Microsoft to call Windows 7, Windows 7 - bit-tech.net Forums

Tim S · 14th Oct 2008, 15:53

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2008/10...-7-windows-7/1

Microsoft's Mike Nash has announced that Windows 7 will be known as Windows 7, which sparks a return to the good old days.

Deadwolf · 14th Oct 2008, 15:56

Should got great with your "I7" Cores from Intel don't you think? Nice PR Choice

Ninja_182 · 14th Oct 2008, 16:02

Woo yeah for using version numbers for the version! XP and Vista were stupid names, especially Vista. Saves them the time and effort coming up with something equally stupid sounding.

Still makes more sense than the naming of NT4

DougEdey · 14th Oct 2008, 16:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deadwolf

Should got great with your "I7" Cores from Intel don't you think? Nice PR Choice

W(I7)7
WILL!

Cupboard · 14th Oct 2008, 17:04

OK fine.

Quote:

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 to our aspirations for Windows Vista

Firstly, what is "aspirational" about XP or Vista and secondly, is this them admitting Vista was a bit of a flop?

Tim S · 14th Oct 2008, 17:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cupboard

Firstly, what is "aspirational" about XP or Vista and secondly, is this them admitting Vista was a bit of a flop?

1) Not a lot
2) heh, mebbe

esdubu · 14th Oct 2008, 17:17

Isn't this version 9?

Windows 3.11
Windows 95 = 4
Windows 98 = 5
Windows 2000 = 6
Windows XP = 7
Windows Vista = 8

quack · 14th Oct 2008, 17:22

No, as Microsoft work by build numbers.

95 = 4.0
98 = 4.1
ME = 4.9
2000 = 5.0
XP = 5.1
2003 = 5.2
Vista/2008 = 6
7 = 7

rhuitron · 14th Oct 2008, 17:25

^^ Have you all forgoten ME?
Or was that on purpose? ;-)

quack · 14th Oct 2008, 17:26

Er, yeah... ME was 4.9. Added above.

Nexxo · 14th Oct 2008, 17:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhuitron

^^ Have you all forgoten ME?
Or was that on purpose? ;-)

ME was just a re-issue of 98, used to fund the marketing for XP.

mclean007 · 14th Oct 2008, 17:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by quack

No, as Microsoft work by build numbers.

95 = 4.0
98 = 4.1
ME = 4.9
2000 = 5.0
XP = 5.1
2003 = 5.2
Vista/2008 = 6
7 = 7

I thought it went NT4 (v4) -> 2000 (v5) -> XP (v5.1)... as W2K was version 5 of the NT code base, not the Win 95 code base??

Tim S · 14th Oct 2008, 17:40

mclean007 - Windows 2000 was the first NT-based OS for consumers and, yes, it was v5.0 of that code base.

Apoca1yps0 · 14th Oct 2008, 17:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by quack

No, as Microsoft work by build numbers.

95 = 4.0
98 = 4.1
ME = 4.9
2000 = 5.0
XP = 5.1
2003 = 5.2
Vista/2008 = 6
7 = 7

The last version of Blackcomb/Vienna/Windows 7 released was Milestone 3, Build 6.1.6780 and Build 6.1.6801 so shouldn't they be calling it Windows 6 by that rule?

B3CK · 14th Oct 2008, 17:51

I just hope that MS doesn't pass the cost of their R&D of what to call the next version of windows on to the consumers.

<A88> · 14th Oct 2008, 17:57

Quote:

The last version of Blackcomb/Vienna/Windows 7 released was Milestone 3, Build 6.1.6780 and Build 6.1.6801 so shouldn't they be calling it Windows 6 by that rule?

No, because it's an unfinished version so it's in between Vista and the final release of 7.

mclean007 · 14th Oct 2008, 18:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim S

mclean007 - Windows 2000 was the first NT-based OS for consumers and, yes, it was v5.0 of that code base.

I thought that's what I said!?

dyzophoria · 14th Oct 2008, 18:57

though many don't agree with M$, i think its a nice change they are just keeping it simple now, Windows 7, so that would make sp1 windows 7.1? that should be simple enough if that implies it all

UrbanMarine · 14th Oct 2008, 19:18

Vista was more of a filler OS just like Window ME was before XP released. M$ even said that Vista wasn't ment to be XPs replacement.

steelblade · 14th Oct 2008, 20:01

Ive read it else where at some point ages ago... but do we have a predicted date for windows 7? or is it still a ways off.

14th Oct 2008, 15:53	#1
Tim S Pewlius Caesar bit-tech Staff Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Ascot, Berks Posts: 18,021	Microsoft to call Windows 7, Windows 7 http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2008/10...-7-windows-7/1 Microsoft's Mike Nash has announced that Windows 7 will be known as Windows 7, which sparks a return to the good old days. __________________ Tim on Twitter \| Tim's Blog \| Tim's Flickr The bit-tech Blog \| bit-tech on Twitter \| Join the bit-tech & Custom PC folding team (#35947)

14th Oct 2008, 16:02	#3
Ninja_182 Enginerd! Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Middlesbrough Posts: 424	Woo yeah for using version numbers for the version! XP and Vista were stupid names, especially Vista. Saves them the time and effort coming up with something equally stupid sounding. Still makes more sense than the naming of NT4 __________________ Athlon X2 4000+ @ 19.7GHz ¦ Saphire 4850 ¦ MSI K9A2 CF Bit-Tech Folding@Home Team (33346) Join us The Folding thread flickr?

14th Oct 2008, 17:22	#8
quack \o/ Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: England Posts: 5,220	No, as Microsoft work by build numbers. 95 = 4.0 98 = 4.1 ME = 4.9 2000 = 5.0 XP = 5.1 2003 = 5.2 Vista/2008 = 6 7 = 7 __________________ Denying Rights to Music lovers. Denying Rights to Movie lovers.

14th Oct 2008, 17:25	#9
rhuitron Bump? What Bump? Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Northern California, Usa Posts: 122	^^ Have you all forgoten ME? Or was that on purpose? ;-) __________________ You use an Apple?? Go play in traffic.

14th Oct 2008, 17:26	#10
quack \o/ Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: England Posts: 5,220	Er, yeah... ME was 4.9. Added above. __________________ Denying Rights to Music lovers. Denying Rights to Movie lovers.

14th Oct 2008, 15:56	#2
Deadwolf Minimodder Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 24	Should got great with your "I7" Cores from Intel don't you think? Nice PR Choice

14th Oct 2008, 17:17	#7
esdubu What's a Dremel? Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: preston Posts: 5	Isn't this version 9? Windows 3.11 Windows 95 = 4 Windows 98 = 5 Windows 2000 = 6 Windows XP = 7 Windows Vista = 8

14th Oct 2008, 17:40	#13
Tim S Pewlius Caesar bit-tech Staff Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Ascot, Berks Posts: 18,021	mclean007 - Windows 2000 was the first NT-based OS for consumers and, yes, it was v5.0 of that code base. __________________ Tim on Twitter \| Tim's Blog \| Tim's Flickr The bit-tech Blog \| bit-tech on Twitter \| Join the bit-tech & Custom PC folding team (#35947)

14th Oct 2008, 17:51	#15
B3CK Supermodder Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Dallas, Texas Posts: 349	I just hope that MS doesn't pass the cost of their R&D of what to call the next version of windows on to the consumers. __________________ "God loves stupid people, that is why he made so many of them." My best friend at M$ Tech support.

14th Oct 2008, 18:57	#18
dyzophoria Multimodder Join Date: May 2004 Location: Home Posts: 160	though many don't agree with M$, i think its a nice change they are just keeping it simple now, Windows 7, so that would make sp1 windows 7.1? that should be simple enough if that implies it all __________________ [FONT=Lucida Console]picture this..[/FONT] // [FONT=Tahoma][FONT=Fixedsys]picture that..[/FONT][/FONT]

14th Oct 2008, 19:18	#19
UrbanMarine Government Prostitute Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: United States Posts: 1,010	Vista was more of a filler OS just like Window ME was before XP released. M$ even said that Vista wasn't ment to be XPs replacement. __________________ RIP: 3DRealms & Duke Nukem

14th Oct 2008, 20:01	#20
steelblade Minimodder Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 48	Ive read it else where at some point ages ago... but do we have a predicted date for windows 7? or is it still a ways off.