Why is Windows 7 Called Windows 7?


Recommended Posts

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.

There is a big difference between calling something Vista or Panther or Lepoard and calling it 7. The first three are just names that are meaningless, but calling it a number 7 implies a meaning and a relationship to other versions.

After all, it's unlikely that the marketing guys would call it a random number like Windows 564.

I find it both amazing and interesting that no-one seems to know the definitive answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it both amazing and interesting that no-one seems to know the definitive answer.

Member Quillz answered this already on Page 1 of this topic

It's the seventh major iteration of Windows NT...

Windows NT 3.1 (1993)

Windows NT 4.0 (1995)

Windows NT Workstation (1996)

Windows 2000 (2000)

Windows XP (2001)

Windows Vista (2006)

Windows 7 (2009)

The underlying kernel is 6.1, though.

Edit: Also remember that the entire 9x series (from Win95 to WinME) was all part of the Windows 4.0 era. So all three releases could be considered minor point releases.

And then further cleared up by me on post #18

Why won't anyone listen ! :D :p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AFAIR some animals or rather creatures in ubuntu names comes from african or other society legends, passing in oral form from one generation to another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets be realistic... Just because there's other window names, doesn't make it the 7th windows release.

There's not enough changes to each windows to call it a brand new release. 95 and 98 were very much alike. 2000, me, and xp were all alike, except the minor changes in usability. All the vistas are the same.

Windows has had, at most, 4 different OS's. The others are just renamed service packs.

Haven't used Windows 7, but from what I'd gather... such a quick release after releasing Vista... no way they could have completely changed their software. So it's gotta be either more like vista, or more like xp. Whichever it is, it's not a new OS, just a slightly altered old software ^.^.

Not a bad name though... If it was accurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Member Quillz answered this already on Page 1 of this topic

And then further cleared up by me on post #18

Why won't anyone listen ! :D :p

From what I can see, it's not answered or cleared up at all. Lots of people seem to have different theories on this subject!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets be realistic... Just because there's other window names, doesn't make it the 7th windows release.

There's not enough changes to each windows to call it a brand new release. 95 and 98 were very much alike. 2000, me, and xp were all alike, except the minor changes in usability. All the vistas are the same.

Windows has had, at most, 4 different OS's. The others are just renamed service packs.

Haven't used Windows 7, but from what I'd gather... such a quick release after releasing Vista... no way they could have completely changed their software. So it's gotta be either more like vista, or more like xp. Whichever it is, it's not a new OS, just a slightly altered old software ^.^.

Not a bad name though... If it was accurate.

What the hell are you talking about? ME isn't alike to 2K and XP... It still the same Kernel as Win 9x when 2K and XP are on NT.

How can you also see 4 different OSes? Win 1.0, Win 2.0, Win 3.0 and Win 95 are all radically different and have nothing in common.

Read the thread....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 = Windows 1.01

2 = Windows 3.0

3 = Windows 3.1x

4 = Windows NT 3.1

5 = Windows 95

6 = Windows 98

7 = Windows 2000

8 = Windows Me

9 = Windows XP

10 = Windows Vista

11 = Windows 7 Confused?

Recursive definition :p

You counted wrong and Wiki doesn't have correct information all the time.

1 = Windows 1.01

2 = Windows 2.0, 2.x

3 = Windows 3.0, 3.1, 3.11, NT 3.1

4 = Windows 95, 98, NT 4.0

5 = Windows Me, 2000, Server 2000

6 = Windows XP, Server 2003, Server 2003 R2

7 = Windows Vista, Windows 7

The numbers 1, 2, 3 ,4 have nothing to do with NT releases even though they overlap sometimes.

Member Quillz answered this already on Page 1 of this topic

And then further cleared up by me on post #18

Why won't anyone listen ! :D :p

That is wrong too.

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 64-bit))

Windows 6.0 (Including 6.0 Vista, Server 2008, Home Server PowerPack 1-2, and Windows 7)

Going by that, it still isn't the 7th release.

I mean, if you include "4.9" (Me) in the Windows 4.0 release and "5.2" in the Windows 5.0 release, then surely "6.1" is part of the 6.0 release.

Again, saying Windows 7 is the seventh release only works if you selectively include or exclude things that are convenient to you to make your point.

For just about every argument there is as to why this is the "seventh" release, there are at least two arguments to the contrary.

I'm not saying the Windows 7 name is stupid, but it is misleading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear god, people. You're complaining about what Microsoft call their own OS? What bloody difference does it make?

MS can call it whatever the hell they like. It's theirs, after all.

Do any of you really think "Windows 12", or a variation of "Vista" would sound better? Both of those choices would have rather more people confused. Come on, please tell us what Windows 7 should really be called in your eyes?

Finally, why not read the thread before posting. It's like half of you are skipping entire pages. It's only five pages, can you not spare the five minutes?

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 64-bit))

Windows 6.0 (Including 6.0 Vista, Server 2008, Home Server PowerPack 1-2, and Windows 7)

Going by that, it still isn't the 7th release.

I mean, if you include "4.9" (Me) in the Windows 4.0 release and "5.2" in the Windows 5.0 release, then surely "6.1" is part of the 6.0 release.

Again, saying Windows 7 is the seventh release only works if you selectively include or exclude things that are convenient to you to make your point.

For just about every argument there is as to why this is the "seventh" release, there are at least two arguments to the contrary.

I'm not saying the Windows 7 name is stupid, but it is misleading.

Hey, when you copy-paste someone, try to read what he said... Want the source of what I said in parenthesis?

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Windows-7-N...6-1-95973.shtml

At the start of this week Microsoft revealed that for the next iteration of the Windows client, the codename, product number and official label would be one and the same: Windows 7. At the same time, Mike Nash, corporate vice president, Windows Product Management, indicated that the Windows 7 moniker would have no impact over the actual version of the Windows code. In this context, Windows 7 turns out not to be Windows 7 at all, but actually Windows 6.1, the successor of Windows Vista which is v6.0. Steven Sinofsky, senior vice president, Windows and Windows Live Engineering Group, explained that Microsoft meant for Windows 7 to be Windows 6.1.

"As we started Windows 7 we chose to keep the major version number at 6 so as to maximize compatibility for third party developers. This is really about our commitment to compatibility. And as you have seen with past releases, the major/minor nomenclature for the qualitative aspects of the release don?t necessarily line up with the numeric designations. What you?re seeing with Windows 7 is just a deliberate focus on compatibility over version number vanity (just as you saw with the ?major? release of Windows XP)," Sinofsky stated.

The head of the Windows 7 project explained that Windows 7 needed to be Windows 6.1 because of all the software solutions, with an emphasis on setup programs, were tailored to a specific Windows version. In this context, an application or a driver that is hard coded for Windows Vista will fail miserably to install or run under Windows 7, if the operating system features version 7 for its code. Not the same is valid for WindoEssentially, all software packages that support Windows Vista will automatically support Windows 7 (Windows 6.1)..1"Many folks have done the math to explain why we chose the name Windows 7 ? this is because Vista is version "6" of the Windows product line (Windows 1, 2, 3 on 16 bits, Windows 95 was version 4, then Windows 2000 was 5, XP was 5.1, Vista was 6). So we chose "7". (This doesn?t count 98, 98 SE, Me, and of course NT 3.1/3.51 but they all fit in)," Sinofsky added.y added.

So, as I said, Windows 7 IS Windows 7.0, but it's set back to Windows 6.1 only for compatibility reasons. With Windows 7, the Version number do not mean anything with the actual Windows release.

Windows 7 may look like a minor update to Vista (Or a Vista "done right" as many says) but it's because Microsoft decided to limit the most possible the UI changes to make this update the less buggering to users. It look like Vista, it work more or less like Vista, Softwares are 98%(?) compatibles.

The main reason why Vista didn't sale well to the mainstream (Ie: Mr Everybody, not the Geek seen here on Neowin) is not only because it wasn't performing as well as adverting, it was also because it wasn't the same look 'n feel as XP.

Windows 7 as enough new features under the hood to be considered as a Major release.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because Windows Cheesecake sounded daft?

The cake is a lie!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What with Apple coming out with "Snow Leopard" maybe a good name for this version should have been something like Windows "Jack Rabbit" or maybe "Slippery Chicken", or even "Hag Fish", something to indicate the willingness of the MS marketing department to go toe to toe with Apple, and to evoke the impression of speed to the consumer.

Windows "Sloth": definitely a non-starter.

I kinda like Windows "Open".

But "7" is alright.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because if you get three copies, the boxes spill out money.

Hahaha funny!!!

But I did notice there are the 3 SKUs of it so I guess MSFT gets the money if they get the odds right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You counted wrong and Wiki doesn't have correct information all the time.

1 = Windows 1.01

2 = Windows 2.0, 2.x

3 = Windows 3.0, 3.1, 3.11, NT 3.1

4 = Windows 95, 98, NT 4.0

5 = Windows Me, 2000, Server 2000

6 = Windows XP, Server 2003, Server 2003 R2

7 = Windows Vista, Windows 7

That's close, but wrong. NienorGT's post here is correct:

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...

Additionally, as far as I'm aware, the kernel "version" in Windows 7 is, in fact, 7. The kernel merely reports "6.1" for app and driver compatibility. I suppose MS felt that compatibility was more important than not confusing some users with version numbers.

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 it is the seventh version (kinda). You can either count from OS/2 or from the shell versions of Windows for 1 and 2. Win 3 was NT 3.11/3.5/3.51 (renumbered to agree with the shell version of Windows that ran on top of DOS, and a total ground-up rewrite), Win 4 was Windows NT 4.0 (also confusingly called Cairo), Win 5 was 2000 (5.0)/XP (32-bit 5.1, 64-bit 5.2)/Server 2003 (5.2)/Home Server (5.2), Win 6 was Vista/Server 2008 (both 6.0), Windows 7 is Windows 7 and Server 2008 R2 (which is the confusing part, because technically their version number is 6.1).

The major interface revisions all corresponded to a major version change, except for the latest one, so for marketing consistency, it makes sense to call it Windows 7, especially to create a mind-break with Vista.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AFAIR some animals or rather creatures in ubuntu names comes from african or other society legends, passing in oral form from one generation to another.

A fun one is Debian, which names (or used to name) its versions after characters from Toy Story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really see how they get seven though..

Windows 1, Windows 2, Windows 3, Windows 3.1, ...

... Windows 95, 98, 2000, XP, Vista, 7?

That's more like Windows 10 than Windows 7 :p BTW, I am aware that XP was Windows 5.1 and Vista was 6.0, but if 7 is actually 6.1 why not just make it a 7.0 release.. I don't really understand Windows version names/numbers. :p

You forgot windows 7.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I kinda like Windows "Open".

I always thought the Windows 7 boot screen should say "Opening Windows..." rather than "Starting Windows..."

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.