Print - Windows 7: What's In a Name?

In the aftermath of Microsoft's decision to use the Windows 7 codename as the final name for that product, a weird backlash has grown online: Why is Microsoft describing this release as the "seventh release of Windows" when it clearly is no such thing?

"'Windows 7 just makes sense,'" Microsoft corporate vice president Mike Nash wrote in a Microsoft corporate blog Tuesday. "Simply put, this is the seventh release of Windows."

It turns out it's not really that simple. And many tech bloggers are calling Microsoft's bluff, stepping through various versions of Windows in an attempt to justify the logic of the Windows 7 name. But faux indignation aside, this is hardly an intellectual exercise. No matter how you count it, Windows 7 is not the seventh release of Windows.

The problem, of course, is that Microsoft has confusingly used three different branding types for its client versions of Windows. It has used year names (Windows 95, 98), version numbers (Windows 3.1, Windows 3.11), and so-called "aspirational" names--Windows XP and Vista--that are as made up as the word "aspirational."

Looking at just the major versions of Windows, you will find Windows 1.x, 2.x, 3.x, 95, NT 4.0, 2000, XP, and Vista, making Windows 7 the ninth version of Windows. But there have been far more versions of Windows than those--Windows 98, Windows Millennium Edition (Me), Windows NT 3.51, and so on--not to mention supposedly minor versions like Windows 3.1 which were, in fact, huge releases.

Looking at version numbers, things get even more complex, with even more Windows versions. It doesn't help that there were two major Windows product families over the years, starting with the DOS-based "classic" Windows family that ended with Windows Me and the NT family of products that started with version 3.1 to keep it in line with the classic Windows version of the day. Confusing? Yes.

Responding to the criticisms, Mr. Nash followed up his original post and tried to explain how Microsoft arrived at "the seventh release of Windows." It's a bit of tortured logic, where XP (version 5.1) is not counted as a major version while Windows 7 (version 6.1) is. The company would have been better off simply stating the obvious, and what I feel is the real reason for using the Windows 7 moniker: It's simple, and elegant, and we like it.

Microsoft is positioning Windows 7 as a major release of the OS though they've yet to justify that description. Its version number--6.1--hints at what Windows 7 really is, an evolutionary update to the major release called Windows Vista, which was version 6.0. Presumably, the company will add enough end user functionality to the product to make it as interesting as Windows XP, a product that rose well above the meager implications of its own version number.

doesn't really matter to me. why didn't they set the version of the kernel to 6.95, then it could be rounded to 7 and still give them 5 more versions to use.

Do people actually get so worked up and loose sleep over what name Microsoft decides to use for an Operating System? It must be nice if this is all some people have to agnst over. It seems to me that there are bigger problems with more importance to be concerned about than something as trival as the name for an OS. I mean seriously, people are being killed daily all over the globe for various reasons and yet others need only be concerned with what name Microsoft uses for the next release of their OS. Perhaps the energy would be better spent in getting a life.

Who gives a blankity blank what they call it. Is it worth this much energy. I think your phrase “It's simple, and elegant, and we like it” says it best. Or how about “Windows Horizon, the new Vista”. Ron

What about all of the Second Releases and Second Editions? Like Windows 95-SR2, SR2.1, SR2.5, SR2.6, etc... ;-) But, seriously, it would appear that some of these tech bloggers either need another hobby, a girlfriend/boyfriend/spouse or both. Personally, I like Ron's suggestion, but that's just me...

Boy, IT News must be REALLY HARD to come by nowadays when all we can write about what to name an OS. Who the hell cares, as long as it works ok & is SECURE!!! Sheeeesh!

If people took all the energy they waste complaining about Microsoft, and used it to make the world a better place, we'd all be living in paradise.

The question is, will there be a windows 7 ultimate edition? Im looking forward to hand over some dosh for promised extra features that never arrive.

To all those who think this was a waste of energy - so why'd you read it and bother replying to it? ;-)

If the "improvement" from XP to Vista is any gauge, I'll count on 7 to give us at least 7 new reasons to drop Windows for wine on Linux. I find Vista so cumbersome I don't even boot into it often enough to keep it updated.

Who really gives a rats..? Iraq, Afghanistan, world financial meltdowns and Heckle and Jeckle running for President and you're all preoccupied with a Windows version number. God protect us all from the lunies at Trivia Central; what's next, a primetime TV series called Windows Numbers for Wankers?

Well, if you see the current version of Windows starting with the development of Windows NT 3.1 which was a brand new code base, the number 7 makes sense: Version 1 - Windows NT 3.1 Version 2 - Windows NT 3.5/3.51 Version 3 - Windows NT 4 Version 4 - Windows 2000 Version 5 - Windows XP Version 6 - Windows Vista

This discussion about Windows names is completely irrelevant. Who cares why Windows is named the way it is? People should care about when it will be released, what new problems will it introduce, what new features will it bring and so on?

Cool! Now I just have to decide which version to get. Windows 7 Home Basec Windows 7 A Little Bit Better Home Basic Windows 7 Home Ultimate Basic Windows 7 Home Ultimate Ultimate Windows 7 Home Ultimate With A Network Windows 7 Business Basic Windows 7 Business Basic w/ More Than 1 Employee Windows 7 Business Basic w/ A Network Windows 7 Business w/ Amost a Real Network Windows 7 Ultimate Basic Windows 7 Ultimate w/ A Little Bit of All The Rest But Not Enough of Any to Accomplish Much Windows 7 Ultimate Mac Edition decisions, decisions...

One can hope for Windows 7 Windows 7 N (EU anti-trust required version) Windows 7 K (South Korean anti-trust required version) .. and that's it. Well, and Windows Server 2011.

Utterly, utterly, utterly useless article. Its past time that Microsoft stopped naval gazing and "catering to their cistomer base" and got off their ***** and did some work! I've been a Microsoft user since Win 95 OSR2 on my own PC and before that Windows for Workgroups in a company I used to perform contract work for. Stability was noit a strong point in those days, nor security, nor indeed cost - either in financial terms or in terms of resources to run the OS. Microsoft has worked hard to patch the leaky ship, but its like the Titanic, put as many patches as you want below the waterline, build as many sumptuous ballrooms and feature stairs above it, its still a leaky ship that will sink after a major collision because of its internal structure. Surely to goodness, with the resources Microsoft has at its disposal, a ground-up rewrite of Windows can be achieved and is now totally in order. Microsoft swallowed up VW ware, the one product that even the playing field for Linux - by allowing Windows to be run as a VW on a secure Linux box. You had Linux security and stability and all the office applications you needed, plussecure e-mail and browsing, and you could call up Windows when you wanted that latest thingie with all the bells and whistles. Read the writing on the wall guys. Windows is too dear, too resource hungry, and too insecure - by design, not just by default. RIght now a part time hobby [Linux] is goving windows a run for its money in the server market and developing countries are using Linux to teach the next generation. The writing is on the wall boys and girls. Cost. Resources. Security. Speed. Usefulness. Groups. Yes, you can always sell the latest hi-spec windows gaming consule to a rich kid. Rich gamers are less than 1% of the world market. And the limit has been reached there too. Sony say they may never recoup the development costs of PS 3, XBox flopped and the Wii has turned a profit. Nintendo DS PC anyone? Michael O'Neill Ireland

After NT 4.0; NT 5.0 was renamed to Windows 2000, and XP's NT number was 5.1. Vista is NT 6.0. I would prefer the name of Microsoft NT 6.1 to Windows 7, because NT-s were stabil OSs, but Windows' (9x, etc.) were not. Nomen est omen.