• 0

Windows 7 is windows vista v6.1!?


Question

I am programing a software to edit some windows seven features with java...

Well the most important thing is that the program should not run on any operating system other then windows 7

So what is the code to see if the os is windows 7?

I am using this code

		if(!System.getProperty("os.name").toLowerCase().equals("windows vista")||!System.getProperty("os.version").equals("6.1")){
		JOptionPane.showMessageDialog(null, "Win7Plus only works on windows 7", "Win7Plus",JOptionPane.PLAIN_MESSAGE);
		System.exit(0);
		}

Although it is working it still feels wrong!!!

i mean ---> System.getProperty("os.name").toLowerCase().equals("windows vista")

Am i doing this the write way or should i use another code????

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/846114-windows-7-is-windows-vista-v61/
Share on other sites

12 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

i think I'll stick with the code i am using now then.

thanks everyone for your replies.

Here is what i have done so far if anyone is interested to take a look.

it is only about 50 kb and need the jre

Editing file now...

Edited by Teddy*
  • 0
Going by Kernel Version wont work, im not sure what else you'd use though since im not actually a programmer

It will work, because it is not the "kernel version." It is the version number for the operating system as a whole. If you want to know if it is Windows 7/R2, you check for 6.1. End of story.

As for the string "windows vista," no, 7 is not called "Windows Vista" anywhere. I don't know Java so I have no idea why that would work. Perhaps the JVM is running in compatibility mode and thus thinking it's running on Vista, or maybe it just hasn't been updated and thinks it's Vista because it has no idea 7 exists. This is a Java issue, not a Windows issue, and one you should probably try to get to the bottom of to make sure your program will actually work. In fact, I just tried to run your .jar on my Windows 7 machine and it fails with an error saying it only runs on Windows 7. This is with the latest JVM.

  • 0

I've never believed this "backwards compatibility" line for one second--that's extremely inconsistent with MS's past history. Where's the relevant documentation to back that up on MSDN--because that's where it would matter (to developers), and I've only started hearing that line a few weeks before 7 was released. MS started publishing Win7 developer documentation for guidance months before that, and I've never seen that come from a source that targeted developers.

To the original poster--what "features" of Win7 are you editing? Do you really want to have to rewrite your detection code when Win8 comes out if your editing program still applies then? What about Server 2008? Is the fact that the ribbon API (for one) is getting backported to Vista relevant, and should your app then be made to work on Vista also?

For the longest time, MS has been strongly suggesting to look for the availability of features instead of coming up with crazy OS detection algorithms that can break when the next version is released.

  • 0
I've never believed this "backwards compatibility" line for one second--that's extremely inconsistent with MS's past history. Where's the relevant documentation to back that up on MSDN--because that's where it would matter (to developers), and I've only started hearing that line a few weeks before 7 was released. MS started publishing Win7 developer documentation for guidance months before that, and I've never seen that come from a source that targeted developers.

It is true. Earlier example code (going back further than just a few months before the launch) even used 7.0. It's not very inconsistent, as they've done it with several previous versions as well. I have no idea why you feel this is something that would be documented now. It's not like it actually matters to anyone. The whole issue is stupid.

For the longest time, MS has been strongly suggesting to look for the availability of features instead of coming up with crazy OS detection algorithms that can break when the next version is released.

Yes, they do, but people never listen. Keeping the same major version (as they did with 2000/XP/2003) means a small amount of programs that would otherwise break unless they had compatibility shims applied now just work. That's the gain. Where's the loss? There isn't any, except for the moronic flame wars on the net. It's just a number, and it's hilarious to see people go on long rants about how "NO NO NO NO!!!! 6.1 is not the version number of the OS!!! It's really 7.0!!! 6.1 is just what the "kernel" tells you as a lie!!! Blah blah!!" as if it having the version number somehow meant that Windows 7 (the product name) was no longer Windows 7.

  • 0
It is true. Earlier example code (going back further than just a few months before the launch) even used 7.0. It's not very inconsistent, as they've done it with several previous versions as well. I have no idea why you feel this is something that would be documented now. It's not like it actually matters to anyone. The whole issue is stupid.

Yes, they do, but people never listen. Keeping the same major version (as they did with 2000/XP/2003) means a small amount of programs that would otherwise break unless they had compatibility shims applied now just work. That's the gain. Where's the loss? There isn't any, except for the moronic flame wars on the net. It's just a number, and it's hilarious to see people go on long rants about how "NO NO NO NO!!!! 6.1 is not the version number of the OS!!! It's really 7.0!!! 6.1 is just what the "kernel" tells you as a lie!!! Blah blah!!" as if it having the version number somehow meant that Windows 7 (the product name) was no longer Windows 7.

The inconsistency part I'm referring to is the claim that the version number has been artificially kept to 6.x for compatibility purposes and nothing else.

I maintain that it's been kept at 6.x because from the kernel team's perspective, 7 is a relatively small jump ahead and not the huge architectural rewrite that going from 5.x to 6.x was[*] (or 4.x to 5.x before that).

The "compatibility" excuse is just something that was put out there by some marketing drone who wanted to dispel the growing notion that it's just a minor release and that if it weren't for compatibility's sake, they would otherwise have changed it to 7.0.

[*] Unlike others however, I certainly won't claim that little work has been made elsewhere--the biggest development effort just didn't take place in the kernel.

  • 0

First of all, it is not just a kernel version number. It is the OS version. The two are not separate. This is not Linux. Second, 7/R2 has substantial changes to the "kernel" all the way to critical parts like the scheduler (which is extremely risky business). Third, there actually were pages that referenced 7.0 on MSDN, but these have since been removed (like all pre-release documentation), not that it matters.

What 7 doesn't have much of is breaking changes. That combined with the major compatibility problems Vista had means that justifying any avoidable compatibility issues this time around was next to impossible. Windows 7 is so critically important to Microsoft. It's that simple. If they could have justified it, I'm certain they would have given it the version number 7.0 so it would look nicer and distance it from Vista. This is what a PR guy would have done, and it's unlikely that he'd accept "the developers just don't feel that it's worth the jump" as a valid reason for not changing it.

There doesn't have to be any PR conspiracy here. I certainly agree that there are no breaking architectural changes and that it is in that sense a "minor" release, but I feel that you're really grasping at straws. The "excuse" given is a valid one, so there's no real reason to doubt it.

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

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
    • A $300 price hike is insane! No one is going to want to pay that much!
    • Since the 1st one flopped, there is really no reason to make another one. It's just losing money left and right.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      580
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      75
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      71
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!