Slashdot readers, thanks for visiting. Feel free to chime in here or on the forums.
Mike Nash, former Security Guru and current Client Guru over at Microsoft, has just announced on the Windows Vista Blog that the new name for Windows “7” will be:
Windows 6.1 7
…which makes me wonder why it’s going to be NT 6.1.
It also means that Windows Strata will likely be the codename for the new Cloud OS discussed by Ballmer earlier this month. We’ll carry more about all of this from PDC in two weeks.
Update: Brandon followed up with me on twitter saying it’s the 7th release of Windows, which is ridiculous:
- Windows
- Windows 2
- Windows 3.0
- Windows NT (NT 4)
- Windows 2000 (NT 5)
- Windows XP (NT 5.1)
- Windows Vista (NT 6)
That’s 7 releases right there, including XP. If XP isn’t counted because it’s Kernel 5.1 (which would bring the total with Windows 7 back down to seven), then why is Windows 7 being counted as the “seventh” release if it’s kernel 6.1? I hope I’m not the only one seeing the naming problem here.
Kernel increments are used mostly for application compatibility purposes, but still, the logic is lost upon us as most people would count XP as a semi-major release in comparison to 2000. I hope the guys at the Blog have an update, because this is weird.
More potential views of how this could have worked (Update 2: as well as Mike’s clarification) after the break.
So let’s take a look at client releases which may have targeted consumers outside a business environment:
- Windows
- Windows 2
- Windows 3.0
- Windows 95
- Windows 98
- Windows ME
- Windows XP
- Windows Vista
Those would be the versions of Windows targeted towards a more “homey” audience, and even then, the total hits seven before Windows 7 comes into the picture without including the incremental versions that came between Windows 3.0 (1990) and Windows 95 (1995).
How about business releases?
- Windows 3.1
- Windows 3.5
- Windows NT 4
- Windows 2000
- Windows XP
- Windows Vista
- Windows 7
Aha! Some success! But how confusing would it be to know that Windows 7 is the seventh Windows based on a list of client operating systems for businesses, and that that list starts at 3.1?
The only approach I see which could possibly work is based on counting kernel revisions, which would only make sense if they did not count XP and also decided to increment the NT kernel to 7, which might just be the biggest piece of news here: enough changes may have been made to the kernel itself to warrant Windows 7’s consideration as an all-around major release.
I adore Microsoft’s quest for simplicity here, but thanks mostly to this attempt, my mind is blown.
“Simply put, this is the seventh release of Windows, so therefore ‘Windows 7′ just makes sense.”
-Mike Nash
Right. Except it doesn’t.
Update 2: Thanks, Mike! Here’s the answer we were looking for:
We learned a lot about using 5.1 for XP and how that helped developers with version checking for API compatibility. We also had the lesson reinforced when we applied the version number in the Windows Vista code as Windows 6.0– that changing basic version numbers can cause application compatibility issues.
So we decided to ship the Windows 7 code as Windows 6.1 – which is what you will see in the actual version of the product in cmd.exe or computer properties.
There’s been some fodder about whether using 6.1 in the code is an indicator of the relevance of Windows 7. It is not.
Windows 7 is a significant and evolutionary advancement of the client operating system. It is in every way a major effort in design, engineering and innovation. The only thing to read into the code versioning is that we are absolutely committed to making sure application compatibility is optimized for our customers.
So, basically, Windows 7 will be 6.1 for appcompat reasons, but they’ll still count it as the seventh release of Windows (XP and 2000 were thrown in one net as release 5)
Mike, I hope no poor bloke sees a winver dialog and decides to sue, thinking he was ripped off.
Follow Bryant on Twitter! 
[...] I’m not sure if the company has specified what the six previous versions were, but the AeroXperience Blog ((via the Seattle Times)) is trying to account for them. It started with this, which is based on [...]
umm
this is just going real bad….
Not even beta and it has a RTM name….
Microsoft is skipping a lot now…
for some reason i feel now that 7 will be a new Windows ME
and even worse an incomplete Windows , last time i checked Windows on every new version they added new programs and new things not just Bug Fixes (like apple) but now everything seems to be moving to the Live Wave , it could be good but you will always need the base OS to be better than the services.
i hope 7 wont turn in to a bad WinME based on NT and Version 7
If Longhorn was ripped from its foundations / concepts. Windows 7 seems to be breaking from what Windows is…
i wonder what we will see at PDC or WinHEC..
a demo of… Windows Live Avalon! and Windows Live Notepad!
and how Windows now has nothing but Touch support and …. and…. a Office like UI?
oh and don’t forget the Castles demo errm i mean “Home Groups” and umm.. .NET 4 and… well looks like there are not new things on the new version…
just maybe better graphics, better sound , maybe a new UI , Office Like Apps, and tons of Installers to make Windows , feel like Windows.
As long as they don’t rip the clock and make it Windows Live Clock I think it will have some of the Windows concept…
I hope Steven gets the hell out of the Development or at least stop giving out “Great Ideas”
[...] permalink Microsoft officially announced it today in their Windows Vista Blog that the next version of Windows (Codenamed Windows 7) will officially be named Windows 7 Hi there, Mike Nash here. For me, one of the most exciting times in the release of a new product is right before we show it to the world for the first time. And that time is right now. In a few weeks we are going to be talking about the details of this release at the PDC and at WinHEC. We will be sharing a pre-beta "developer only release" with attendees of both shows and giving them the first broad in-depth look at what we’ve been up to. I can’t wait for them to see it. And, as you probably know, 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." While I know there have been a few cases at Microsoft when the codename of a product was used for the final release, I am pretty sure that this is a first for Windows. You might wonder about the decision. The decision to use the name Windows 7 is about simplicity. Over the years, we have taken different approaches to naming Windows. We’ve used version numbers like Windows 3.11, or dates like Windows 98, or "aspirational" monikers like Windows XP or Windows Vista. And since we do not ship new versions of Windows every year, using a date did not make sense. Likewise, coming up with an all-new "aspirational" name does not do justice to what we are trying to achieve, which is to stay firmly rooted in our aspirations for Windows Vista, while evolving and refining the substantial investments in platform technology in Windows Vista into the next generation of Windows. Simply put, this is the seventh release of Windows, so therefore "Windows 7" just makes sense. We are very excited about the opportunity to tell you more about Windows 7 in the coming weeks, and show you how we have continued to build on investments begun in Windows Vista to deliver on the next release of the Windows operating system. I look forward to sharing more with you in the coming weeks and months. –Mike Windows Vista Team Blog : Introducing Windows 7 Nice to see the simplicity, and thank god they did away with the yearly numbers! Also, for some related news, read this article on AeroXperience – AeroXperience Blog Archive Introducing Windows… 7 [...]
I believe this is the seventh iteration of the NT kernel:
1) NT 3.x
2) NT 4.0
3) Windows 2000
4) Windows XP
5) Windows 2003
6) Windows Vista/2k8
7) Windows 7
Valiant attempt, Greg. However, Windows XP is iteration 5 (sub 1) of the NT kernel, so it technically can’t be a part of that list. Neither can Windows 7. If we’re going by solid iterations, this is what you get:
1) NT 3.x
2) NT 4.0
3) Windows 2000 (NT 5.0)
Windows XP (NT 5.1)
Windows 2003/XP x64 (NT 5.2)
4) Windows Vista/2k8 (NT 6.0)
Windows 7 (NT 6.1)
Also, if you count each of those as a release, it’s lopsided because Microsoft never counts server releases of Windows when referring to a client release.
[...] however, questioned Nash’s claim that Windows 7 would be the seventh iteration of the OS. The AeroXperience blog counted seven as of Windows Vista, and eight if the consumer-oriented Windows Millennium was [...]
Releases of Windows NT:
1) Windows NT 3.1
2) Windows NT 3.5
3) Windows NT 4.0
4) Windows 2000
5) Windows XP / Windows 2003
6) Vista
7) Windows 7
Perhaps my wording was off. Seventh “release” of Windows based on the NT kernel. That way the list holds (and I’m quite confident that that is the list)
Well regardless, the end result is still a muddied and incoherent list which makes no sense.
@nobody: 3.51 was also counted as an NT release.
Honestly, I think trying to justify this is futile. Mike called it the “seventh release of Windows,” which, if you only go by NT, is ignoring all pre-NT Windows history. Trying to rationalize it is ridiculous, so instead, I just fired off a note at Microsoft. I’ll post what I get back from them.
[...] however, questioned Nash’s claim that Windows 7 would be the seventh iteration of the OS. The AeroXperience blog counted seven as of Windows Vista, and eight if the consumer-oriented Windows Millennium was [...]
I will ponder this question. Why do you state the kernel is 6.1 and I will state it this way from the history of NT or win32 based beta’s I have been in.
at this point of testing and releases. NT 5 would have been NT4.x
NT 5.1 would have been NT 5.
NT 6 would have been NT 5.1
Vista currently at 6.1, with sp1
given that history I have faith that by RTM the current kernel version number will in all likely hood become 7.x.x
[...] auch wieder ein wenig umstritten ist, zumindest konnten sich die Experten bislang nicht auf eine Zählfolge [...]
Anyone remembers Microsoft Windows Millennium Edition?
Where is Windows Me in the list or are they (rightly) ashamed of it.
@Douglas: Vista SP1 is kernel 6.0
Reply to SaT:
Well, actually, what you said was to be expected. Windows 7 is a MINOR release.
My calendar must be off… I thought it was October, but it must be April 1st with an announcement like that… Either way, it is a Fools Day if they go ahead with calling it “Windows 7″ at release…
Try the UI versions:
1) Windows
2) Windows 2.0
3) Windows 3.0
4) Windows 95/98/ME
5) Windows XP
6) Windows Vista
Of course, that assumes there’ll be some big difference in the UI going to Windows 7 which doesn’t seem to be the case from what I’ve seen.
windows releases
windows 1.0
windows 2.0
windows 286
windows 3.0
windows 3.1
windows 3.11
windows 3.11 for workgrops
windows NT 3.1
windows 95
windows NT 3.5
windows NT 3.51
windows 95 OSR 2 a b c
windows 98
windows NT 4
windows 98 SE
windows ME
windows 2000 NT 5.1
windows XP NT 5.1
windows server 2003 NT 5.2
windows Vista NT 6
windows server 2008 NT 6.1
Problem here is we’re all thinking about this a little too technically. I think the conversation between marketing and dev went something like this.
Marketing: So dev guys what’s next in our bag of tricks?
Dev: Well we haver this release of Windows
Marketing:Cool, so what are we gonna call it?
Dev: Well as it’s version 6.1, how about 6.1?
Marketing: Hmmm I like your thinking but the smucks out there are going to ask when did we release 6.0…
Dev: That was Vista
Marketing: Yeah but we can’t really change Vista’s name can we… how about rounding it up to 7?
Dev: I don’t kn…
Marketing Yeah Windows 7! I love it!
Dev: Well….
Marketing: Awesome I’ll make up the press release now.
What’s the fuss?
Windows 95 wasn’t the 95th version either.
Maybe it’s the year they wanted to release the new Windows version (2007?)
what’s a workgrop?
Well, let’s consider the consumer OS releases for a second.
MS-DOS (arguably) was the actually operating system until Windows 95 (again, arguably, as Windows 95 still relied on DOS for a lot, but it did run most of it’s application drivers in it’s own pseudo kernel). So, look at it like this.
1. MS-DOS
2. Windows 95
3. Windows 98
4. Windows ME
5. Windows XP
6. Windows Vista
7. Windows 7
Now there are some issues with this list, as there were multiple versions of DOS. But generically speaking, I do think this makes some sense.
did you eat paint chips as a kid?
look its all marketing. its technically incorrect as usual. its just going to be a reskin of vista to get the press off of bashing it (rightly so). its all about marketing. they need a successful os and since vista did so poorly I have a sneaking suspicion windows 7 (6.1) will do just as poorly unless they make a major change. it does not sound like thats the case.
“did you eat paint chips as a kid? ” directed at JAVE…
This is simple. Your confusion stems from failing to remember that Microsoft isn’t about excellence, it’s about marketing and money-making.
The last kernel was 6. It was so badly received that the next version *must* be a major (marketing) increment. Vista was so toxic, they won’t even call the next version by a name — just a number. It can’t be 6.1, since that represents insufficient distance from Vista. It *has* to be Windows 7.
Hey noone,
Eating paint chips might have something to do with the naming scheme of Windows…
I’m not the one trying to come up with an explanation of the number 7.
Kernel numbers and OS names have no relation in most OSes. Finding an imaginary correlation is fun but utterly pointless.
I know it’s marketing, and looking at the attention they’re getting, I think that it works
As far as I’m concerned they call it ‘Double Glazing’. I just hope Microsoft realises that people are not looking at shiny borders when they’re working (or when they’re playing games).
Nice shiny stuff looks good on screenshots, but has zero value in day to day use.
I say they are subscribing to the Resident evil / GTA naming schema of “Because i say so” Yahtzee explains it best http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/48-Grand-Theft-Auto-IV
You have left off Windows 286 and 386, an interim OEM release after 1.0 but before 3.0 came out.
actually …
there was nt 3, nt 3.5, and nt 3.51
raising the count of windows higher
“This is simple. Your confusion stems from failing to remember that Microsoft isn’t about excellence, it’s about marketing and money-making.
The last kernel was 6. It was so badly received that the next version *must* be a major (marketing) increment. Vista was so toxic, they won’t even call the next version by a name — just a number. It can’t be 6.1, since that represents insufficient distance from Vista. It *has* to be Windows 7.”
1) Exactly
2) Who cares anyway? The number is just so you have a way of talking about the software and people know which one you are referring to… At the root of it, that’s all any version number ever is. They could call it “Mystery Science Windows 3000″ and that would be fine too. This is the most pointless geeking I have ever seen in a thread.
A lot of energy here going into trying to make sense of a marketing decision. I mean if they wanted, they could have called it Windows 43756 – or Bob. Why try to justify or ridicule Microsoft Marketing? It’s too easy. And perhaps redundant.
I don’t see what’s so confusing, it’s the seventh *major version* of Windows;
1) Windows 1.x
2) Windows 2.x
3) Windows 3.x/NT 3.x
4) Windows 95/98/ME/NT 4
5) Windows 2000/XP
6) Windows Vista
7) Windows 7
…where are you getting the “Kernel 6.1″ bit from? If that’s the version number from the pre-beta releases, then it’s probably going to change by release day, isn’t it?
unfunk, the problem is that a lot of people see 95 and 98 as two distinct releases along with seeing 2000 and XP as separate major releases. If this was a marketing decision, it didn’t work well.
Also, kernel revisions are usually changed before the first few milestones. Windows 7 is already past Milestone 3 and it’s still 6.1. If it’s changed by PDC then that’s fine, but still, it’s going to be confusing to the person who sees “Windows 7″ and then sees:
in the about dialog for applications like Wordpad, Paint, etc.
I think Alx was close to the truth when he stated that it has more to do with marketing than the kernel version. I believe one can ignore versions of DOS and Windows before Windows 95 because Windows 95’s user interface was so much different. Hey, that’s where the “Start” button was introduced, no?
From a user’s experience it could be viewed like this:
1 – Windows 95
2 – Windows 98/ME/SE
3 – Windows NT
4 – Windows 2000
5 – Windows XP
6 – Windows Vista
7 – Windows 7
1. Windows / Windows 2
2. Windows 3.0 / 3.1 / 3.11
3. Windows NT 4
4. Windows 95/98/ME
5. Windows 2000 (NT 5) / Windows XP (NT 5.1)
6. Windows Vista (NT 6)
7. Windows 7
Windows 1
Windows 2
Windows 3.x == NT 3.x
Windows 4.x (95, 98 & ME)
Windows 5.x (2000 & XP)
Windows 6 (Vista)
Windows 7
Done and done.
I count seven:
1) Windows Lust
2) Windows Gluttony
3) Windows Greed
4) Windows Sloth
5) Windows Wrath
6) Windows Envy
7) Windows Pridy
Match the client/server/attitude as you will.
[...] the 7th edition of Windows. There’s been some online debate about that point – by some methods Vista itself could be called the 8th edition – though that’s really not going to make much difference in the real [...]
God you are an idiot.
Not every small version bump is a new OS. (Unlike some other operating systems)
1, Windows 1.x
2, Windows 2.x
3, Windows 3.x (3.1/NT 3.x) (This point forward NT indicates versions)
4, Windows 4.x (95/98/ME/NT 4.x) (Same NT Base)
5, Windows 5.x (2000/20003/XP/NT 5.x) (Same NT Base)
6, Windows 6.x (2008/Vista/NT 6.x) (Same NT Base)
7, Windows 7.x (Windows 7)
You can’t be so dumb that you don’t understand this.
@ Poop
someone didn’t catch up with the latest Windows 7 happenings. Windows 7 is NT 6.1! It says it in the top post!
kdog98122 ftw!
Hi, Poop!
Windows 7 is NT 6.1. It might be best to read the post before commenting.
who cares!
It really is just coming too fast. I have high hopes, but they need to slow it down and put a little QA into it. Godspeed windows.
They are trampling on Seinfeld IP.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRUdaWZ4FN0
4, Windows 4.x (95/98/ME/NT 4.x) (Same NT Base)
Wrong. Windows 95/98/ME were not NT based, but were DOS based.
Well seeing how I am getting feedback I might as well post one more time……
Wow! Windows 7 is released already?!?!? I didn’t know that. Let me run down to my local tech store and buy a copy.
My bad, it is not out yet. However it is finished, no more changes at all, they just need to stamp CDs.
Can you sense my sarcasm and my point?
Once I get Windows 7 I will “Run –> CMD –> Ver” and let you know what it says.
Ok last post. Have a nice day.
Simple. They want to be on par w/ Apple and eventually get to Windows 10/Windows X
The version numbering seems logical enough if you look at the actual version numbers. Remember that the likes of Windows 98, Me and XP were “minor” releases:
Windows 1.0
Windows 2.0
Windows 3.x / NT 3.x
Windows 9x/Me (95 = 4.0, 98 = 4.1, Me = 4.9) / NT 4.0
Windows 2000/XP (NT 5.0, NT 5.1)
Windows Vista (NT 6.0)
Windows 7 (NT 7.0)
@Poop:
Windows 7 should be feature complete by the time the beta hits, and since kernel changes are made early in the game, that’s why the kernel number is changed early on (which hasn’t happened here. They upped it to 6.1, but not to 7)
Some argue that kernel numbers mean nothing. They’re probably right, but still, if a consumer opens up winver (through any of the bundled apps) and sees this… that consumer will be confused.
[sarcasm] Microsoft says it is the 7th release of Windows – therefore it is so. [/sarcasm]
I dont see why it is worth arguing. However Microsoft decides to define their statement, half the people in the world are going to chime in, and tell us how obvious it was – THEY knew all along.
This little debate just points up one more of Microsoft failures. They should have had a consistent naming scheme all along. And, to my way of thinking, the kernels are the operating systems. Since Windows 7 uses the NT kernel, counting kernels should be restricted to the NT line. So – NT3, NT4, NT5, and now NT6. That looks like 4 releases to me.
…and what’s to say that all the kernel changes happened early in the game this time around? We’re still not even at beta stage yet, and even the PDC ‘release’ will be pre-beta, so there’s still plenty of time for things to get changed around.
Everything else depends on the kernel changes. It’s like a building: you don’t make changes to it without making sure the foundation is sound and able to handle the changes.
If it’s just a few cosmetic tweaks, the foundation likely won’t need to be tweaked. However, if in the early stages you’ve got everything planned (which they did), then any changes on which everything else rely on would be made early on (which they were, as we could see by the kernel being incremented from 6.0 to 6.1)
[...] linked to this post purporting to demonstrate that it’s ridiculous to consider the next version of Windows [...]
01. Windows
02. Windows 2
03. Windows 3.0
04. Windows 3.1
05. Windows 3.5
06. Windows 95
08. Windows NT (NT 4)
07. Windows 98
09. Windows 2000 (NT 5)
10. Windows ME
11. Windows XP (NT 5.1)
12. Windows Vista (NT 6)
13. Windows 7 (NT 7)
Hmm I wonder what this will mean for Microsoft since this is the 13th OS they have released…? Not that Windows 1.x – 3.0, 95 before sr2b, 98 before SE, ME and VIsta actually count as real operating systems…
Oh my God! Do you think Microsoft knows about this?
“God you are an idiot” — thou shalt not speak bad of dead people!
… but, oh my God … the development of a new world-dominating operating system is in the hand of people who can’t even count up to 7??
Does anyone remember which release and version name the old Atari game console finally died on?
I sure don’t. Before too long this will be a similar story, assuming things continue as they have been. In a few years, Windows will be something that geeks remember for their BSoD jokes and the significance of the versions will be eclipsed by the stigma of mediocrity and the history of a dead dream to take over our computers entirely.
A new age is coming.
> Poop Says:
> October 14th, 2008 at 11:19 am
> God you are an idiot.
Thou shall not mock God!!! He will striketh you down!!!
@Paul: “And, to my way of thinking, the kernels are the operating systems.”
No, I cannot agree – it’s all about the WINDOWS, as the names of the different Versions of the OS say, not the kernels
But I have an additional suggestion: Maybe the “7″ relates to the number of versions one can chose from, like “Windows 7 Consumer Home, Windows 7 Professional home, Windows 7 Small Business Home … etc. pp.”? — ok, then, 7 might be a far too small number at all …
Ok I fibbed, one more post.
Count Count “thou shalt not speak bad of dead people!”
reve “Thou shall not mock God!!! He will striketh you down!!!”
Seriously, have you seen the duck billed platypus? Clearly some idiot made that thing.
I asked Mr. Darwin about it. He said “don’t even try to blame me for that monstrosity”.
Well anyway, have a good day all.
Peace, love and happiness.
It seems to me that there’s one relatively less known fact that an XP SP2 is a completely new kernel.
To put the long story short: XP != XP SP2.
This was not marketed but SP2 is a _completely_ new operating system with the _same_ UI as previous versions of windows XP.
>> Mace Says:
>> A lot of energy here going into trying to make sense of a marketing decision. I mean if they wanted, they could have called it Windows 43756 – or Bob. Why try to justify or ridicule Microsoft Marketing? It’s too easy. And perhaps redundant.”
Actually, there was a MS product called Windows Bob (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Bob), back in the Good Ole Days.
Mind you, it was a flop too… so perhaps that *would* be a good name for Windows 7
James
@mateuszb:
That’s false.
1: windows 3.1
2: windows 95
3: windows 98
4: windows millenium ( ME )
5: windows 2000
6: windows vista
7: windows… 7
So much discussion about a simple concept. Windows is actually TWO families of programs, and each family follows a divergent path:
Family 1 (MS-DOS based shells)
Windows 1.0
Windows 2.0
Windows 3.0
Windows 3.1
Windows 95
Windows 98
Windows ME
DEAD (no longer updated by Microsoft)
Family 2:
IBM/microsoft OS/2 1.0 (joint venture)
IBM/microsoft OS/2 2.0 (joint)
IBM/microsoft OS/2 3.0 (never-released prototype)
Windows NT 3.1 (the program that resulted after microsoft split from IBM)
Windows NT 4.0 (1996)
Windows NT 5.0 (Windows 2000)
Windows NT 5.1 (XP in 2001)
Windows NT 6.0 (Vista in 2006)
Windows NT 7.0 (Windows 7)
I hope that clears things up, and it makes sense when viewed in that manner. Windows 7 is a logical progression of programs over the last ~25 years.
What about windows for workgroups aka 3.11 ???
@jave “I just hope Microsoft realises that people are not looking at shiny borders when they’re working (or when they’re playing games).
Nice shiny stuff looks good on screenshots, but has zero value in day to day use.”
you are 100% correct. however I find the mac osx interface as well as gnome/kde under linux to be quite pleasing. its still pleasing to the eye but not intrusively so.
I still cannot believe MS actually stated that you need a fairly high end video card to run vista’s glass effect when I have full desktop effects working (and not lagging down at all) on a Pentium 3 laptop running ubuntu-8.04. go search for “compiz fusion” on youtube if you dont know what i am talking about….
I firmly believe MS is about to completely fail again. if they had held true to what vista was promised to be in the first place they would not be in this mess. releasing a new os with all of vista’s same problems will do nothing to help them. they need to stop worrying about making money and start looking at what their customers want, money will follow.
“Windows NT 7.0 (Windows 7)”
WINDOWS 7 is NT6.1…. please read before commenting!!!
you left out NT 3.5, distinct from NT4…
Windows 7 is the perfect name, as it’s about 3 generations behind OS X (10.0)
If we operate on the assumption that the name was a marketing decision, not a technical decision, we can come up with numerous “valid” lines of succession.
If based on distinct user interface changes for consumer products:
1. Windows 1.0
2. Windows 2.0
3. Windows 3.x
4. Windows 95/98/ME
5. Windows XP
6. Windows Vista
I’m just a tad young to recall marketing campaigns prior to 95 but maybe it’s based on consumer marketing versions?
1. Windows (just in general)
2. Windows 95
3. Windows 98
4. Windows ME
5. Windows XP
6. Windows Vista
I’m pretty sure your article is incorrect.
For one, Windows XP was kernel 5.5, not 5.1.
Secondly, Vista SP1 and Windows Server 2008 touted a “kernel upgrade”, which means that the Vista kernel (6.0) was updated with major changes – updates = new version. So SP1 and Server 2008 are actually 6.1, which means the next major Windows update will have to, at the very least, be 6.5.
Considering the fact that they re-wrote a lot of the kernel from the ground-up, I highly doubt it’ll be 6.5, likely it will be 7.
@Marcos
XP SP2 (MCE, in this case, but it’s the same thing): http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/8443/mcewinversp2et0.png
It’s 5.1, as can be seen in the screenshot.
Server 2008: http://img375.imageshack.us/img375/3513/2008winvercy0.jpg (6.0)
Vista SP1: http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/285/vistasp1winverhu9.png (6.0)
Windows 7 6801: http://screenshots.WinFuture.de/1223485043.jpg (6.1) Winfuture, sorry for the hotlink!
Microsoft already incremented the kernel rev. once. There’s never been an occasion where they’d increment it twice for the same OS before that OS is released to manufacturing.
The answer?
releases based upon NT
1 = Windows NT 3.1
2 = Windows NT 3.5
3 = Windows NT 4.0
4 = Windows 2000
5 = Windows XP
6 = Windows Vista
7 = Windows 7
Is it so hard to understand? It isn’t the seventh RELEASE of Windows, it’s the seventh generation. We start with Windows 3, as it is the earliest generation that anybody used:
3 Windows 3 / 3.11
4 Windows 95 / 98
5 Windows 2000 / XP
6 Windows Vista
7 Windows 7
It is pretty clear to me how 98 and 98 were the same generation, and how XP being 2000 with a new skin makes them a generation. The real question is if Windows 7 is really an improvement on Vista.
[...] teams pulled this number out of thin air: the Windows 7 kernel is version 6.1, and there’s no way Windows 7 adds up as the seventh release of Windows [...]
NT versions started at 3.
There was no version 1 or 2!!!!! Simple as that! Yu could argue that OS/2 was version 1 and 2. Maybe it was.
Version 3 = NT 3.1, 3.5, 3.51
Version 4 = NT 4.0
Version 5 = Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows 2003
Version 6 = Vista
Version 7 = next release. Presumably the version number will be bumped up to 7.0 for the release candidate but that’s a couple of years off so they’re still working on a variant of Vista.
So, as the fifth major release on NT, this is version 7, It makes sense as long as NT 3.1 is version 3. Why did MS start at version 3? Well, probably because this allows them parallelism with the desktop releases. NT3.1 was released when Windows 3.1 was the current desktop version. This makes a lot of sense because the different branches share the same API, so a programmer simply needs to check for the version number to check compatibility, rather than having two different cases for different operating systems. .
As for the desktop version, these weren’t operating systems. They were 32 bit GUI applications running on top of MS-DOS. Windows 95, 98 and ME were all pretty much the same with minor tweaks, and all were version 4 of that line. When they ended they marked the end of the MS-DOS based windows. They were succeeded by XP. Version 5 of Windows. The parallel numbering means that when they were replaced by the NT based OS, they still had a higher version number, rather than the new version abruptly going down 2 version numbers.
@Squigs:
http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2008/10/14/why-7.aspx
looks like microsoft is taking a page from apple with the simple numerical naming scheme. they better deliver
[...] ps. It’s a fairly shaky choice of names anyway, since it’s not the 7th release of Windows. But I’ll let these guys do the nit-picking: http://www.aeroxp.org/2008/10/introducing-windows-7/ [...]
So let me get this straight, you people hear a marketing name (Windows 7) from a software company and proceed to do a factual analysis of it?
ITS MARKETING, THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FACTS. DO YOU ALSO COMPLAIN WHEN YOUR BIG MAC DOESN’T LOOK LIKE THE PICTURE AT THE DRIVE-THRU WINDOW?
Idiots, all of you.
I just figured TinyFlaccid had realized the writing was on the wall and this is the pre-emptive L7 release before the Linux guys steal their thunder on the blogs.
[...] teams pulled this number out of thin air: the Windows 7 kernel is version 6.1, and there’s no way Windows 7 adds up as the seventh release of Windows [...]
Hilarious !!!
I mean, really !!!
Once again, WIndows is SO out of any interest that people are fighting about the version number it should have … 100% pathetical !
Oh by the way … where has gone WinFS ????
Forgotten … of course … that was 100% vapourware.
Well, congratulations Windows for that moment of good laughs about “7″ (or is it 6.1 finally … who cares )
))))))
some marketing guy just mis interpreted the dot.
6+1=7
[...] it felt like a small number, but I didn’t give it much thought. AeroXperience did the counting and found the version seven claim odd. What is so special about the number [...]
So, either you guy are just plain idiots or you are just way over-thinking this.
1. Windows 95
2. Windows 98
3. Windows 2000
4. Windows ME
5. Windows XP
6. Windows Vista
AND NOW Windows 7.
Rocket Science.
[...] op af te dingen, want niet alle Windows-versies waren geheel nieuw. Eigenlijk zou Windows 7 daarom Windows 6.1 moeten [...]
[...] menurut AeroXperience blog windows ke 7 itu windows vista, atau malah vista adalah yang ke 8 jika windows millennium (windows [...]
Um, … what is this ‘Windows’?
[...] With a demo of forthcoming features and the release of a pre-beta build of Windows 7 to folk lucky enough to attend this year’s Professional Developer Conference (PDC), the internet is awash with reviews. One point of interest is that the internal Windows version number for Windows 7 is still version 6.1 (yes, you did read that right, they really have called v6.1 of Windows, Windows 7. You can read a great article on just how insane the Windows 7 name choice is here). [...]
What is this hulabaloo about “Windows 7″?
Microsoft had three OS lines. MS-DOS (MS-DOS – Windows 98 SE), Windows NT (NT3.0 – NT6) and Windows CE (CE – Mobile)
Windows 7 will not be a MS-DOS OS line. It is the NT OS line. So dont count the MS-DOS (Windows 9x series) with it.
MS-DOS had 1.0 – 8.0 versions. Last 8.0 version became on 2000 when MS stopped it’s development. The 6.0 and 6.22 are the last MS-DOS OS’s what are standalone and supported from Microsoft.
Windows NT 3.0 was the first NT OS.
And you should understand that the NT is the OS, not the kernel. Windows NT OS use Microkernel, but the NT is so called “Hybrid kernel” what is just a marketing for OS. Monolith kernel is OS where the microkernel is not because the OS is braked to parts for kernel space and user space. Windows NT is OS what is on both address-space like OS what use Microkernel, while the Monolith kernel includes all the OS servers alone in single address-space. http://www.usenix.org/publications/login/2006-04/openpdfs/herder.pdf
Windows 7 should be the first software system what use Windows NT 7, but the Windows 7 does not proof that! The question is not about does the Windows 7 name come from NT7 or NT6.1. The Windows 7 name is just like Vista and XP, even that XP was NT5.1 and Vista 6.0.
The Microsoft decided to use Windows 7 code name as the final product name, because there has already be a lots of good PR for it. People is skipping the Vista and waiting the “mysterious Windows 7″. Even that would be the same. But Windows 7 will use the OS what is redesigned, a MinWin. Windows 7 is the software system what use MinWin OS, what is the NT6.1 or NT7, what ever they want it to be as final.
Windows Vista IS the NT6.0 and it is still called as Windows Vista, not Windows 6. The Windows 7 name does not say anything about the version of the OS under the graphical desktop. It is just a simple marketing. Not somekind “magic tip”.
Why didn’t they just keep the Windows NT name and stop confusing everybody?
Then it would make more sense. “Windows Vista” doesn’t sound like it is a major upgrade compared to “Windows XP” (and believe me, it is)
Rather one can say “I will upgrade my old Windows NT 5.1 to Windows NT 6.1 and see what happens”
Oh and could it also be that 7 is a “heavenly number”? I don’t know where I got that idea from but it is stuck in my head.
Fri13: Strictly speaking Windows NT is not a microkernel and they didn’t market it as a hybrid either. In a lot of MS documentation I have seen it is marked as a “modified microkernel”.
I am saying NT is not a microkernel because it runs a lot of things in the kernel space. The GUI and all device drivers all run in the kernel space (the GUI has been there since Windows NT 4.0 though).
I would call it a “centikernel” or a “decikernel” so to speak. But definitely not a microkernel or even a “millikernel”
I mean if that was the case, Windows PE 2.0 wouldn’t need 256MB of RAM (The soft RAM drive used to hold the Windows files while the system is running only takes up 40MB!)
That is why you get a BSOD every time a driver does something peculiar.
Bravo Microsoft! Take a concept from the 1980’s and try and apply it to today’s world. Isn’t going to work. Hint to them: make the OS smaller (should take up no more than 100MB) and fix all the known bugs and security vulnerabilities and see what happens. This is why people switch to Linux.
Oh and get rid of that rotten Internet Exploder from the OS as well. Windows doesn’t need it.
QNX Neutrino RTOS is quite immune to crashes from exploding device drivers and other programs because of its pure microkernel design. And performance isn’t an issue with a microkernel either. After all, it is a RTOS.
There are two lines of thought here.
1.) marketing names have no connection to version names.
2.) giving something the wrong name adds confusion.
While I agree in principle about line 1 I still hold to line 2.
How we get there is not really the point (although that is what got me on this thread). The truth is Vista is ver 6.0 and “7″ is Ver 6.1. When ver 7.0 does come out what will they call it? Or will they have to skip ver 7.0 all together? That seems very unlikely. Whaterver they do, even the eternal opimist in me sees trouble.
If you are concerned about the timeline, there are many good posts in this thread, but Windows 7 is down the NT line of OSes. Remember back in 90’s there were two groups of developers developing the 95 branch and NT branches seperately, the 95 branch died with ME and has no connection to current version numbering. Up till that point all NT versions used the version name as the moniker. Windows 2000 (ver 5.0) was the first NT version to break that tradition as it attempted to tie off the loose end of the windows 95 branch. If you dont remember well, before 2000 it was anyones guess which line would win. NT4 was more secure, but Windows 98SE was far better to work with. (However the windows 95 branch tried to live on and put out one final version ME which doomed the branch to history).
The comment that Windows 7 is the seventh iteration of Windows is the cause of much of the misunderstanding of this thread, Mike Nash should ask that that comment be stricken from the record as it is in no way true any way you fudge the numbering so to speak. Case in point, many people are putting windows 95, windows 98, and windows ME in the same group. While they may be on the same version number, I would hazzard that anyone who used them would say that from beggining to end they are less different than windows 2000 was to NT4. even the differences between Windows 95 and Windows 98SE were astounding (I wouldn’t be surprised if Vista and Windows 7 aren’t any more different). Anyone clumping them in as a single iteration really wasnt there or is lucky enough to forget the good old days
As much as Apple might like us to remember those blue screens which I almost never see anymore.