and stay that Windows 7 was an evolution not a revolution; that it would not be a major upgrade. Then days afterwards a manager came out and said, "Oh, it isn't a minor release, there are alot of big changes".

So what is it? evolution? revolution? big change? small change?

Microsoft need to get all the managers in a single room and tell them, "this is the song book - stick to it and don't go off spouting crap about things you know nothing about".

(4 replies) #16 hardgiant on 20 Apr 2009 - 23:50

They should have used 6.9 or would that have broken compatibility as well?

#16.1 +Kirkburn on 21 Apr 2009 - 00:51

hardgiant said,

They should have used 6.9 or would that have broken compatibility as well?

That would likely have been okay, but would still have ended up confusing.

#16.2 Airlink on 21 Apr 2009 - 09:04

Um... no. They used 6.1 for obvious reasons.... that seem to have escaped you. So let me clue you in.

Developers ALWAYS increment their version numbers by the lowest stepping they can. For example, one would not ordinarily label the next version as "1.2" when "1.1" is still unused. The reason? There's only so many numerals in a decimal place. Ten of them, in fact. I know that's a big shock to those of you who live in a non-linear binary existence.

Anyways, what happens if Microsoft decides to make Windows 7 Second Edition, or Windows 7 R2. Or Windows 7 Server? What the ruck do then do them? Report the kernel as 6.9.1? No, they report it as 6.2 because (and I know it's hard to believe, but...) they actually know what they're doing.

#16.3 bits on 21 Apr 2009 - 10:12

This has all got a bit out of hand but I'll chime in for fun.
Nero has shown with the magic of version number 6.10 > 6.9 so it's not limited by 10.

Windows 7 was clearly kept as the retail name for marketing reasons IMHO. Windows 7 is just trying to sound like it's not related to Vista because of the bad name it managed to pick up after trying to replace the much beloved XP.
The reason they are distracting people from the 6.1 part is so people don't link it to Vista even though it's very much a refined Vista, not a fresh start.
The users said "we loved XP, what is this new Vista thing that is different?! I haven't tried it but this guy said it sucks so I hate it!".
Microsoft replied with "sorry our bad. Here is a new Windows, Windows 7!".

Its just a spit and polish to Vista just don't tell the users. The second time round I bet they'll accept it without even realizing how stupid it makes them look. The exact same applications that failed on Vista will fail the EXACT same way on 7. I think the net increase in compatibility for old applications from Vista to 7 is exactly zero. Not a thing has changed, because there was never a problem to solve. Other than from time to time you need to update programs and developers will need to update their coding styles to suite fancy new things like:
-multiple users; programs written correctly for this under Windows 95 would have worked already.
-default to limited users; the reason this was so delayed is how scared Microsoft was at breaking everything. It HAD to happen, Vista started it. Had applications since Windows 95 been written to MSDN guidelines they would have been 99% fit for Vista.

These 2 problems plagued Windows forever with security "problems" and at some point Microsoft had to bite the bullet and forcefully break all the ****ty applications lame developers had written and users had purchased. Microsoft had to enforce the guidelines that had already been given because noone was following them.

Windows 7 just gets to enjoy that applications have been updated for Vista already so magically everything will work in Windows 7. Hooray!

"Windows 7, theres nothing that new here, just users don't realize it's what they blindly rejected last time"

Last edited by bits on 21 Apr 2009 - 10:26

#16.4 bits on 21 Apr 2009 - 10:35

Oh btw, Windows XP enjoyed remotely decent compatibility because it was the 5th version of NT and Windows 2000 was so similar to it. But even still loads of people moaned about compatibility with their old lame crap they tried to run on their brand new OS. Just perhaps because that was a decade ago they forgot?
Most applications that fail from Windows version to Windows version are poorly written and not following MSDN guidelines. Programming things using your own weird hack at system hooks is stupid.
If an application can run on NT6 but not NT7 because of a different number the application was poorly written, or was written to do this for time bomb reasons to force users into upgrades during system upgrades. So next time Microsoft will do Windows 8 as NT 6.1.1 so apps written to not run at .1 points can run? Think about it, it's not the version number that breaks it! The program purposely checks the version and by it's own choice picks to not run on the next version of Windows. Windows 9 NT 6.1.1.0.0.0.0.0.0.1 because once apps cotton on to the pattern, they'll fix it and Microsoft to make these apps run will make the version to work around.

Bahahahaha what a joke all of this is. Microsoft did 6.1 for compatibility ahahaha. Man honestly I'm laughing that some of you guys accept that.

Last edited by bits on 21 Apr 2009 - 10:47

(1 reply) #17 dyreryft on 21 Apr 2009 - 02:00

Last I checked Windows was Microsoft's product. I'm pretty sure that they can says its whatever version they like, they could have called it Kernel 21.5 for all that it really matters, why?, because they make it, they can version it however they like.

honestly who cares, will having it 6.1 or 7.0 make me a coffee in the morning? will it resolve world peace? will it cause idiotic discussions on websites...

#17.1 Airlink on 21 Apr 2009 - 09:05

Yes. Yes it will!
Well, the last part, anyways.

#18 +Xerxes on 21 Apr 2009 - 04:17

Seems a little odd to me they'd would suddently change Win7 to NT7.0 My guess is this could be in relation to Win8, MS are working on it and this could be in relation to that, maybe.

(1 reply) #19 liberatus_sum on 21 Apr 2009 - 05:18

It's about time they changed the 1990 BSD tcp/ip stack code they ripped off.

#19.1 FusionOpz on 22 Apr 2009 - 22:54

That'll never happen, and thats not the only BSD code thats in windows.

(2 replies) #20 need on 21 Apr 2009 - 05:27

Windows 7 is Windows Vista...
Windows 7 is to fixing the broken hole in Windows Vista(not the sp1 or sp2) only the original vista code in 6.0.
Windows 7 i think is not really fully new OS. But remade from 6.0 into 6.1 called windows 7. But the result is better than vista. congratulation to Microsoft Windows 7 team.. until we see it on RC and RTM or GA..

Don't forget Windows 7 is start from build 6519. the interface look fully Vista but improved on faster booting compatibility and other great stuff. Now Windows 7 leak Build 7077 is in new GUI and new improvement(and hav little buggy). That make confusing on the user.
and I still think Windows 7 is not fully new Windows. But i like it.

#20.1 atifsh on 21 Apr 2009 - 13:36

need said,

Don't forget Windows 7 is start from build 6519. the interface look fully Vista but improved on faster booting compatibility and other great stuff. Now Windows 7 leak Build 7077 is in new GUI and new improvement(and hav little buggy). That make confusing on the user.
and I still think Windows 7 is not fully new Windows. But i like it.

no sir since 68** or close we had new GUI, and 7077 is the most less buggy build. unless u wanted to say little bugs

#20.2 need on 21 Apr 2009 - 14:52

are u sure 68**... just research at google u will find the early build

7077 i try it..yes admit it little bugs..more to perfection...

#21 bradavon on 21 Apr 2009 - 10:53

I bet it's an error. Surely MS aren't dumb enough to call the kernel 7.0?

#22 tuxplorer on 21 Apr 2009 - 15:48

Offtopic, but if I can suggest something to Brandon Live, I'd tell him and his shell team to put back the shell features they removed from Windows Vista and again in Windows 7. The shell is the only reason I'll stick forever with Windows XP till the day when things start feeling way obsolete on XP and critically need a modern OS, maybe I'll try Mac OS X then out of compulsion. Only the shell team spoils Windows, other teams enhance it.

#23 LiquidSolstice on 21 Apr 2009 - 19:28

7 is based way too much on Vista for it to be a kernal 7.0.

Just think, people! If, with ALL the changes 7 as so far, it's still only 6.1, just imagine how much work would have to be put in to reasonably call it 7.0!

And that's not even factoring in the driver signing and compatibility issues.

Neowin.net