Microsoft confirms Windows 7 is final name

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

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Microsoft releases Silverlight 2

Next Story

1.5 million Android-powered smartphones reportedly sold

173 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

1. lack of creativity and effort; this goes for OSX as well, there will soon be 6 versions of it :p
2. "omzg,i count EIGHT versions of windows not seven, microsoft sux!
3. "what am i supposed to answere when people ask me what version of windows i run? seven/7 or windows seven/7? OH HOW EVER will i explain that i'm not running seven os'es, and that I mean Windows Seven/7#"!%"#%"


Oh come on people, this is like arguing over what someone will call their kids!"#¤%&/(%¤#"

It will be Windows 7, i love the name, explains that's it's the seventh version of the NT kernel (not a MAJOR version, but still, the seventh version).

Be glad it's not called Windows Sometallmountain, Windows Someskilounge, Windows Elvis'eshometown, Windows Someothertown, or Windows Ohcomeonatsmelltherosesit'sthebestnameeverforawindowsversion.

I personally love the name, but even if it was called Windows Horseshoe, i would not care :p

Get over yourself people

morphen said,
1. lack of creativity and effort; this goes for OSX as well, there will soon be 6 versions of it :p
2. "omzg,i count
EIGHT
versions of windows not seven, microsoft sux!
3. "what am i supposed to answere when people ask me what version of windows i run? seven/7 or windows seven/7? OH HOW EVER will i explain that i'm not running seven os'es, and that I mean Windows Seven/7#"!%"#%"


Oh come on people, this is like arguing over what someone will call their kids!"#�%&/(%�#"

It will be Windows 7, i love the name, explains that's it's the seventh version of the NT kernel (not a MAJOR version, but still, the seventh version).

Be glad it's not called Windows Sometallmountain, Windows Someskilounge, Windows Elvis'eshometown, Windows Someothertown, or Windows Ohcomeonatsmelltherosesit'sthebestnameeverforawindowsversion.

I personally love the name, but even if it was called Windows Horseshoe, i would not care :p

Get over yourself people :p

thank god.

QFT

The only prob I have with it.. is how many stores/websites/etc.. refer to versions like this:

95/98/XP/Vista/7

that's gonna look wierd.. lol

I personally don't mind it.. but I wish they gave it a creative name :(.... maybe '7' is for good luck? lol

I was just making the count myself before reading DrIndianaJones's post. From my POV, your count seems wrong.

1. Windows 1
2. Windows 2
3. Windows 3.x
4. Windows 9x (95, 98, ME, 2000 - look at the version, they're all 4.x)
5. Windows XP
6. Windows Vista
7. Windows 7

That's what I think is right according to the OS version displayed to the Control Pannel.

demonofsteel said,
I was just making the count myself before reading DrIndianaJones's post. From my POV, your count seems wrong.

1. Windows 1
2. Windows 2
3. Windows 3.x
4. Windows 9x (95, 98, ME, 2000 - look at the version, they're all 4.x)
5. Windows XP
6. Windows Vista
7. Windows 7

That's what I think is right according to the OS version displayed to the Control Pannel.

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.

The list, from a friend of mine from within MS gives the reason for the naming scheme:

1. 3.x
2. 4.x
3. 9x/ME
4. 2k
5. XP
6. Vista
7. Windows 7

MS appears to be ignoring 1.x & 2.x more or less because very few people used them.

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.

Good, I've always hated the stupid marketing names they tried to come up with. Most people whose computers I work on couldn't care less what the name of their operating system is. Many don't even know what it is anyway; I ask them what version of Windows they have and they look at me like I'm an alien. It's just "the screen" to them. As long as they can play Spider Solitaire they don't care. Version numbers are easier for people to understand though I think. Names like Vista are meaningless. Even most of the geeks I know think Vista is a dumb name for an OS though. I know I sure do.

The only issue I have is that Windows ends with an s, and 7 starts with an s. Makes it just a bit awkward to say.

(Skyfrog said @ #73)
The only issue I have is that Windows ends with an s, and 7 starts with an s. Makes it just a bit awkward to say.

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.

I like the name Windows 7 as i have got used to saying it now.

Although Windows ( I'm a PC ) Edition has a ring to it, LOL ! :cheeky:

I personally like different names for different releases. If anyone paid attention differently named releases (linux and mac) have numbers as well. For instance: Ubuntu 8.04 Hardy Heron. Did you miss the 8.04? If your too lazy to learn them then that's your own dumb fault, and does not validate your arguments about that at all.

Don't dare base your judgments yet over a naming scheme. Personally, I think we need new people developing OS's. That is if we are ever going to make headway into the future of computing.

Either way, wouldn't you love spending a day in the development offices. You enter the room thinking your going to see windows 7 but by the end of the day you hear it called by 2, maybe 4 or more different revision numbers based on how much work they got done.

Lovely, eh?

(TRC said @ #70.1)
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 personally like different names for different releases. If anyone paid attention differently named releases (linux and mac) have numbers as well. For instance: Ubuntu 8.04 Hardy Heron. Did you miss the 8.04? If your too lazy to learn them then that's your own dumb fault, and does not validate your arguments about that at all.

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.

Don't dare base your judgments yet over a naming scheme. Personally, I think we need new people developing OS's. That is if we are ever going to make headway into the future of computing.

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.

TRC said,
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.

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?

I'm really glad it's called Windows 7. I really dislike 'names' for stuff (Leopard, Hardy Heron, etc) - cut out the BS and just call it what it really is - version 7.

I'd like to think this symbolises a desire within Microsoft to cut the crap and just get a solid, product out the door - I look forward to Windows 7!

(Chicane-UK said @ #1)
I'm really glad it's called Windows 7. I really dislike 'names' for stuff (Leopard, Hardy Heron, etc) - cut out the BS and just call it what it really is - version 7.

I'd like to think this symbolises a desire within Microsoft to cut the crap and just get a solid, product out the door - I look forward to Windows 7!

Agree

lamchopz said,

I agree too! It sounds so simple and I'm finally looking forward to a simple operating system. I remember watching a video on Channel 9 and this lady was explaining how long it took to create the "start" orb...COME ON!! I just want an operating system that is organized the way I need to use it.

Agree


About time they came up with something simple and effective!

Cant believe they said they had what was it, 1000s of ideas for names for Longhorn, and out of all of them, the best they got was "Vista". Can be pronounced two different ways, you feel like a bit of a knob saying it, and like others have pointed out theres no way of knowing which is the newest version to Joe User.

7 is a great name, takes me back to the 3.1 days!

I like the simplicity to it. Vista and XP are both stupid names, it may be a boring name but at least it means something

I am happy they are calling it windows 7.

Windows seven would be better.

Windows vista does have a horrid name.

As soon as they called it 'vista' I thought that it would bother people.

XP though has the best windows name of all time.

And can we just have ONE version Microsoft? Like Apple does? You've dumped the MBA 101 speak now dump the MBA 101 think.

One version, with business and home media features....

Just...

Windows 7

PLEASE :}

(and you can do that N thing if you have to for Europe)

(excalpius said @ #56)
And can we just have ONE version Microsoft? Like Apple does? You've dumped the MBA 101 speak now dump the MBA 101 think.

One version, with business and home media features....

Just...

Windows 7

PLEASE :}

(and you can do that N thing if you have to for Europe)

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.

Big fan of the return to numbering. It makes it feel more like it's a program on a development path. A version 7 has a history, and when you hear 7, you feel like there's an 8 around the corner. Much better than unique names which made the versions feel disconnected and independent.

Also, this pushes us even further away from the retarded trend of other companies naming their products after versions of Windows. Sorry TweakXP/Vista, gonna have to come up with something new now.

(Skynetfuture said @ #55.1)
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.

I like it. Granted it doesn't fit in with the Windows trend so far, but I like keeping things simple.

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)

I like the name... Actually it's simple... i don't know why, but Windows Vista for example didn't like me anything... But tihs name like's me a lot xD... Let's see how would it be...

I love the name, people have been asking for this since the early builds of Vista when everyone was speculating what its name would be.

I like this name. Why?

There's no way to separate "Windows" and "7." We've gotten used to saying just "XP" or "Vista." Not that anything's wrong with that, but some people have named Windows XP and Vista "Microsoft XP," "Microsoft Vista," "Vista OS," etc. Anyone who uses these three 'names' deserve to be strangled. :P

Oh and last point. Some people still have this mindset Longhorn and Vista are two different operating systems. :S

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.

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.

Yes. It reminds of me the good old days... I thought it was stupid when they starting using years, then names for their OSes.

I always hated the names "XP" (short for "experience") which a lot of people don't know, and "Vista" which Microsoft mispronounces -I occasionally still call them "Whistler" and "Longhorn".

Hurrah, bringing simplicity back in names, something the company had not done for a very long time.

So then I assume when service packs are released it will then be 7.1 and 7.2. I know 7 is for the kernel version but the average consumer doesn't know that.

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).

(TRC said @ #40.1)
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.

I know 7 is for the kernel version

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?

I miss the version numbering. I think MS killed application naming when they named Windows 95, 98, 2000... and their companion apps. Then everyone else went into the year numbering. I say version numbers! 3.1... 3.5... 4.0.... 5.0... 6.0... THat's the way to name something.

windows 7, that rox! maybe they'll stick to that from now on! windows 8, windows 9, windows X can't wait for windows X genereaaaation exxxx lololololol chargleberry sauce.

I am a freaking genius, cant find the forum topic but months ago I was speculating that they should use Windows 7 as official name, and behold they do

Why was the forum topic on this locked? It's so much easier to discuss on the forum and we don't have to scan the news page to continue discussing it.

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.

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.

(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).

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.

(2Cold Scorpio said @ #30.1)
They should go with 3: Consumer (Home), Professional (Business), and Ultimate (both combined). Pretty simple.

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

(Faisal Islam said @ #30.5)

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.

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.

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.

(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

(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.

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

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 :P

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

(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

(Aaron44126 said @ #21.3)

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 :P 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

(Xerxes said @ #21.4)
Yeah, I was just reading about that just now :P 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

(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 :P

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)


(Faisal Islam said @ #21.7)

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.

(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.

(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.

(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.

(Skyfrog said @ #21.10)

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.

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

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.

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.

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?"

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? :S

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.

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)"

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.

I think it's fine to be honest, 7 is after a lucky number so to speak. :P At least, it's my lucky number anyways!

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.

(39 Thieves said @ #1.8)
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?

(GreyWolfSC said @ #1.1)

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!

(medium_pimpin said @ #1.7)
Maybe it will really be Windows VII

along with Windows Cloud...

hmmmm....

Final Fantasy anyone?

(Faisal Islam said @ #1.10)

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.