News - Microsoft clarifies Windows 7 name, but is it technically accurate?

[HEXUS]

Windows 7 seemed a logical name for Microsoft's forthcoming successor to Windows Vista, but it isn't quite as simple as it seems.

Read more.

[MadduckUK]

if it was "windows 7.x" you may have had a point... "windows 7" does not match up to the old naming convention though and therefore this is a non-starter

[Funkstar]

Just like Windows Mobile version name doesn't match up with the actual built versioning.

Windows Mobile 6.1 Professional
CE OS 5.2.19971 (Build 19971.1.2.6)

[Whiternoise]

Sounds alright to me, though it just seems like they're going with Apple's Leopard -> Snow Leopard style thing.

[shaithis]

We haven't had the build number match since windows 3.11, since then its been about matching names to IDs. Windows 7 is just another name.

[kalniel]

Like I said before, if they wanted to associate it with Vista they'd have just called it Vista mkII (or SE or something). It's just a name.

[CK_1985]

There is some sort of twisted logic there - in coding terms in makes sense for it to be 6.1.x as it is not a completely new system, so 7.x would be misleading. But then they can't call it "Windows 6" because that puts it chronologically before Vista, which makes no sense. Given that they had decided against using an 'aspirational' name, Windows 7 does become the logical choice.

[shaithis]

But then they can't call it "Windows 6" because that puts it chronologically before Vista, which makes no sense.

Considering the list of windows names, ANYTHING could be considered logical.

There has been absolutely zero consistency to Windows naming over the years, why start looking for it now?

[WoLFe]

Call me stupid.. but where is Windows ME?

[moogle]

Better to have a number or a name affixed rather than a year, is it just me or does it make the software seem old if it's affixed with a year and the current year is past that? Makes Office 07 feel old now.

[MadduckUK]

Better to have a number or a name affixed rather than a year, is it just me or does it make the software seem old if it's affixed with a year and the current year is past that? Makes Office 07 feel old now.

its true, its fine and very useful for stuff that comes out every year (like fifa games etc) but for stuff with gaps of many years it shouldn't be linked to the year

Call me stupid.. but where is Windows ME?

it was that forgettable

[shaithis]

Call me stupid.. but where is Windows ME?

Probably brushed under the carpet and quietly forgotten.

[moogle]

Probably brushed under the carpet and quietly forgotten.

I actually thought ME was alright when I was using it. I don't recall having many BSOD's with it. What was the main issue that made it a flop?

[shaithis]

I actually thought ME was alright when I was using it. I don't recall having many BSOD's with it. What was the main issue that made it a flop?

Mainly freezes and BSODs, plus some serious issues with system restore.

They also tried to remove the underlying DOS, which back then was used heavily by a lot of people still.

[moogle]

Mainly freezes and BSODs, plus some serious issues with system restore.

They also tried to remove the underlying DOS, which back then was used heavily by a lot of people still.

Ahh yes the system restore. Forgot completely about that. Always used to fubar my files, never used it since.

[wjharing]

Maybe that 'Windows Cloud' will become windows NT v7.0?

but I do agree that a version number is a lot better than a stupid year. Call it win95, while it was released late 95. 4 later it is 1996 and you already think you're using an outdated system.

Similar with Office, is Office 2003 just one version before Office 2007, or is there an version in between?

Maybe they should also stop calling it Windows all together, and call is something more trendy...