Why is Windows 7 Called Windows 7?


Recommended Posts

So why do you count 3 5.X and only 1 3.X ? It's not correct.

Also, from what little I could find around the interwebz, it seems that the kernel remains 6.X.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People are confusing the two Windows lines... The old 3.1, 95, 98, ME line died, and the line based around the NT system is where the numbering is used now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah - it is actually version 7... and because I think they realised "marketing-team" derived names such as Vista are absolutely crap and essentially meaningless.

Whoever thought that calling a version of windows 'Vista' was a good idea should be dropped into a vat of boiling oil.

Windows Vista would have been so much better in the bind if it was called 'blue' or 'yellow' or 'uranium' or 'bulldog', if you catch my drift.

Vista reminds me too much of an Island where Brits go on the **** and are sick everywhere, it has no class nor sex appeal.

Windows 7 is good, I do like that name, like Windows XP was a sexy name and had appeal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm so glad I asked the question now!

I don't agree that 'marketing' names like Vista are bad. I like it. It certainly hasn't done a certain rival any harm to call it's OS names like Leopard, Panther, etc.

The 'name vs number' debate has gone on for many years, for example BMW's 312 vs Ford Mondeo, and each has it's fan base.

I just wondered what the logic was behind the number 7, that's all!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People are confusing the two Windows lines... The old 3.1, 95, 98, ME line died, and the line based around the NT system is where the numbering is used now.

QFTW!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe they weren`t going to call it 7 at all and that was just the initial internal name. Then someone in the office said "hey that`s catchy and sticks in the mind, plus everyone likes it, why don`t we stick with it"

There was no chance they would call it *******A :rolleyes:

Simple and easy are normally better 95-->Xp-->Seven.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry to ask a question that I'm sure has been asked many times before, but why? Obviously, it's not the 7th version, so what does it mean?

Because calling it Vista Second Edition or anything with "Vista" on it would have been futile considering how many people (myself included) are a bit disappointed with Vista.

Windows 7 is the perfect name and will bring back those loyal Windows customers they disappointed because of Vista.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, whether windows 7 is windows 7.0 or not is irrelevant, as they can market it however the hell they want.

But I think the compatibility argument is bulls (WHAT exactly would be broken? why is that argument being used now and not before when the kernel version was changed too?), and if you use windows 7, in spite of a few (very notable) improvements, it still feels exactly like windows vista, and apparently, under the hood a lot of it is "vista the way it should be". But you can't market it as a "just like vista, but better". I mean, that would SELL, but that would also be like admitting that vista sucked. They can sell more if they call it an entirely new thing.

Difference between 2000 (5.0) and XP (5.1) is that people were not reverting back to 98 when 2000 was released. windows 2000 is still, in my opinion, the best release when you compare it with the previous version. Although windows 7 comes close, if you compare it directly with xp. Let's face it: when you use windows 7 you realize two things: vista wasnt that bad, but it could definitely have been better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vista was a good name, until Microsoft attached it to a problematic OS prematurely forced onto the public, and compulsorily loaded onto machines dubbed "Vista Ready", which had OK specs for XP but were insanely frustrating kludgeboxes trying to cope with Vistas resource hunger. It was OK after extra memory was installed and SP1 arrived but by that time the damage was done. Even Gates acknowledged it.

I believe Seven was thought to be a good name because it implied a completely new product, rather than just a revision.

They needed a name that sounds solid, practical and reliable, rather than a funky name which implies tarting up the old, and it had to be a solid number, not a revision number like 3.1 or 8.4

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, whether windows 7 is windows 7.0 or not is irrelevant, as they can market it however the hell they want.

But I think the compatibility argument is bulls (WHAT exactly would be broken? why is that argument being used now and not before when the kernel version was changed too?), and if you use windows 7, in spite of a few (very notable) improvements, it still feels exactly like windows vista, and apparently, under the hood a lot of it is "vista the way it should be". But you can't market it as a "just like vista, but better". I mean, that would SELL, but that would also be like admitting that vista sucked. They can sell more if they call it an entirely new thing.

Difference between 2000 (5.0) and XP (5.1) is that people were not reverting back to 98 when 2000 was released. windows 2000 is still, in my opinion, the best release when you compare it with the previous version. Although windows 7 comes close, if you compare it directly with xp. Let's face it: when you use windows 7 you realize two things: vista wasnt that bad, but it could definitely have been better.

"Let's face it: when you use windows 7 you realize two things: vista wasnt that bad, but it could definitely have been better."

Very true indeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because calling it Vista Second Edition or anything with "Vista" on it would have been futile considering how many people (myself included) are a bit disappointed with Vista.

And you know - how it's NOT vista, NOT a second edition. Claiming 7 = Vista:SE is such a trendwhore thing to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Windows 1.0 (Including 1.0, 1.01, 1.02)

Windows 2.0 (Including 2.0, 2.1 (286 and 386))

Windows 3.0 (Including 3.0, 3.1, 3.11 - NT 3.1, 3.5, 3.51)

Windows 4.0 (Including 4.0 (95), 4.03 (95 OSR2.1), 4.1 (98), 4.9 (Me) - NT 4.0)

Windows 5.0 (Including NT 5.0 (2000 and Server 2000), 5.1 (XP), 5.2 (Server 2003, Home Server and XP 64Bits))

Windows 6.0 (Including 6.0 Vista, Server 2008, Home Server PowerPack 1-2)

Windows 7.0 (Including 6.1 (Seven and Server 2010(?)) AFAIK, it have number 6.1 for 100% Vista compatibility purpose, but this could be debatable)

I think this resume well...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vista reminds me too much of an Island where Brits go on the **** and are sick everywhere, it has no class nor sex appeal.

The name does that to you? I have no idea where that idea comes from...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole thing is pretty stupid.

It is NOT the "seventh release" of Windows. Depending on which versions you include, it could be the 3rd release (3rd home version of NT), it could be the 6th release, the 8th release, the 12th release, the 20th release, etc. Any one that considered it the "7th" release would have to purposely forget various other releases in order to make it fit as the 7th. People can just cherry pick what they want to list as the previous versions of Windows.

3.1 -> 95 -> 98 -> Me -> XP -> Vista -> Win7? Is that how you get 7 releases? Going by *some* Home releases?

What about Windows 1.x/2.x? 3.11 for Workgroups? 98SE? 98SE had more differences between it and 98 than Me had between it and 98SE.

Windows 7 doesn't share the same code with 3.1, 95, 98, or Me, so it's hard to compare those. It is more in line with NT3.5x, NT4.0, NT5.0, etc.

3.5x -> NT4 -> NT5 -> NT6 -> NT6/Win7. Certainly not the 7th release there.

You'd have to either exclude some home releases (with unrelated code base) or ignore the fact there hasn't been 6 other NT releases. Or do we need to count OS/2 as well? If we do count OS/2, then Windows 7 still isn't the 7th release of "Windows".

It is NOT "version 7" of Windows.

There is nothing "7" about it.

If they choose to call it "Windows 7", I guess there is no getting around the name. Good luck trying to honestly come up with a reason as to why the name fits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole thing is pretty stupid.

It is NOT the "seventh release" of Windows.

It is NOT "version 7" of Windows.

There is nothing "7" about it.

If they choose to call it "Windows 7", I guess there is no getting around the name. Good luck trying to honestly come up with a reason as to why the name fits.

Read this:
...And the real answer is right here

*Brandon's comment six down from the top is worth looking at*

Simply put, this is the seventh release of Windows, so therefore "Windows 7" just makes sense.
Windows 1.0 (Including 1.0, 1.01, 1.02)

Windows 2.0 (Including 2.0, 2.1 (286 and 386))

Windows 3.0 (Including 3.0, 3.1, 3.11 - NT 3.1, 3.5, 3.51)

Windows 4.0 (Including 4.0 (95), 4.03 (95 OSR2.1), 4.1 (98), 4.9 (Me) - NT 4.0)

Windows 5.0 (Including NT 5.0 (2000 and Server 2000), 5.1 (XP), 5.2 (Server 2003, Home Server and XP 64Bits))

Windows 6.0 (Including 6.0 Vista, Server 2008, Home Server PowerPack 1-2)

Windows 7.0 (Including 6.1 (Seven and Server 2010(?)) AFAIK, it have number 6.1 for 100% Vista compatibility purpose, but this could be debatable)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For anyone who finds the name 'Windows 7' stupid.

Explain the naming scheme of OS X based on cat names. You know a tiger doesn't grow or turn into a leopard . Also, while you're at it, define Ubuntu's naming scheme as well..

It's people who question WHY it's 7 are stupid IMO. It's Microsoft's OS. Like Apple and Ubuntu, they wont ask you what to name it. Period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For anyone who finds the name 'Windows 7' stupid.

Explain the naming scheme of OS X based on cat names. You know a tiger doesn't grow or turn into a leopard . Also, while you're at it, define Ubuntu's naming scheme as well..

OSX naming schemes are 10.0.x, 10.1.x, 10.2.x, ... 10 mean it's OS the 10th OS (OSX should be read as OS-TEN), the .1,.2,.3 are major revisions and the x mean minors updates.

The Cat naming scheme are codenames, hoverer, Apple decided to use code-names openly since it's easy for people to remember them.

Windows had always used codenames too (95 was Chicago, XP was Whistler, Vista was Longhorn, 7 was Blackcob then Vienna then 7, just to name few)

Ubuntu use the year and the month of the release for it's naming scheme, but it also use codenames based on animals with and adjective with the same starting letter as the animal name.

# 1 Ubuntu 4.10 (Warty Warthog) [2004, October]

# 2 Ubuntu 5.04 (Hoary Hedgehog)

# 3 Ubuntu 5.10 (Breezy Badger)

# 4 Ubuntu 6.06 LTS (Dapper Drake) [2006, June (was delayed) Long Time Support]

# 5 Ubuntu 6.10 (Edgy Eft)

# 6 Ubuntu 7.04 (Feisty Fawn)

# 7 Ubuntu 7.10 (Gutsy Gibbon)

# 8 Ubuntu 8.04 LTS (Hardy Heron)

# 9 Ubuntu 8.10 (Intrepid Ibex)

# 10 Ubuntu 9.04 (Jaunty Jackalope)

# 11 Ubuntu 9.10 (Karmic Koala)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.