Kirkburn Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 A fun one is Debian, which names (or used to name) its versions after characters from Toy Story. Decided to look it up ... yup, they still do :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timmah339 Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 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 the 7 in Windows 7 refers to the kernel version, not the release number. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirkburn Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 the 7 in Windows 7 refers to the kernel version, not the release number. What is this, is there some eerie force repelling people from reading any of the bloody thread before posting? :woot: The Windows 7 kernel version is 6.1 :woot: Where's my <blink> tags, dammit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tpiom Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 Calling this version of Windows 7 doesn't make much sense. MS says it's the 7th kernel version. It's not the 7th Windows that is about to be released. There are about millions of different Windows released: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Micro...indows_versions Windows 1 = Windows 1.0 Windows 2 = Windows 2.0.3 and 2.11 Windows 3 = Windows 3.0 and 3.1 Windows 4 = Windows 95 and 98. Windows 5 = Windows 2000 and XP. Windows 6 = Windows Vista. Windows 7 = Windows 7. But really, Windows 7 should be in the Windows 6 since Windows 7 has the 6.1.x kernel but I guess MS want to separate it from Vista due to the received critics. I think many more people would skip it (too) if they noticed it has the same kernel as Vista. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirkburn Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 (edited) *sigh* Let's just assume for a second they did call it Windows 6 (actually, Windows 6.1 by your own reasoning). How would that make it any "closer" to Vista? Who would even care about the kernel number? It's meaningless to basically everyone. In the end, it's just a name. Edited June 12, 2009 by Kirkburn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudy Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 They should have went for Windows 2010 :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeChipshop Member Posted June 12, 2009 Member Share Posted June 12, 2009 What is this, is there some eerie force repelling people from reading any of the bloody thread before posting?:woot: The Windows 7 kernel version is 6.1 :woot: Where's my <blink> tags, dammit? I thought it was just reported as 6.1 for compatibility reasons? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirkburn Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 Yes, well, apparently it may technically be version 7 in the code (a wishy washy topic if ever there were one), but it's reported as 6.1 - so to all intents and purposes, it's 6.1. But anyway, perhaps my post was a little over the top... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimsland Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 Congrats Kirkburn on 2000 posts :) I was thinking maybe Windows 7 is anticipated as being on kernel version 7 one day :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phot0nic Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 But anyway, perhaps my post was a little over the top... Yes, especially seeing that the large fonted, bold, colorful text with smileys you were pointing everyone to was incorrect. It's confusing because it reports 6.1. It's also confusing because in comparison to past releases, and the size of the update from Vista to 7, the kernel version should be (IMO) v6.1. However, neither change the fact that it IS very much kernel v7. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirkburn Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 Congrats Kirkburn on 2000 posts :) Didn't even notice, thanks. Yes, especially seeing that the large fonted, bold, colorful text with smileys you were pointing everyone to was incorrect.It's confusing because it reports 6.1. It's also confusing because in comparison to past releases, and the size of the update from Vista to 7, the kernel version should be (IMO) v6.1. However, neither change the fact that it IS very much kernel v7. It's correct for pretty much every case that matters. I'm been searching, and there isn't really much definitive info on the "version" of the kernel. It reports 6.1. But might be the seventh revision - but does that actually mean anything? It matches the Windows version for sure, but by what measure is it actually the "seventh revision"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MagicAndre1981 Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 Because Windows Vista R2 sounds not as good as Windows 7 and so all n00bs like the new Windows Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeChipshop Member Posted June 18, 2009 Member Share Posted June 18, 2009 ...but does that actually mean anything? ...haha i can't disagree with that, it's what ever MS want it to be and i can't judge them otherwise lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Willis Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 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 I too was baffled about the 6.1.x version. The explaination, according to a friend who works at MS is that there would be compatibility issues with some programs. By not changing the major version from 6 to 7, they are trying to prevent version-check problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Navan Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 I read somewhere that the counting begins from Win 3.1, since it was when Windows started getting recognized..... So 3.1, 95, 98, 2000, XP, Vista and 7... makes sense, hopefully. 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. Now that makes so much more sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NienorGT Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 Why people start counting at Windows NT releases? What? Pre-NT Windows wasn't named Windows? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ufis Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 I think that it should be kernel version 7 also. If you do some digging about MinWin and windows 7 you will see that a lot of what they are doing is module based and not at all like what vista was. But the amount of time to rewrite a lot of code under the hood of vista was the cause of the delay of putting it out. Win 7 is a more like what they had planned for vista and have refined the code. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshie Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 This whole thread is amazing. The monstrously simple explanation that Vista was 6.0, and the new version is 7 with 6.1 being called for compatibility works just fine for me. But people seem intent on doing all sorts of crazy ways of counting releases of Windows. Thank God nobody's started a topic on Mac version. The internet's going to abort itself whenever Apple gets around to releasing version 11. "But if OS X was 10 and there was Tiger and Leopard and Snow Leopard and and and...this should be called OS 38!!!" *slaps collective internet community* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dead_Monkey Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 They should have went for Windows 2010 :p Well, technically it's also Windows Server 2008 R2 :) Why people start counting at Windows NT releases?What? Pre-NT Windows wasn't named Windows? Pre-NT Windows was a shell on top of DOS. It is a different operating system altogether, and the architecture is fundamentally different in a thousand or more ways from NT. Even OS/2 (which I posted as in the lineage) is a stretch. In short, it's the same reason we don't count Microsoft Bob (look it up). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NienorGT Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 Soooo.... they don't count as Windows releases since they where different? We don't count Bob, because it's not even a Windows? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dead_Monkey Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 Soooo.... they don't count as Windows releases since they where different? They're not Windows at all (as we know it today). It's like counting versions of Linux based on the version numbers of XFree86 (or X.org now, I guess, I've been out of Linux for a long time). Something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT is under the hood. It's not Fred Flintstone's feet, it's an electric engine powered by a nuclear reactor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epilepsynweed Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Also curious that this thread is 7 pages now :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiquidSolstice Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 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. That was only for driver/app compatibility with Vista drivers. Didn't you read about that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AgentGray Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 I do belive it's story time. Drivers don't consider themselves "future proof" and wont install or run on OSs that they're not specifically flagged to run on. All drivers that work on vista WILL work on windows 7 As will all software As will all libraries (unless i'm very much mistaken) So instead of requiring all these programs, drivers and libraries to recompile to say "enabled on 6.X and 7.X" and taking hundreds of cumulative work hours to push to the internet and re-authenticate with microsoft(and potentially having the same kind of nightmare that happened with Vista's driver compatibility because of lazy/out of business hardware manufactures) Microsoft basically said "lets call it 6.1, as ALMOST NO ONE EVER LOOKS AT VERSION NUMBERS and moved on. Thus allowing all hardware and most software capable of running on vista to run on windows 7 without ANY modification. Can we get over this now? You guys are making a bigger deal about version numbers then the people whose CAREER it is to care about them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pendaws Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 Windows 7 sounds better than Windows 13! I am sure some marketing person said it would be better to go with a lucky number than some silly name. Many people have said the same thing and I believe they are onto aa smart reason. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts