When Microsoft announced that it will keep the Windows 7 moniker for Vista's follow-up, I was happy to hear it. After years of trying to be clever with names like XP or Vista (not to mention Longhorn), Microsoft has finally realized that keeping it simple is the best idea in the operating-system market.
And then, just as the company tried to lay the groundwork for simplicity, it blew up in its convoluted justification for naming Windows 7.
It starts out simple enough: the first Windows was Windows 1.0, the second, 2.0, and so on. But then Microsoft revealed that Windows 95 was Windows 4.0 and "Windows 98, Windows 98 SE, and Windows Millennium each shipped as 4.0.1998, 4.10.2222, and 4.90.3000, respectively."
Oh, and don't forget that Windows XP, although a major release, was actually Windows 5.1, since Windows 2000 was Windows 5.0. And thanks to Vista being dubbed Windows 6.0, we arrive at Windows 7.
Is it even possible for Microsoft to make sense anymore? Why couldn't the company have just said, "uh, we named it Windows 7 because, well, we wanted to"? Wouldn't that have been much simpler?
See, when Microsoft first told us that it wouldn't change Windows 7's name, I was happy. I figured that the company had finally seen the light, and for once, it would try to take complexity out of the equation and start bringing a culture of simplicity to Windows.
I'm starting to think that I was wrong.… Read more