Windows 7 to be officially named... Windows 7

Microsoft is expected to be handing out pre-betas of Windows 7 to devs at WinHEC and PDC soon, and it looks like it's settled on an official name for its next-gen OS -- ahem, Windows 7. Yep, the code name is the real name, which is a first for Windows. According to Mike Nash on the Vista blog, the company went with Windows 7 because it "just makes sense" as the seventh release of Windows, and MS doesn't want to come up with a new "aspirational" name like Vista -- it "doesn't do justice" to the goal of staying "firmly rooted" in the ideas of Vista. Which probably explains why it looks so much the same. Sure, call it whatever you like, just get it out the door on time, okay?

[Esat Dedezade @ Oct 13th 2008 6:15PM]

So, what IS new in Windows 7?

[Rususeruru @ Oct 13th 2008 6:16PM]

the naming scheme

[Matthew C @ Oct 13th 2008 6:22PM]

Actually, no. Remember windows 3.1?

well, I don't, but I know it existed.

[Peter @ Oct 13th 2008 6:37PM]

I REMEMBER! I'd always quit to MS-DOS because Commander Keen would be too slow running under Win 3.1

[Quix @ Oct 13th 2008 6:53PM]

"According to Mike Nash on the Vista blog, the company went with Windows 7 because it "just makes sense" as the seventh release of Windows"

So if it "just makes sense," why wasn't Vista called Windows 6? And XP called Windows 5? Or did it "just make sense" once Vista was shunned? Um, yeah.

Me, I say go for Windows 2010 Ultimate Classic Platinum Experience Edition Pro. That captures the essence of Windows in a nutshell.

Now to sit back and watch everyone who praises Windows 7 get voted up and anyone who doesn't shower Microsoft with slobbery love get voted down. It's the Engadget Way.

This comments board brought to you by Microsoft (TM).

[Esat Dedezade @ Oct 13th 2008 6:59PM]

"Windows 2010 Ultimate Classic Platinum Experience Edition Pro"

Dude.... I'd tap that.

[kojo87 @ Oct 13th 2008 7:00PM]

wow Quix you got that worked up over "it just makes sense"?

what if i told you i love Vista and OSX is totally unusable

[Mike B. @ Oct 13th 2008 7:13PM]

@quix

windows vista is 6... XP is 5.1... 2000 was NT 5.0... and NT 4 came out when windows 95 came out (also 4.0 but not NT)

[fred @ Oct 13th 2008 7:14PM]

@kojo87

He's an Apple fanatic, so he actually thinks normal people can actually see a point to his post

[Matt @ Oct 13th 2008 8:01PM]

@ Mike B

Yes, Vista was 6... but 7 is 6.1.

[GiF @ Oct 13th 2008 7:48PM]

I'm not sure... Looks like Vista.

[phanbouy @ Oct 13th 2008 8:15PM]

yet Quix was right and people made fun of him just like he predicted.

[Nihility @ Oct 13th 2008 8:39PM]

@phanboy
And yet he didn't prevent himself from failing.

[sbrown23 @ Oct 13th 2008 9:11PM]

For the winners too lazy to do any research on what will be new in "7", here is an excellent resource:

http://www.winsupersite.com/faq/windows_7.asp

[kojo87 @ Oct 13th 2008 9:20PM]

sbrown23: that makes people winners?

[Kelemvor @ Oct 13th 2008 9:31PM]

It just makes sense eh?

3.1
95
NT
98
ME
2000
XP
VIsta
7?

So which ones aren't they counting? ME wasn't a real OS so you could leave that one out. NT wasn't really for home PCs so does that get left out too?

[nikster @ Oct 13th 2008 9:58PM]

@Kelemvor - 7 refers to this being Windows NT version 7. The Windows NT version numbers are consistent ever since NT was created:
Windows NT until version 3.x
Windows 2000 = NT 4.x
Windows XP = NT 5.x
Windows Vista = NT 6.x
Windows 7 = NT 7.x.

When you start the Command Prompt, the NT version is printed out on the first line of text.

The weirdo ranting and raving above aside, Microsoft knows that the Vista brand name is tainted and so they want a fresh start. Windows 7 is pretty good, IMO - just get back to engineering basics.

[bhtooefr @ Oct 13th 2008 10:28PM]

Technically, the order is this...

For consumer versions:

1.0
2.0
2.1 (in 286 and 386 versions - 8088 and 8086 users were stuck with 2.0)
3.0 (last version with 8088/8086 support)
3.1
4.0 (95)
4.1 (98)
4.9 (ME)
NT 5.1 (XP)
NT 6.0 (Vista)

For business versions:

NT 3.1
NT 3.5x
NT 4.0
NT 5.0 (2000)
NT 5.1 (XP)
NT 6.0 (Vista)

[garrenteed @ Oct 13th 2008 10:43PM]

Item 1, 2, and 3 of course

[Jon Nelson @ Oct 13th 2008 10:54PM]

@ Peter

Hell YES Commander Keen! And Jazz Jackrabbit, and Raptor, and all kinds of other kinda of old-school, low quality but IMMENSELY enjoyable video games.

Can't forget One Must Fall 2099, but I think that was more of a Win95 thing. My dad actually bitched me and my bro out for wearing out the Ctrl key on the keyboard from OMF2099.

[ac14 @ Oct 13th 2008 11:05PM]

you forgot 3.11 :/

[Matt @ Oct 13th 2008 11:43PM]

Heh, low ranked? Not my fault that their numbers don't match.

[linuxamp @ Oct 14th 2008 12:51AM]

Nobody mentioned 2003 (5.2) and 2008 (also 6.0).

[OneLove @ Oct 14th 2008 11:28AM]

Windows 7 is vista reloaded!

[enki @ Oct 19th 2008 6:46PM]

Vista is to Windows 7
as
DOS 6.2 is to DOS 6.22

[Leindurstit @ Oct 13th 2008 6:16PM]

I can't wait for Apple to bring on the 10 > 7 commercials. I hope they film them on the preschool playground too, as to match their maturity.

[Platinum_Skeet @ Oct 13th 2008 6:21PM]

I'm so glad Microsoft made the "I am a PC" commercials I haven't seen any of those annoying Mac ads lately...

[nerdtalker @ Oct 13th 2008 6:59PM]

There really isn't anything here to make fun of, considering they've been on the OS %Number naming scheme since just about day one.

I'm surprised Engadget didn't cry foul over Microsoft using the same Windows %Number schema for this iteration.

Like it makes a difference anyway.

[Lowest Ranked @ Oct 13th 2008 6:16PM]

Nilay, that was pretty painful to read.

[Kamokazi @ Oct 13th 2008 6:20PM]

So are most of your posts.

[Jake Tobak @ Oct 13th 2008 6:24PM]

If it hurts when you're reading, you're doing wrong.

[Poom @ Oct 13th 2008 6:52PM]

I always hate Nilay's posts because they're mostly hard to read...

[Jake Lyon @ Oct 13th 2008 6:18PM]

Y'know I was thinking

[Sora @ Oct 13th 2008 6:55PM]

OBJECTION!!!

[Greg Mcp @ Oct 13th 2008 6:19PM]

Not "Buena Vista"? The Good version of Vista?

[chris @ Oct 13th 2008 9:45PM]

No, that was mojave.

Same old barbie doll, they just added a new hat.

[TRAFFICBLOWS @ Oct 13th 2008 9:49PM]

we'll see how good it is... Me looked a lot like 98 with more bells and whistles and look how buena that turned out!

[PM1 @ Oct 13th 2008 6:19PM]

Hardy Heron!
Intrepid Ibex!
Leopard!
Snow Leopard!
Android!

.......

7

wtf? hmm.

[Kamokazi @ Oct 13th 2008 6:21PM]

7 of 9

:-)

[Peter @ Oct 13th 2008 6:45PM]

Just make sure it's out before Duke Nukem Forever; which I estimate to be release Dec. 4, 2017

[telepheedian @ Oct 13th 2008 8:25PM]

It actually does sound kind of cool when you put it that way.


SEVEN

[Telanis @ Oct 13th 2008 11:41PM]

Has anyone else noticed that "Hardy Heron" is just a spoonerism away from "Hairy Hardon"?

[AlekZander @ Oct 13th 2008 6:20PM]

"Uh, sure, call it whatever you like, just get it out the door on time, okay?"

No! No, no, no! This was exactly the reason Vista was such a disaster, because they were so desperate to get it released after so many delays. Keep it until it's done RIGHT, no matter how long it takes.

[z0phi3l @ Oct 13th 2008 6:31PM]

Microsoft have NEVER done something right

[Serial 8-Ball Mouse @ Oct 13th 2008 6:38PM]

@z0phi3l

Dumbass.

[BigD145 @ Oct 13th 2008 6:51PM]

Put aside a few people to work on an inventive name and have a competition between them and the coders. Whoever finishes first gets beat up by the other group and told, "Get back to work you lazy bastards."

[chickenator @ Oct 13th 2008 10:42PM]

z0phi3l is right.

[chickenator @ Oct 13th 2008 10:42PM]

z0phi3l is right.

[Richard Lai @ Oct 13th 2008 6:20PM]

"Windows VII" would go along with the likes of "OS X".

[tuaamin13 @ Oct 13th 2008 7:22PM]

If you look at it that way, it's almost like the Wii.

Windows Vii.

Catchy, right?