why is it windows 7?

[ThunderAeroI]

simple i suppose, why?

there are far more than 7 versions in all...

 

[Argus Skyhawk]

I was sort of wondering which versions counted as the first six. Perhaps:

1. NT
2. 95
3. 98
4. 2000
5. XP
6. Vista

Of course, that leaves out Windows ME and Windows CE. Any others?

 

[TheGodBen]

Because it is supposed to be version number 7.0, although winver has just told me it is version 6.1. I thought MS said they were going to make it version 7.0 upon release?

1: Windows 1.0
2: Windows 2.0, Windows 2.1
3: Windows 3.0, Windows 3.1
4: Windows 95 (4.0), Windows 98 (4.1), Windows ME (4.9)

NT3: Windows NT 3.1, Windows NT 3.5
NT4: Windows NT 4.0
NT5: Windows 2000 (NT 5.0), Windows XP (NT 5.1)
NT6: Windows Vista (NT 6.0), and apparently Windows 7 too (NT 6.1)

EDIT: Apparently it is version 6.1 because MS learned with Vista that changing the version number causes compatibility issues with some software. If they had moved it to version 7.0 it would have had similar compatibility issues as Vista did upon release, and MS desperately needed to avoid that. It is still weird that their big move back to numbering Windows releases is messed up like this.

 

[CaptainPipcard]

Windows 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0

 

[CaptainPipcard]

Because it is supposed to be version number 7.0, although winver has just told me it is version 6.1. I thought MS said they were going to make it version 7.0 upon release?

1: Windows 1.0
2: Windows 2.0, Windows 2.1
3: Windows 3.0, Windows 3.1
4: Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows ME

NT3: Windows NT 3.1, Windows NT 3.5
NT4: Windows NT 4.0
NT5: Windows 2000, Windows XP
NT6: Windows Vista, and apparently Windows 7 too

We made our replies at the same minute!

 

[JustAFriend]

It's seven because they want to hold their ears and yell,
"LA-LA-LA- WindowsMe and Microsoft Bob never existed!!! - LA - LA - LA!!!!"

 

[Ar-Pharazon]

ME & 2000 came out at the same time, didn't they?

 

[Australis]

Win 1
Win 2
Win 3.1 (cos it was better )
Win 95
Win XP
Win Vista
Win 7

Simple.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Windows 3 4 and 5 were sabotaged and destroyed. Windows 6 vanished without a trace, nobody knows what happened to it (although we now know it was abducted by time travelers to serve as a base of operations in an ancient hacker war against the Shadows).

That only leaves Windows 7, Microsoft's last best hope for a relevance.

 

[Zulu Romeo]

Apparently it is version 6.1 because MS learned with Vista that changing the version number causes compatibility issues with some software. If they had moved it to version 7.0 it would have had similar compatibility issues as Vista did upon release, and MS desperately needed to avoid that. It is still weird that their big move back to numbering Windows releases is messed up like this.

I like 6.1 - brings back happy memories of Windows 3.1

Yet I can't help but feel this is going to fuel the anti-M$ war still raging after all these years.

Perhaps they did a Winamp and missed out a number deliberately? (There was never a Winamp 4.0 because no one wanted to see a Winamp 4 skin. )

 

[ThunderAeroI]

3+2=5

 

[USS KG5]

simple i suppose, why?

there are far more than 7 versions in all...

Basically it comes from the NT versions and their numbering, to try and work the 9x systems into it gets a bit complicated, basically that line of development stopped with ME.

So you call it Windows 7 because 2000/XP were 5 and Vista was 6 - but it really is just a marketing thing, a fancy poncy name like "Vista" was will bring back bad memories of a lot of empty promises. Simply calling it "Windows 7" says "We are back to business now, making a stable, solid OS with genuine features corporate users want". Corporate users, buying thousands of licenses, are essentially what Microsoft care about.

 

[Chaos Descending]

Windows 1.0 = 1
Windows 2.0 = 2
Windows 3.0 and Windows 3.1 = 3
Windows 95, 98, 98SE, ME and Windows NT 4.0 = 4
Windows 2000 and Windows XP = 5
Windows Vista = 6
Windows 7 = 7

 

[ThunderAeroI]

I know XP is 5.1, does Vista say its 6?

From their naming schme, 7 should be 6.1 considering the source and the history.

Is 7 really that different than vista to warrant a version increase over .5?

but i agree its mostly just a marekting gimick

 

[Robert Maxwell]

simple i suppose, why?

there are far more than 7 versions in all...

Basically it comes from the NT versions and their numbering, to try and work the 9x systems into it gets a bit complicated, basically that line of development stopped with ME.

So you call it Windows 7 because 2000/XP were 5 and Vista was 6 - but it really is just a marketing thing, a fancy poncy name like "Vista" was will bring back bad memories of a lot of empty promises. Simply calling it "Windows 7" says "We are back to business now, making a stable, solid OS with genuine features corporate users want". Corporate users, buying thousands of licenses, are essentially what Microsoft care about.

This is the right answer.

The 3.x/9x/Me line is totally irrelevant here, since consumer versions Windows have been built on the NT kernel since XP (or 2000, if you consider it a "consumer version" at all).

After NT4, they stopped calling it "NT" at all. We had 2000 (5.0), XP (5.1), and Vista (6.0). I guess I'm not too surprised they didn't make the internal version 7.0 for 7, given the compatibility issues that introduces. Most users were never aware that XP was actually "NT 5.1," so I doubt this will make any difference to anyone, either!

 

[PurpleBuddha]

I know XP is 5.1, does Vista say its 6?

From their naming schme, 7 should be 6.1 considering the source and the history.

Is 7 really that different than vista to warrant a version increase over .5?

but i agree its mostly just a marekting gimick

Well, if this is a marketing gimmick the same can be said for most OS release names (which to some extent is true). Seven changed the interface far too much to make it just a service pack. People expect their service packed OS to still have the same interface. Of course it is not a revolutionary change from Vista. I really do not think there has been a revolutionary change since we went from 3.xx to windows 95.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

I know XP is 5.1, does Vista say its 6?

From their naming schme, 7 should be 6.1 considering the source and the history.

Is 7 really that different than vista to warrant a version increase over .5?

but i agree its mostly just a marekting gimick

Well, if this is a marketing gimmick the same can be said for most OS release names (which to some extent is true). Seven changed the interface far too much to make it just a service pack. People expect their service packed OS to still have the same interface. Of course it is not a revolutionary change from Vista. I really do not think there has been a revolutionary change since we went from 3.xx to windows 95.

The leap from the 9x line to the NT line is just as big, if not bigger. Like going from 3.x to 95, there's an entirely different codebase involved, and they still managed to keep compatibility for "most" things (except drivers).

 

[TheGodBen]

Basically it comes from the NT versions and their numbering, to try and work the 9x systems into it gets a bit complicated, basically that line of development stopped with ME.

And even the NT number is confusing because it started with version number 3.1 since that was the number the consumer version of Windows was on at that time. So 7 should be NT 5, or NT 4.1.

Is 7 really that different than vista to warrant a version increase over .5?

In my opinion, not really. It is Vista with a more refined UI and better resource management under the hood, it is similar to the leap from 95 to 98 or 2000 to XP. However, if they're going to call it 7 then it would make sense for it to be version 7.0 and not 6.1, but this is Microsoft we're talking about here.

The leap from the 9x line to the NT line is just as big, if not bigger. Like going from 3.x to 95, there's an entirely different codebase involved, and they still managed to keep compatibility for "most" things (except drivers).

The move to the NT kernel is probably the biggest leap Windows ever made, but for most users it wasn't noticable since the interface was basically the same, the changes were under-the-hood.


On a side note, I was listening to the radio yesterday morning and they had an "expert" on to talk about the launch of Windows 7. The guy actually said that prior to the launch of Vista the previous major upgrade to Windows was 9 years before with Windows 98 and everything else in between was just minor upgrades. He also claimed that the installation process for 7 has been radically simplified from Vista even though they use the exact same install process!

Vista flopped partly because people like him went on the radio and said things without having a clue what they're talking about.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

On a side note, I was listening to the radio yesterday morning and they had an "expert" on to talk about the launch of Windows 7. The guy actually said that prior to the launch of Vista the previous major upgrade to Windows was 9 years before with Windows 98 and everything else in between was just minor upgrades. He also claimed that the installation process for 7 has been radically simplified from Vista even though they use the exact same install process!

Vista flopped partly because people like him went on the radio and said things without having a clue what they're talking about.

Honestly, my mind boggles at the fact that so-called experts are unaware of the huge, fundamental differences between the 9x and NT lines. It's like they don't even realize NT existed, or they think it died after NT4.

Then again, we are talking about people who think "Windows" consists of nothing more than the GUI. While it's fine for a lay person to think that, an expert should really know better.

 

[ThunderAeroI]

Heck even I knew that Nt5 is 2000. and everything is built from there.

I guess one question that can be asked is, why is there an NT kernal at all?