Windows 7 equals some strange math
In many ways, Microsoft's decision to keep the Windows 7 name was entirely logical.
It was the product's code name, something relatively simple, and it is generally seen as a lucky number (at least here in the United States).
But to arrive at the number 7, Microsoft does some strange math, as general manager Mike Nash outlined in a blog posting Tuesday. Nash writes:
The very first release of Windows was Windows 1.0, the second was Windows 2.0, the third Windows 3.0.
Here's where things get a little more complicated. Following Windows 3.0 was Windows NT, which was code-versioned as Windows 3.1. Then came Windows 95, which was code-versioned as Windows 4.0. Then, Windows 98, 98 SE and Windows Millennium each shipped as 4.0.1998, 4.10.2222, and 4.90.3000, respectively. So we're counting all 9x versions as being 4.0.
Windows 2000 code was 5.0, and then we shipped Windows XP as 5.1. Even though it was a major release, we didn't want to change code version numbers to maximize application compatibility. That brings us to Windows Vista, which is 6.0. So we see Windows 7 as our next logical significant release and seventh in the family of Windows releases.
Well, there you have it.
Perhaps more noteworthy is the fact that, although Vista got the version number 6.0, Windows 7 won't actually be version 7.0. Rather, it will be Windows 6.1.
That goes to the very fine line Microsoft is trying to walk with Windows 7. The company is at once trying to reassure IT folks that it is not a radical departure from Windows Vista and at the same time tell consumers it is a significant upgrade from Vista.
In his blog post, Nash tries to thread that very fine needle as well.
"We learned a lot about using 5.1 for XP and how that helped developers with version checking for API compatibility," Nash wrote. "We also had the lesson reinforced when we applied the version number in the Windows Vista code as Windows 6.0--that changing basic version numbers can cause application compatibility issues. So we decided to ship the Windows 7 code as Windows 6.1, which is what you will see in the actual version of the product, in cmd.exe or computer properties."
But he tries to convince consumers that they shouldn't read too much into that decision. "There's been some fodder about whether using 6.1 in the code is an indicator of the relevance of Windows 7," Nash wrote. "It is not."
Of course, the real proof will come in two weeks, when Microsoft hands out the first Windows 7 code to developers and outlines what the operating system update is all about. Then we will all be able to better judge for ourselves just how big a deal Windows 7 is (or isn't).
During her years at CNET News, Ina Fried has changed beats several times, changed genders once, and covered both of the Pirates of Silicon Valley. These days, most of her attention is focused on Microsoft. E-mail Ina. 
But just for the fun of it, what do you get when you add all windows together.
Windows: CE+ME+NT= CEMENT....LOL
]:) See this video for more in depth info:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6FnE6y9JIM
LOLOLOL!!
I'm running Vista 64 Home Premium on my laptop and 64 Ultimate on my machine PC. Laptop with 4gb of ram, PC with 8gb of ram and two 9800gtx in SLI and I absolutely LOVE my PC with Vista.
There are minor things I encounter every now and then that make me wonder what they were thinking, like yesterday I needed to hook up to an HD encoder through serial to configure a replacement card... so I go to load up trusty ole Hyper Terminal only to find it's not included with Vista. Not sure why, it's not like it was a behemoth of an application and while it may not be universally useful, it definitely has it's uses. I had to head over to download.com and download a freebie terminal program so I could make a serial connection. It irks me that Add Remove Programs is no longer that and now Programs & Features located way down towards the bottom of Control Panel instead of up at the top... why change that? We were so use to Add Remove Programs and it's location, and they rename it and stick it way down at the bottom. Simple things like that get to me, but over all, I think Vista is gorgeous, incredibly easy to use and I love that 64bit is becoming the standard install choice.
I have 4 systems running Vista out in the work place, my desktop, one laptop and two workstations... none of which have had any incompatibility issues with the software packages that we use.
My production department has an iMac with Final Cut and Photoshop which they were addicted to using, but now they have a suped up Vista 64 workstation running Adobe CS3 Production Premium and the iMac is collecting dust. They hated the Vista box at first, but the more they used it, the more the they forgot about the iMac.
So I think you are following a lot of the same misconceptions my girlfriend and some of the people at work had with Vista until they actually USED it.
That slice that says Vista gets bigger every month, so there must be a few of us out there that like it.
It's true then, M$ apologists really are masochistic.
I'm running Vista on a 1.8 GHz Athlon64x2, and it runs great with 3GB RAM and until recently a Radeon x700 video card. 1GB wasn't too smooth for HD in Media Center and Photoshop, but other than that it was passable. Unti
Most any up to date $400 desktop will run Vista fine.
Read the other article on Mac users having to pay "Windows" tax. It's an eye opener. If you go the Mac way, add all of what you want, you will wind up with the most expensive single computer in consumer history - exceeding the Mac Pro at $2,800, which just has OSX. It's cheaper to have multiple machines with a single OS on each. The only thing gained by putting it all together on a Mac box is that you can cut and paste objects between the concurrent OS's that are running. Whoopee! I'd rather put 3 boxes on a network and do it that way. If one fails, at least I have 2 others to keep going. Putting all the eggs in one basket looks nice, but if the basket breaks...
You will have warranty problems with Apple. They have a habit of pointing fingers to everyone else and say you're not covered in this case, because you didn't buy it that way from Apple. You CAN buy it that way from Apple, but the price will be high 4 digits and the Apple configuration of Windows and Linux will not match what you will get from the FULL price retail box, but crippled. Are users willing to compromise on a scaled down version of the software for more than the full retail price of a retail box? I don't think so.
This is a decision that needs to be explored in DEPTH and attention paid to CONFIGURATION and PRICE POINTS. You still can't buy an Apple PC from a non-Apple HW supplier and have complete freedom with the Intel chip in it. Psystar has one, but when I looked at it in depth and started asking questions, it had more "thou shalt nots" than "you can do this". For one, it doesn't support a floppy, USB 2.0 ports, or a dial-up modem. You have to write your own device drivers in Linux. They will tell you what will work best and what they are certifying. Which means - waiting until they get around to it. They are running Windows Vista and OSX on a customized Linux kernel. You can only add hardware that they have given their stamp of approval, otherwise it voids the warranty. The price was to good to be true, but after digging, i found out why.
No Mac for me. Ever. The exit strategy from WIndows platforms is too expensive. I will stick with my XP systems. CNET showed that 85% of the world's PC's are still running XP and they will not switch to Vista. Hence MSFT extended the deadline date for XP/xP Pro purchases again for the 4th time, but no PC can be bought with it installed EXCEPT the ultra-cheap models that have to be configured NOT to be able to run VIsta. When will MSFT ever learn to listen to it's customer base? Windows 7, I heard will be a completely stripped out version of Vista, and the goodies will have to be purchased separately.
With the economy the way it is, the consumer will finally get their way. Inventory will pile up, layoffs will begin, prices will be cut drastically, and we will be in a Depression of the likes that make the 1929 version tame. This one will be world wide. MSFT cannot continue to work on thousands of S/W products that most don't want and provide a low benefit/cost ratio. Look at the prices of Vista when it came out. Bordering on the obscene. They should have done ONE version, Ultimate/ Ultimate Upgrade and price it at $99/$69. I think we will see that sometime in 2009. And yes, XP/XP Pro will be extended again and again. Don't count on Windows 7. The economy will not support it and the plans MSFT have to nickel and dime us for every add-on option. That's my findings and opinions formed from it.
xbox 360...what the hell happen to xbox 2 to xbox 359??????
As for Windows Vista SP1 being 6.1, no its not, check winver and you will see that its still 6.0. So, Windows 7 being NT 6.1 doesn't necessarily mean its minor. Microsoft needs to maintain compatibility, not all applications are programmed to do OS version checking. Microsoft wants to avoid this.
Hey, they have to recoup their loses in that disaster code base somehow.
And my mother's brother's daughter's son had a cousin who was 6th in line to the seccession of the kingdom...
Forget the terrible reaction people had when they discovered they had to pay extra to get the bells and whistles. Forget about the hardware requirements that outstripped all but the most powerful computers available at release. Forget about Apple having more features in hardware and more stable and secure software. It's all some faceless PR-bot's fault that Vista wasn't a success.
Vista is not a failure... you simply put too much faith into those PC vs Mac commercials.
Granted, I can see your point about different versions of Windows... but that hardly makes it a failure. Theres very little you can do on a Mac that I cannot do on a PC and vice versa... with the exception of the amazing amount of software and games that's out there for Windows which makes it a much better choice for consumers.
If Apple allowed you to install OS X on any hardware, then you might start to see OS X in more homes and work places, but I doubt that will happen anytime soon. Takes a long time to tear down those proprietary walls.
At least you guys got a game (Spore) on the same day it came out for PC instead of 6-12 months later ;)
Wait a second, did I read that right? You're advocating for the most proprietary lock-in system on the market (winblows), yet using that line against Apple? What are you smoking anyway?
I can't afford a machine that will run fista (my box is a dual boot machine, ex-pee for gaming and Ubuntu for real work), but I have friends who suffer it. It *IS* a failure. Read the comments from fista fans, they're the funniest bunch I've ever read. "2.8Ghz Core 2 Duo, 4GB RAM, dual video cards with 512MB each run in SLI mode and fista works great." Yeah, show me an OS that won't run on that level of hardware and I'll show you an OS that hasn't been designed yet. "Everything moved around and it's taking me a while to figure out how to work it, but I love it anyway." My friends haven't been so forgiving with it.
My box at home? 2.8Ghz P4 (old school, pre-Core days), 1GB RAM and an old ATI 9200 (ex-pee runs decently on it, Ubuntu is greased lightning on it). Try to get fista to run decently on that! My work machine? Mac mini, 2GHz Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM and OSX 10.5.5 (the latest and greatest version). It positively screams. Try getting fista to even run on a $600 machine!
We won't even get started on who owns your fista computer - hint, it's not you. (Still puzzled? OK, another hint, but this is the last one ... WGA.)
Yeah, fista is an absolute failure and winblows 7 is nothing more than a rebadged fista. Don't cry, mistakes are what we learn from.
18% of U.S. computer market share and 31% of total revenues for computers sold in the U.S. is "suck"?
I'd love to have those problems. Heck, I'd love to have HALF those problems.
Btw: I write Windows application installers for a living. I know that of which I speak.
Windows 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0 were all major releases, each significantly different from the other. All variations of 3.1 and 3.11 were technically far superior to 3.0, but were basically the same generation of Windows, with mostly the same UI and so on. Windows NT debuted at 3.1, as indicated, and sort of melded in with the version system already in place. When Windows 95 and NT4 came out, each one got a face lift, and they looked much the same in terms of the UI, so they were collectively version 4 of Windows. Then came 98, 98SE, and Me, all evolutionary advancements of the original Win95, not warranting a version change.
Windows 2000 was a MAJOR upgrade from NT4, as it introduced some very significant networking capabilities (serious Active Directory overhaul), Plug-n-Play hardware support along with the Device Manager, etc., so it definitely deserved the generation 5 designation. Windows XP, at least in its original incarnation, was mostly an evolutionary update of 2000, so for businesses it was a minor update, but for consumers it was a major upgrade because it put to rest the old DOS-based underpinnings of the consumer line of Windows, and all the instability that went along with it, so the 5.1 version fits for both sides, still 5th gen for business, new 5th gen for consumers. There is one anomaly here though, that being XP SP2. That wasn't really a service pack, but rather a complete OS overhaul. Most of the changes weren't visible to typical users, but they were significant. It really should have been released as an updated version, like 98SE back in the day, but they decided to put it out for free in a service pack. XP SP2 is more like a version 5.5, still the same outer shell, but all remodeled inside.
That brings us up to Vista, which contrary to the ignorant opinions of some, is practically a complete OS rewrite. New kernel, new hardware layer, new networking stack, new just about everything, not to mention a serious security overhaul. This is definitely the 6th major generation of Windows. Of course, as history goes, there's generally one or more slight updates to Windows that are passed off as new "versions" before another major update comes out. This one is being billed as a major update, which is back-to-back with another major update.
Time will tell if it's really a major update or not. I'm inclined to think that from most perspectives, it won't be seen as a major update, which is going to make the 7 tag somewhat difficult to attach, especially if they insist on keeping the "hidden" version number at 6.1. But in the end, it will be whatever Microsoft wants it to be, and I happen to think that "Windows 7" just sounds cool, looks cool, and so on, so I'm inclined to go along with it and enjoy it. Honestly, some things just aren't worth losing sleep over. ;)
So Microsoft are now hoping that luck will save them because they tried everything else.
I am waiting for Android 1.0. I think it will be much better than Windows 7.
- by misfire99 October 15, 2008 3:23 PM PDT
- Gee all this time I thought windows was monolithic. And MS testified in court that they couldn't remove IE because it was part of the operating system. I guess that means it is monolithic. But here we have people talking about the windows "kernel" Gee it must be Linux in disguise.
- Reply to this comment
-
-
- by brass2themax October 16, 2008 7:20 PM PDT
- Wow, you obviously don't know what a kernel actually is. You've heard the term "kernel" associated with Linux, so you assume that a "kernel" is a Linux-only component? That pretty much discredits anything you said right there.
-
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (48 Comments)Vista is a near-complete rewrite of the Windows OS. I say "near", as a lot of the same dialogs are reused in various places (ie. Device Manager is the same, it's just that you have to go through some extra windows to get to it). Vista is in no way monolithic. User Account Control anyone? We all hate it (and if you don't you should), but really, that's completely new.