Next Windows name unveiled: Windows 7

The name of the next Windows client operating system will be Windows 7. Microsoft vice president of Windows product management Mike Nash blogged Monday Microsoft is adopting the current codename for the final product, for reasons best explained by himself. It has something to do with not wanting to get too far away from the …

[Daniel Bennett]

Awaiting the force of 6.1 comments...

Before people say, because 2000 was 5.0 and XP was 5.1... Vista is 6.0 so this should be 6.1...

Can you really say that without seeing it?

TBH i dont even give a crap... If its better than Vista the bring the bloody thing on before I go completly insane with this god damn OS!!

[Pascal Monett]

"this is the seventh release of Windows"

Will it be the 3rd failure ?

If 7 is just Vista in a new skirt, then my answer is YES.

[4a$$Monkey]

MS can't count

1)1.xx

2) 2.xx

3) 3.xx

4) NT3

5) 95

6) NT4

7) 98

8) ME

9) 2000

10) XP

11) Vista

12) Windows 7

12 Not 7!

[darkmooink]

oh think of the shop assistants in pc world

i can just imagine it now "you want vista on your pc cos Microsoft have re released an old version of windows. i mean windows 95 and 98 were out like years ago so they should be up to 100 or 105 at least now but they have given us windows 7 which must be like 50 years old"

[Anonymous Coward]

What's in a name?

I wonder if they regret using 'inspirational names' because while they look good at the time, they hide the age of the product in retrospect. For example, many people think Windows 2000 is ancient now and XP is the best Windows there is, however XP only came out a year later and 2K has had its own updates and service packs.

If XP had been named Windows 2001, would people still be clinging to it as much today, or would that number make it sound rather old and less desirable? Perhaps by reintroducing numbers (and come to think of it - weren't version numbers supposedly scrapped from IE for the intended Vista version before they did a U-turn and came up with IE7?) they're paving the way for subsequent higher numbers to once again make previous versions look even older and out of date?

"You still use Windows 7?! Don't you know the current version is 9.5! What, is your car powered by coal too? Hahaha!"

[Gerlad Dreisewerd]

Alternative Name

And I had my heart set on Windows WS for Windows Wallet Sucker.

[TimM]

I suppose it's better than...

Windows What Vista Should Have Been But Still Won't Be What It Should Be As It's Rushed To Market To Win Over Vista Haters.

Anyway, given they dropped the Blackcomb codename (XP was Whistler and the "next" spanking cool version was supposed to be Blackcomb, with Vista a stop-gap), then I guess Windows 8 will be Blackcomb with all the features they've been dreaming of for years but never can squeeze in.

[Frank]

A Rose By Any Other Name?

It's heartening to see senior management putting so much detailed thought and consideration into the name of a product. All we need now is the same approach to the design of the product.

[Dr Who]

Creativity crisis

Sounds like a company running out of ideas to me.

[Si]

A Vista by any other name...

After MS' early bullshit about the next Windows being a slimmed down, leaner, faster OS it seems they've decided they can't be bothered with all that and that they'll just crap out Vista SP2 with a new name (a name "unblemished" by the Vista brand).

After all the feature cutting of Vista it seems MS can't work out how to put new features into Windows (unless it's DRM). My theory is that no-one there understands the source code anymore and so they just build more shit on top of the old shit instead of re-writing or replacing things. That's why every Windows release gets bigger and slower. A bit like building a house of cards on top of a house of cards.

You'd think they would try to come up with a lightweight OS to cater to the Netbook market, or something geared purely for performance for gamers.

[Anonymous Coward]

Quicker to say on a support call

Calling the essential patched version 'Windows 7.1' is a lot easier than trying to get your tonsils around 'Windows Vista 2 Service Pack 1'

[Anonymous Coward]

"The seventh release of Windows"?!?!

Anyone older than 30 who possesses the ability to count on their fingers knows:

1: Windows 1.0 - From the mists of 1985, with a tiled-only windowing interface that didn't catch on

2: Windows 2.0 - Overlapping windows - woohoo!

3: Windows 3.x - New GUI and controls taken from Word; we'll just count all 3.x releases as 4: one release even though they actually included 3.0, 3.1, 3.11 ("Windows for Workgroups", with networking built-in - woohoo!) and Windows 3/386 (protected-mode extensions originally developed at Compaq - woohoo again!)

4: Windows 95 - The one most people know and love

5: Windows 98 - With Internet built-in - woohoo!! And Windows 98SE, arguably the best 16-bit version

6: Windows ME - The most hated version until Vista came along, and the last 16-bit version

Now we move on to the "New Technology" code-base:

7: Windows NT 3.x - Not to confuse anyone with version numbers, but this was the *first* release of the code-base used in all current versions of Windows; 3.1 followed

8: Windows NT 4.0 - IIS and Active Directory available as add-ons; Windows 95 GUI add-on

9: Windows 2000 - Leanest/meanest NT release (i.e. before the bloat set in)

10: Windows XP/2003 - Client and server now separate brands

11: Windows Vista/2008 - (Oops - out of fingers!) According to most opinions (including mine), Vista suxx big-time but 2008 is really quite good, although it uses the same code-base - um, what?!

Which brings us to "Windows 7" which is in fact the 12th major release of Windows, or the 6th release of the NT code-base. Either way it's not the "seventh release of Windows". That was my point, in case anyone is for some reason still reading this.

I need a lie down now.

[Dai Kiwi]

Error In Addition?

"Simply put, this is the seventh release of Windows, so therefore 'Windows 7' just makes sense," Nash said.

Windows 1, 2, 3, 3.11 for workgroups, NT3.5, NT4, 95, 98, ME, 2000, XP, Server2003, Vista, Server 2008

That makes fourteen. Ok, so, disregard 1 and combine 3/3.11/3.5... Still leaves eleven. For argument's sake maybe call 2003 & 2008 rebadged versions of XP & Vista... Nope, still got nine.

I know the reality - that W2K through to Server2003 are all labeled 5-point-something-or-other and Vista is 6-point-blah, but still, do Microsoft really expect us to buy this? (figuratively AND literally). Still, better than admitting the real reason - "Everyone's calling it 'Windows 7' already. If we call it something else we'll have to spend a ton of money on advertising it, and people will still call it Windows 7. Give in to the masses."

[Anonymous Coward]

Strategy Boutique

I wonder how much a consultancy was paid to come up with this revolutionary idea.

[Alexis Vallance]

Fair enough

Seems reasonable if they want to go back to basics and make it sound like the thing works.

What they really need to do is just have one single version now. Or home/business at the very most. All the versions of Vista were a farce.

Their crappy activation system needs to go next. Innocent consumers being locked out of their machines is not something that should ever happen. It's going to get cracked anyway, so they might as well just tone their activation system.

[Anonymous Coward]

NT7?

So is 'Windows Seven' going to be NT7, or NT6.1, like in the current alpha builds?

[James Green]

Achievement?

"Likewise, coming up with an all-new "aspirational" name does not do justice to what we are trying to achieve"

In other words "Windows we-promise-this-one-isn't-quite-as-crap-as-vista" didn't sound like a good name.

[Richard Harris]

Windows Could Get Sexy

Hmmmmmmmm. Windows Seven of Nine - Sleek, well rounded, very easy on the eye; never sure if it's running it's own agenda. Probably shouldn't turn your back on it as it threatens to assimilate your printer, webcam, etc though.

[Tony Barnes]

7th release

Had to Wiki this but..

Windows 1.0

Windows 2.0

Windows/286

Windows/386

Windows 3.0

Windows NT

Windows 95

Windows 98

Windows ME

WIndows 2000

Windows 2003

WIndows XP

Windows Vista

...pretty sure that's more than 7. I'm sure there's an obvious explanation.......

[Gulfie]

Superstitious?

Perhaps Microsoft think that this'll be "lucky 7" - well the alternative can't be pleasant to contemplate - remind me to avoid the version of Windows six releases after this.

[Anonymous Coward]

The crazy fools

Have they never heard of consistency? It doesn't say much that they cannot stick to a naming convention! Then again, any opportunity to confuse people!

[Charles]

Keep It Simple, Stupid

Sometimes, the simplest solutions are the best ones.

[Chris Bradshaw]

Congratulations

It seems Microsoft has finally learned to count.. :-)

No, not the joke alert icon, I think this is a serious achievement for them. Perhaps soon they will be able to code a simple bug-free program - "Hello world" springs to mind.

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows 7 eh?

So its:

1) Windows 95

2) Windows 98

3) Windows ME

4) Windows 2000

5) Windows XP

6) Windows Vista

7) Windows 7

What about Windows 3.1x and everything that came before it? Or Windows 98 SE???

Did they use an old Pentium 1 to work this out????

[Rob Beard]

Version numbers

So what they're really trying to say then is that they've run out of version numbers?

This is going to get confusing. I mean what's to say that Windows 95 isn't better than Windows 7 because it's version number is 88 higher than 7. Now I know that Windows 95 was internally Windows 4.00 etc but is Joe Public going to know this?

Maybe I'll be able to flog off my copies of Windows 95 & Windows 98 at £50 a pop. :-)

I still think Windows ME III would be a better name.

Rob

[Vincent]

Windows 7

"Simply put, this is the seventh release of Windows, so therefore 'Windows 7' just makes sense,"

So why not call Vista Windows 6? And XP Windows 5?

I don't really give a toss about the name, I just don't think that HE makes sense.

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely this is Windows 8?

Type SET into a Windows command prompt and you get "Microsoft Windows 2000 [Version 5.00.2195]" Thus XP should be Version 6, Vista should be Version 7 and thus this new version of Windows; Version 8.

[Joseph Haig]

Vista SE

"... to stay firmly rooted in our aspirations for Windows Vista ..."

So Vista Second Edition it is, then.

[Lee Dowling]

Naming

More likely...

The version number system got silly when it got into 2 decimal places where the least significant digit heralded major functionality changes (Windows 3.1 to 3.11...). Plus if we increment the version number every time we put out a fix, we'll need at least four decimal parts (Windows 4.0.1190.4 etc.) It also gave the "dated" appearance of PC's as technical objects and larger numbers sound much cooler (e.g. Word 6 -> Word 95).

The date system was supposed to get us to always buy the latest version (Comic Relief Red Nose Syndrome) but failed miserably - all it did was make the only thing that worked looked very dated (newer numbers = worse product in the consumer's mind) and to show how long it is between major versions of Windows, plus it was ruined by SP numbers which harked back to the above point (Windows 98 SE... ffs).

Then the "moniker" titles were okay but confusing for the customer base (ME, XP, etc.) until eventually the word Windows was dropped by them altogether ("I installed XP the other day"). Additionally, Vista was such a dead horse that naming something Vista 2 would be commercial suicide and trying to find a non-trademarked, non-common-usage term which would fit the next version was nigh on impossible (Windows Vapour? Or Windows Commonsense?).

So let's do what everyone else is doing and go back to version numbers. And then we'll increment our version numbers by an overly large amount to keep up with the competition (Windows 2.6.27 anyone?) and then we'll scrap that and use the project codenames and then...

[Hedley Phillips]

Long live the King!

The King is dead, long live the King!

Or should that have been: The work shy servant is dead, long live the King!

[Ferry Boat]

two, four, six, eight, alliterate

Why can't they be sensible like the Ubuntu people? I know times are hard but how much do joss sticks cost?

How about "Windows Wipeout", "Washy Windows" or, if they are stuck on the 7, "Secret Seven"?

[Barry Nelson]

Money saver..

This must have saved M$ a heap of money & laid of a few staff in the inspirational dept.

[david]

XP not a version?

Between Windows 7 and NT4 there was Windows 2000, XP and Vista. Vista was probably 6. Which by my counting, makes XP a service pack for 2000, but one they made you pay for.

[Dave Edmondston]

Surely...

Instead of now, say, 'Vista' getting a bad name, if it's another turkey, 'windows' will now get a bad name...

[Flocke Kroes]

It will be ready when?

2007 or 2107?

[Chris]

News?

Meh... We KNEW it was going to be Win7. The question is - will it be a repackaged Vista - with all the rubbish? Or is it going to be a sensibly enhanced XP?

It must be one of those, because at Micro$loth's normal development rate, there's no time for anything else?

Repackaged Vista will be another nail in M$'s coffin. XP 'super' might just save the day.

So. I guess that means repackaged Vista then?

And, what about all those people who got lumbered with Vista? A discounted update maybe?

Wait! Let me sit down and take a deep breath... I'm obviously loosing it here. Of COURSE not! Silly idea...

[rasputinsDog]

hmm 3.1 * 2 != 7

Does this mean it is more than twice as good as Windows 3.1?

[Kristin McKechie]

Yawn!

Wake me up when somebody cares what Microsoft call their next flop any more

[filey]

i'm not buying it

Why won't they call it Windows Vista 2.0? or Mojave?

we all know its just the vista codebase with knobs on, mostly just a search and replace name change.

Look out for features such as 3gb memory limit (that limit is a joke now, imagine 5 years time!)

[Greg Andrews]

Seventh verse, same as the first

Windows: 7

CERT Advisories: 7932

[Anonymous Coward]

Vista 2.0?

"And since we do not ship new versions of Windows every year, using a date did not make sense."

Maybe that has something to do with MS not being able to deliver any of their products on time.

Sure they wouldn't want to call it Vista2009 or Vista2 (Vista 1.2?), since the Vista brand is tainted enough as it is.

Calling a turd a Mars bar doesn't automagically make it so though. Pushing out new turd and sprinkling some sugar on top this time, still doesn't make it a Mars bar.

On my way out to create another Vista...

[Rich]

MSDOS 10

I think this is the correct version.

Also, there have been a whole bunch of nominally point releases between Win3 and now, including Win XP (5.1).

[Tom]

Vista SP2

If they called it Vista SP2 it would be hard to get people to pay more money for an "upgrade".

A year is no good? Like Server 2008, SQL 2008...

The seventh release of Windows? They must be skipping versions they want to forget me ME.

Windows 1,3,95, 98, ME. NT4W, 2000, XP, Visa. Even skipping the minor ones like 3.1, 3.11, 95 osr2, 98se there are more then 7 releases of desktop Windows.

[Brett]

Se7en

So is that gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy, or pride? Surely not lust...

[Michael Walsh]

Windows 7

Ah...wonderful, "a rose by any other name" but it's still winblows!

[Richard L]

Aspirations for Windows Vista?

Just so we are all clear, what may those be?

[Jay]

More like Vista is ...

Shit! So lets change our naming again so that Vista (aka steaming pile of dung) has nothing to do with our new name ... Windows 7.

[Scott]

Makes Sense to me

Why would they want to give up a name that is synonymous with success?

[Neil Greatorex]

Seventh?

"Simply put, this is the seventh release of Windows, so therefore 'Windows 7' just makes sense,"

What base is he counting in?

V1.0

V2.0

V3.0

V3.11

95

98

98SE

ME

2K

XP

Fista

I'm not a mathematician, but I do chew sugar-free gum :-)

I'm ignoring the 64bit flavours & the various versions of NT & "server" too.

Perhaps that's why Windows is as stable as a three-legged cow, Microsoft can't count.

Paris, even she can count past 7.

[Martin Gregorie]

Version number arithmetic 101

Lessee now. Windows 1 was never released and was followed by ...

Windows 2, Windows 3, Windows for Workgroups [4], W95 [5], 98 [6], ME [7], 2000 [8], XP [9], Vista [10]

and now Windows 7. Its not the seventh version. M$ can't count.

Lets try again: Windows 2000 was preceded by NT4, so its really NT5. Then we have XP [NT6], Vista [NT7] and Windows 7 [NT8]

Nope, they still can't count.

[Anonymous Coward]

How imiganitive

I suppose the stillbirth that was vista is playing in their minds - expect to see a lot of high contrast adds with a large stylised "7" in a chrome/black circle - glassified windows logo in background

*places bet down*

[Simon]

So which ones don't count?

1 Windows 3.1

2 Windows 95

3 Windows 98

4 Windows NT

5 Windows ME

6 Windows 2000

7 Windows XP

8 Windows Server

9 Windows CE

10 Windows Mobile 5/6

Can be more picky I guess and name Windows 1 or whatever....

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmm

I think i see where this is going...

Windows 7

Windows 7.x

Windows OS 8.x

OSW 9

Sound vaguely familiar anyone?

By which time Apple will be on OSX 11.x

Comeon M$ you way behind in the catchup game.

LULZ, ROFL etc. etc

[john fisher]

seventh son of a seventh son

"Simply put, this is the seventh release of Windows, so therefore 'Windows 7' just makes sense," Nash said--Excellent logic! Now-if Windows itself could only make sense...

[Henry Wertz]

OK, the numbering.

To cut the numbering thread in the bud, here's the version numbering...

Windows NT 3.1 and NT 3.5. I don't think these were used much. NT 4.0 came out roughly when 95 did. Windows 2000 is NT 5.0, XP is 5.1, Server 2003 and some XP variants is 5.2, Vista is 6.0. The Windows 1.0-3.11, 95, 98, and ME line is a seperate lineage.

According to Wikipedia, Windows 7 is 6.1.6801 (M3 beta release). Hopefully, I would think they'd consider Windows 7 once it's out as 7.0.xxxx. But, I know for sure the Solaris "uname" and marketing versions are totally screwy too.

It sounds to me like the main plan with Windows 7 is to hope machines have sped up enough by then for people to tolerate a Vista-sized OS. But, maybe Microsoft will surprise us, only time will tell. I'm running Ubuntu personally.

[Adam Williamson]

Cunning

"Simply put, this is the seventh release of Windows, so therefore 'Windows 7' just makes sense," Nash said."

How much did they pay a strategy boutique to come up with that one, then?

[Anonymous Coward]

I still don't get it...

The way I see it, this is either the 8th or 9th version of Windows, depending on where you count from. If you start from Windows 3.x, then 95=4, 98=5, 2000/ME=6, XP=7, and Vista=8, so this one should be 9. If you start from NT (the mother of this kernel), then the last NT was 4, 2000=5, XP=6, and Vista=7, so it should be 8. So how do they figure this is the 7th version of Windows?

However you count it, if the goal is to be better than (or at least suck less than) Vista, then the bar is pretty low. Makes no never mind to me, though. No Vista for me so far. No Win007 for me either.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, given their history...

Since we had Windows 3.0 followed by 3.1 and 3.11 (Windows for Workgroups, or three-eleven as we called it), all we can hope for now is Windows 7.11.

[Anonymous Coward]

it's not that hard...

Firslty: Seems to me that someone already posted the numbering convention, and it's based on the NT version (see earlier post by Henry Wertz)...

I imagine it could be wiki'ed or googled easily to find out if you don't believe him. How many more times must people post along the lines of "But I can name 27 Windows varieties, why isn't it Windows 27".

Secondly: I don't like Vista much (though I've thrown enough RAM at mine that I can at least ignore it for the purposes of my needs). However, I simply cannot see the connect between "MS calls new version a number" and "MS totally bankrupt of ideas, or creativity, and this shows the next version is going to sux!"

Paris, because it's my first post here, and who else would I use?

[Jimmy Floyd]

Maybe ask the Good Lord Jobs

Perhaps Microsoft are including in their numbering system the version of the Mac GUI that "inspired" Windows in the first place?

[Vernon Lloyd]

It may be a surprise but this is Version 7

I have the answer

Windows 1.0 - Version 1

Windows 2.0 - Version 2

Windows 3.1, 3.11, NT 3.51 were all variations of Version 3.0

Windows 95/98/ME and NT 4 were all varitations of Version 4.0

Windows 2000/XP were all variations of Version 5.0 (2000 was 5.0.nnn, XP 5.1.nnnn)

Vista was version 6.n.nnn

Therefore the next will be 7.

PHEW thats that arguement sorted...............i think ;-)

Now wheres the straightjacket

[Anonymous Coward]

Bad choice

If Microsoft wanted us to believe it was any good, they would definitely have called it Windows XP version 2.

[Anonymous Coward]

The change it had to come

Mmm, try saying it: "Windows Seven".

What does that sound like?

Wait a minute, "OS Ten".

Do Microsoft have no shame in copying everything that Apple does?

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's see

The next version of Mac OS X - Snow Leopard - will be 10.6.

So it was bound to be Winblows 7 wasn't it?

(although 10.8 will be out by the time MS actually ship anything)

[Nuno]

You are all wrong!!

The new version number of Windows is all about memory usage. Windows 7 will need 7GB of RAM to be used. This gives us another hint: it will be a 64 bit OS...

Finally something good came from Windows naming!

[Anonymous Coward]

Lucky?

7 is supposedly a lucky number in a few cultures, perhaps they're playing on that angle? Personally the arty, whispy Vista thingy didn't really pan out, irrespective of whether was any good or not, so they are obviously heading back to something simple in a bid to make the marketing a lot easier. I don't see Apple having problems with numbers and names, Ubuntu manages to maintain supporters with it's comical naming conventions, why do MS find it so much trouble? Constantly chopping and changing, Win31, WfW, NT, Win98, WInXP, 2003, Vista, 2008, 7!

[Craig Wallace]

Bet you find a file saying

VistaSE

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but you are all wrong

Surely they're simply going back to using year numbers.

win95

win98

win2000

and now win07, which obviously is shortened to win7 because we all know that numbers don't have leading zeros.

Of course, that means they're already a year late, but that's par for the course...

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows Legion: For we are many

I am surprised that no-one has tried to count up all the previous releases of Windows, in order to find out whether Windows 7 is actually the seventh release, or not. Here, let me be the first:

(list)

There you go. As you can see from my list, Windows 7 is in fact the umpteenth version of Windows, and should be named accordingly. I shall now press the refresh button on my browser, and see what the other commentators have written.

[Anonymous Coward]

windows for dummies....

it just goes to show how many people on here who actually comment on windows and flame it along with M$ do not know what they are talking about... if they did they would know how Microsoft number the OS....

Microsoft had two lines of OS, and after the mess that was windows ME they dropped one...

3.11, 95, 98,98se and ME were one line and 3.5NT, 2000, XP, Vista and now windows 7 are the other...

its simple really... if you cant follow it, it says a lot about you !!!

mines the one with the MS logo on the back

[Fab De Marco]

XP Users....

OK I am working on the assumption that most of you are running Windows XP (Linux wise arses Shut up!)

Click Start - Run

type winver

a box will come up telling you that you are running version 5.1.

Vernon knows the score!

[Anonymous Coward]

If you ask me...

...it's about bloody time they went back to a sensible versioning convention. Silly names like "XP" and "Vista" give you absolutely no clue as to where they fit in the Windows timeline.

Hopefully, all the idiots have stopped complaining about "ZOMG MS CAN'T COUNT!" by now. Perhaps MS should have clarified that this is the seventh release of Windows NT. As anyone who can click Start > Run and type "winver" can verify...

Windows 2000 is Windows NT 5.0

Windows XP is Windows NT 5.1

Windows Server 2003 (and probably XP x64) is Windows NT 5.2

Windows Vista (and Server 2008) is Windows NT 6.0

So yes, the next major version number is 7. Now if Windows 7 actually ends up using kernel version 6.1, bricks will be shat.

[James Pickett]

Windows 2001

"I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance ..."

[Sarah Bee]

right

No more listing please folks. You've got about 20 to choose from here and at least one correct answer. And my eyes hurt. And my brain. Ta.

[Neil Greatorex]

@ windows for dummies....

"its simple really... if you cant follow it, it says a lot about you !!!"

Sorry sonny, some of us are older than 13, and can actually remember this shite instead of relying on Wikipedia.

You can keep the one with the MS logo on the back, marks you out as a tw@

[KB]

What about Vista users?

Who cares about the name - are Microsoft going to give those of us who have made the jump to Vista (with the sole exception of UAC being a *bit* annoying, it really isn't that bad you know) a nice cheap way of upgrading to 7 or do we have to pay full price like the XP-loving refuseniks?

[Jamie Bowden]

Numbering.

7th release of Windows NT. Come on people, there are a lot of reasons to give MS crap, this is a trivial non issue.

[Nexox Enigma]

Probably not half bad

First off, how many morons jump right to "MS Can't count" comments without reading the 38 already posted? We must be on the Internet here or something for that sort of behaviour. That goes along with posting complaints on subjects of which you are ignorant, like the previously pointed out fact that 95/98/ME are counted seperately.

And then there are the comments about how much Windows7 will blow ass, since it'll be like Vista. I'm no Windows fan (I use it because they require me to at work, other than that it's Slackware or nothing,) but I have reasonable expectations for Win7. That's because I've used Win2008 a bit, and it was quite a slick OS, even running on my 2.5 year old desktop. From what I've heard, Win7 is supposed to be more closely related to 2008 rather than Vista, which makes sense, since 2008 is just an incremental improvement upon Vista with some server software thrown in.

Honestly 2008 ran faster on my desktop than XP did, and it's just about the first Windows release that I've ever enjoyed - I tend to keep the older version as long as I can to avoid the performance hit on the new version. And for reference I wasn't running Aero or anything to waste cpu/gpu power needlessly.

So Windows 7 could be decent. And they shouldn't have all that much development to do for it on top of what they've already done for 2008, so it might not even take them that long. There's always the great chance that MS will screw it up royally though.

[twat]

People forget...

That Windows 1 to ME were not Operating Systems, they were GUIs. Therefore NT was the first Windows OS and the new one will be 7. Easy enough really.

Twat Dangler

[W]

That's NumerWang!

Thanks ants.

Thants.

[Saul Dobney]

The OS is becoming irrelevant

I can remember a time when people argued about what the operating system should do, rather than what it should be called (eg pre-emptive vs co-operative multi-tasking, the battle of the GUI's, plug-and-play, network management etc).

My problem is apart from 'support new hardware' I struggle to think of a 'feature' that would make one OS really better than any other. XP is stable enough now that I can't remember the last BSOD, Ubuntu is knocking rough edges off Linux and is usable 90-95% of the time. OS10 is OK if a little one-app-at-a-time in terms of usability. But I switch between the three daily and it's relatively painless. With things like Open Office and open source cross-platform and web-apps the OS is becoming irrelevant.

So what one OS feature would really make a difference?

[Andy]

apparently...

windows 7 is apparently going to be a complete core strip down and de-bloat re-write. new filesystems, new file handlers and protected kernal, blah blah blah, and apparently it'll be faster than sh1t of a shovel.

if i recall correctly,

vista was going to be a complete core strip down with bloat removal re-write. new file system that was going to rock, kernal protected from drivers.... sounds familier... not what we got in the box.

[Anonymous Coward]

@ Neil Greatorex

I don't get your point! If you can remember the version number sequences why have you got your underwear in such a twist?

if you have not commented on why its V7 and there have been lots more versions of windows released than 7, then the comment did not relate to you, therefore why the twisted undies?

And FYI i am not thirteen, And have been involved with computers since way before windows was around. And, just because i find that Microsoft products good, maybe not perfect, but still better than the penguin branded variety of OS as a desktop environment.

so wind your neck in !!!

[Anonymous Coward]

ugh!

"refining the substantial investments in platform technology in Windows Vista into the next generation of Windows."

ewwww...I just threw up in the back of my throat reading that.

@ac - "Calling a turd a Mars bar doesn't automagically make it so though. Pushing out new turd and sprinkling some sugar on top this time, still doesn't make it a Mars bar."

Thank you. I narrowly avoided soaking everything in the vicinity by NOT having a mouthful of coffee. I only need to dry my britches.

Shame, Shame on you wankers for hurting Sarah! Begone back to your dank basements where you lurk in the corner!

[Chris Pinto]

to the AC with Windows 8

when I type SET into my cmd window

i get:

Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6001]

Copyright (c) 2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

in XP i would get something like

Microsoft Windows [Version 5.1.2600]

Copyright (c) 2002 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

IT's going by NT version numbers/codebase, not the old, and now legacy "386"/DOS codebase

Windows 7 should therefore TECHNICALLY (speculation) be NT version 7

The fac tthe Milestones are on 6.x codebases still is fine, Vista was too til later beta's. They're still in alpha dont forget.

I guess the true test will be, wait until RTM, and see if it registered as 6.1/6.2/6.5 or as NT 7.0.xxxx

[Zmodem]

its windows

another 1 that might work.

need more optimization, nano cpus arnt here yet,.

blah blah blah., i dont have vista. i dont have dual core cpu etc. if i bother getting a new pc. i know i could near enough reverse engineer vista removing all the junk. and make any game run on ultra settings at 60+ fps. most of what slows down XP are all the network services most people dont actually need running. which are set to automatic startup

[Anonymous Coward]

Version?

Someone above noted the various versions - but there was also Windows/286 and Windows/386, back in the day, so I'm not sure where those fall in this.

I guess one could argue that the Windows 3.x series all fall under just "3" - so that combines 3 into 1. Still, though, that leaves us with:

1.0

2.0

286 and 386 (did they fit into a "version" anywhere?)

3.0 / 3.1 / 3.11

95

98

XP

Vista

So that's 8 or 9 (depending how you look at it). If they knock out 286/386, that still is 7 - so this nexst version should be Windows 8.

I think.

Aren't version numbers arbitrary now? I remember a few years ago some companies skipping versions numbers to make their product look more mature.

I wonder if Paris knows ...

[J]

Re:"oh think of the shop assistants in pc world"

Oh, it will be even worse! They will see that Windows 2000 (or more!) has been out already, so darn Win 7 must be from the times of Jesus... </joke>

Now, y'all pointing out the "two lineages" of Windows and how Win 7 is actually being considered the 7th NT, etc.... Well, you are technically right, I guess (but don't really care much). But you forget the simple fact that you are not human beings; you are El Reg readers. You see, them normal human beings will say something like "but it was called Windows 98! Then Windows XP! It's all Windows!!1!2!" So it is a Windows release, no matter what their slightly sick-in-the-head (i.e., they actually care about software naming conventions enough to memorize them) techie friends might say. That's what happens when marketing is driving the process, I guess.

[F Seiler]

windows YQ

1.because it would be fun to see how people say/write it

2. because it is ++X++P (oh wait on second thought, i might prefer --X--P, WO, for less is more)

[Nat C.]

They missed out on YQ

Vista would've already been YQ. I say let's go with ++Y++Q leaving us with...Windows ZR! Two reasons:

1) Chevrolet already has the Corvette ZR so that'll be great for marketing (Hmmm...Windows ZR...Corvette ZR...this must be the FASTEREST WINDOWS EVAR!!!)

2) Brits and Merkins can have a fun shouting match over the pronounciation.

Zee-R

No, Zed-R

NO, ZEE-R

NO, ZED-R

See what I mean? Endless fun.

[Astarte]

Numbers, Numbers

Perhaps someone omitted punctuation when printing the name -

Instead of calling it "Windows 7"

They meant to name it "Windows 7!"

Because 7! = 5040, so maybe it should be "Windows 5040"

That’ll give plenty of spare for the thousands of incremental changes and experimental versions that MS have created en-route to their current waste of space.

[mittfh]

7.0 or 6.1?

From the screenshots I've seen so far, 7 looks suspiciously like minor tweaks to Vista (6.0). And since MS have a habit of a major release followed by a minor release (sometimes followed by an even more minor release) (3.0 --> 3.1 --> 3.11, 95 --> 98 --> 98SE, 2k --> XP), it would seem logical for Windows 6.0 to be followed by 6.1...

But then again, you never know with MS. Once the codebase for XP had been stabilised, they concentrated development on "Blackcomb" - "Longhorn" was originally going to be a point release, until the "Bill Factor" crept in (Bill suggesting various tweaks and additions that caused it to bloat into a full-blown OS). Eventually engineers were seconded from the "Blackcomb" project in order to get Vista out - probably a rush job since development work restarted from the Server 2003 codebase a few years into the project...

I suppose the real indicator of whether it's a minor release or a full-blown thing is if they implement WinFS and an alternative means of accessing drives other than through letters. Oh, and do something useful with UAC (making sure all supported graphics drivers can manage the switch to the secure desktop without blanking the screen for 5s would be a start!). But don't disable it entirely - anyone used to using *NIX system knows you have to authenticate as root to do sysadmin stuff like installing applications to be accessible by all users.

[F Seiler]

@Nat C.

Yes i think i see what you mean.

I intentionally ignored Vista there primarily because i would *really* want them to either start from NT 5.x again or hope the 6.0 was just most royally possible fuckup of the 6.x kernel codebase and other branches will be good. (Something like what mittfh talks about. And i'm explicitly saying kernel there because seemingly the rotten fish in Vista is not just in the GUI or other peripheral things)

I fear "ZR" because it would implicitly put a line going from XP over Vista to that new thang, whereas calling it YQ would singal "we are back on track, that Vista thing never happened or if it did it was someone else" :)

[Brian Varnell]

Idiot says what?

So, they don't want to use version numbers, so they're going to use version numbers? What?

[LeBeourfCurtaine]

A tad cynical perhaps...

...but has no-one noticed 'Windows 7' fits snugly with 'Core i7'? No?

Paris, because there has to be some hope left for the world somewhere.

[RogueElement]

why use numbers when words are so much more descriptive?

suggestions? I offer Windows Brick. (Heavy, cumbersome and exactly what it will do to your hardware)

[Anonymous Coward]

Mac OS X(p)

I remember that they came up with the "awesome" name of Windows XP right after Apple released the public beta of Mac OS X. For Apple, the X made sense because it was the 10th version of the Mac OS. I guess Microsoft didn't like all the press Apple was getting :)