What's in a Name?

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose / By any other word would smell as sweet," writes William Shakespeare in Romeo and Juliet. Microsoft certainly seems to agree with the Bard. In a surprise move, the company decided to forego its new .NET moniker for the upcoming versions of Windows and Office in favor of an even newer XP designation. The next release of the desktop versions of Windows will be Windows XP Professional Edition and Windows XP Home Edition. (The official names of the Whistler server editions are expected to be Windows Server, Windows Advanced Server, and Windows Datacenter Server.) Likewise, the next version of Office will be Office XP. Triggering thoughts of Jimi Hendrix (for those of us who remember the '60s), XP is officially supposed to stand for "experience." Unofficial rumors are that XP stands for "XML Protocol."

Why Not .NET?
Microsoft's recent flurry of naming schemes leaves me wondering what Microsoft marketing is thinking. First, the company introduced the ill-conceived year-based naming scheme. Then, the company tried out the short-lived and confusing Windows DNA, followed by the all-encompassing .NET, and now, XP. Perhaps the move to XP is the result of the confusion that surrounds the .NET concept and Microsoft's inability to successfully articulate all the different components of the .NET strategy.

The XP extension might also be a result of .NET's premature announcement—the underlying .NET support simply isn't ready for the next version of Windows. The XP name might simply be a placeholder until Microsoft really is ready to incorporate the Common Language Runtime (CLR) and other required .NET support ingredients into Windows.

Good-Bye Year-Based Names
I prefer Windows XP or Windows.NET to Microsoft's year-based naming scheme, and I'll be happy to see that bad idea fall by the wayside. We all knew that Microsoft had taken a wrong turn back in 1995 when it named its new OS (Windows 95) after the year it was released. You didn't need a lot of foresight to know that this road was full of potholes. The plan worked out OK for Win95, but it got messy fast when some products barely squeaked into release in their predestined year—and messier still when product compatibility questions inevitably cropped up. For example, the Microsoft SQL Server forums are full of questions about whether Windows 2000 is required to run SQL Server 2000 (it isn't). I suppose Microsoft adopted year-based names to give its products an up-to-date feel; in the long run, the plan had the opposite effect of making the products seem dated or disposable.

The problems with the year-based naming scheme came to a head with the release of Windows Millennium Edition (Windows Me). Microsoft had already named the Windows NT 4.0 follow-on Windows 2000—even though it uses the NT code base and is totally separate from the Win9x code base. And although Windows Me was the true follow-on product to Win98—sharing the same Win9x roots—it couldn't be named Windows 2000 because that name was already taken. Nor could it be named Windows 2001, which would have implied that it was the follow-on product to Windows 2000.

Perhaps Microsoft marketing finally understood Murphy's Law of the highway: "If everything is coming your way, you're in the wrong lane." The move away from year-based names is overdue, and the change to Windows XP is a good one—even if "experience" shows us that the new name will likely be short-lived.

End of Article

I disagree I think Year-based names allowed the coporate market to reliase just how old some of their PC based systems they were supporting and hanging onto. A quick maths check even for a CEO tells him Windows 95 is 5 year old OS however Windows 3.11 ?? this tends to have CEO's claiming "sometime in the 90's"(actually 1992) and hence the message from IT to senior management to upgrade becomes harder and will once again!!

mike mccoll April 22, 2001

I would rather see the resources and effort that go into name generation and its hoopla go into development. The hassles that surround naming are minor compared with administration of the product.

lee burleson April 24, 2001

I say WHO CARES ABOUT THE NAME!!!!????
 
I'm just glad that MS finally made the switch from DOS! It was a real disapointment for me with Millenium Edition because I heard rumors that IT was going to be the end of the DOS line and hear we go with this same old tired B-S!
 
It takes someone as dumb as a snail if they have to look at the name of an OS just so they can figure out rather to upgrade or not, besides, with businesses, it's functionality that counts in a computer, not the status of who has the most current version of WINDOWS.

Mohammad April 26, 2001

In my opinion, THE biggest mistake Micro$oft made was to modify the year name scheme when naming Win2k. I have seen that the average person using/buying a computer in 99-2001 has a 3rd grade understanding of computers, therefore, making it even more confusing. When I try to explain the difference, most people act like I'm speaking Martian. Numbers are number, and that all there is to it.

I am glad that they changed the scheme, but the confusion will stay for awhile.

Peter April 27, 2001

Microsoft is hurting the certification market when changes the name of their next version of Windows product.
 
The qualified systems engineers have to keep updating their certification, whenever Micro$oft releases new products every while. Although, MS claims that Win2000 MCSE don't need to update their certifications when XP released, but the employers won't believe that, and they will ask for the latest certification, following the numbers or letters associated with the product.
 
That's why MS certification started to lose its creditability recently, and companies realized the importance of years of experience, rather than a paper that expires when the next version of the product released.

Mike Janic April 28, 2001

So, what are you guys going to do about *your* magazine's name ?

Robert April 30, 2001

WHOOOPS!!! Whistler Server = Windows 2002...There went that theory!!!
Later Dudz...

Joey May 01, 2001

To add to the confusion, Microsoft is selling the Office XP components individually, such as Word and PowerPoint etc.
And instead of packaging them as Word XP, and PowerPoint XP they are sold as Word 2002, PowerPoint 2002 etc!
See http://images.amazon.com/images/P/ B00005JILA.02.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Ellis Karim May 11, 2001

Mr. Otey writes, "We all knew that Microsoft had taken a wrong turn back in 1995 when it named its new OS (Windows 95) after the year it was released. You didn't need a lot of foresight to know that this road was full of potholes."
 
I echo the sentiments of Robert (below). Perhaps this magazine's name changes to "Windows 2000 Magazine" and win2000mag.com weren't such good ideas, either. Who is more foolish: the one who takes the "wrong turn" or the one who, knowing it is the wrong way, follows down that same road?

John Harrell May 14, 2001

I disagree with the article. Based on my enterprise and small business experience combined, year based naming convetions for once were making sense, to customers and us consultants. Win 95 today is roughly 6 years old, Win 98 is 3 years old, can you tell me how old NT 3.51 is today? Pitching an upgrade is a lot easier when you don't have to spend a ton of time to convince the decision maker how out of date their product is, you can just say here see the box. Also Win 95 marketing compaign was among the most successful if not the most successful Microsoft marketing schemes to date!

Greg Muszynski May 14, 2001

See More Comments 1 2

You must log on before posting a comment.

If you don't have a username & password, please register now.