How does MS number thy Windows? Let Mike Nash count the ways.

While we were hoping for a bit of naming intrigue for the new flavor of Windows, Microsoft has chosen to simply call it Windows 7. Fair enough, we said, but some netizens are perplexed about where that number came from and, after reading Mike Nash's explanation on the Vista blog, we are too. His numbering scheme goes like this: there were three versions of the original Windows, with NT dubbed 3.1. Then came 95 as version 4, with 98, 98SE, and ME all considered minor updates. 2000 got the next major update to 5, while XP is 5.1, Vista is 6, and this new one is labeled 7. The confusing bit is that it's actually numbered 6.1 internally, a minor version change for the sake of application compatibility. It's still a little early, since the official coming out party isn't until later this month at PDC, but if NT wasn't considered a full step above Windows 3, we're not entirely sure why this should be over Vista. We're also not sure why we care.

[Thanks, Andrews S.]

[dcoaster @ Oct 16th 2008 9:03AM]

The name is not the issue. If they can put out a functioning OS that people like, then there isn't a problem.

[tom @ Oct 16th 2008 9:32AM]

I see it differently.

You see, Vista is named Windows 6 and "6" a Satan's number, thus unlucky, If all else fails, blame on the unlucky number

Seven on the other hand is lucky, as many people refer as "Lucky Seven" Even the price is right has a game called "Lucky $even" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucky_$even

Lucky Seven, come on down!

[Kris @ Oct 16th 2008 9:33AM]

Microsoft announced that they were skipping Office 13 since 13 is unlucky.

[Kiwi616 @ Oct 16th 2008 9:40AM]

@ tom

So then for Japan's release they would have had to skip Version 4 according to your take.

[Quix @ Oct 16th 2008 9:56AM]

My vote is still for Windows 2010 Ultimate Classic Platinum Experience Edition Pro.

[TMM @ Oct 16th 2008 10:08AM]

Funny and confusing is only this:

Windows ME is considered an "update".

Windows Vista is not considered an update.

[Anthony @ Oct 16th 2008 10:11AM]

I think they should pull one from the musical playbook & just go back to "self-titled". Windows.

As for ME & Vista- they always claim they're "rewriting the entire code" so I agree because I think that's what they claimed @ the time. But most people did consider ME an update (failed one @ that).

Vista was supposed to be truly different.

[Jeebus @ Oct 16th 2008 10:28AM]

Don't you mean 63.1 bit?

[Charles @ Oct 16th 2008 10:53AM]

@TMM
While you can debate the benefits of the changes in Vista there's no doubt that there were sufficient to warrant it being a new version. What's confusing is how Windows 7 can be considered a new version when it looks like an update to Vista. If 98/98SE/ME were all considered updates to 95 then surely 7 should be considered an update to Vista?

[Poom @ Oct 16th 2008 11:47AM]

@Charles, it's still just a prototype!! Look at the first longhorn builds... -_-"

[Gojulas @ Oct 16th 2008 11:49AM]

I completely agree; also the numbering system is quite simple (at least if you have used NT Kernel long enough). Ironically the only thing that would make a simple system complex would be calling the upcoming version Windows 7. NT 6 is NT6 no matter what you call it...

NT 4 = NT4
NT 5 = 2000
NT 5.1 = WinXP
NT 5.2 = Win2003
NT 6 = Win2008
NT 6.1 ≠ Win7... Call it VistaXP or something...

Of course my opinion means nothing as, aside from my servers, the only Windows I run is NT5.x...

[Casper42 @ Oct 17th 2008 1:17AM]

I agree with Gojulas.

Windows NT 3.0/3.5/3.51 and Windows 3.0/3.1/WFW3.11 were completely different animals.
With the NT side meant for Business and the WFW line meant for home/desktop use.

Windows 3.11 grew into 95/98/98SE/ME where that line was then killed off.
Windows XP was in essence, the first product where MS brought the Home and Business lines together.
This is why XP came in Home and Pro versions.

-Casper42

[fred @ Oct 16th 2008 9:08AM]

Next up on Engadget we ask why Apple names it's OSs after cats, and then we talk to the Ubuntu people as to why they use names like "Gusty Gibbon". But seriously folks, that Windows7 has to be the most confusing name we've seen! Holy cow, how insane!!!!

Stay tuned!

[CosterMonger @ Oct 16th 2008 9:43AM]

Intrepid Ibex
14 more days
not that big of a deal since they come out every 6 months, I might have to switch to xubuntu

[initialxy @ Oct 16th 2008 4:31PM]

Ubuntu's initials are pretty much in alphabetic order except the first ones.

Dapper Drake
Edgy Eft
Feisty Fawn
Gutsy Gibbon
Hardy Heron
Intrepid Ibex
Jaunty Jackalope

[carleton @ Oct 16th 2008 9:15AM]

Give me a break, is it not terribly obvious why it is called Windows 7 version Windows 6.1? If it where called 6.1, then folks would start asking, what is version 6? When they learned that version 6 is Vista, they would realized that the new version is not a "new version", just Vista version 2. Calling it Windows 7 is Microsoft's attempt to distance themselves from the Vista fiasco.

(Mind you I am a Windows developer and work with both the 32-bit and 63-bit version of Vista every day and I personally don't think it is a fiasco any more, the common person does and that is what Microsoft is trying to correct.)

[ShadowMaker @ Oct 16th 2008 9:18AM]

You're a Windows developer and you work with the 63-bit version? What do you use that spare bit for?

[Kiwi616 @ Oct 16th 2008 9:19AM]

Maybe if you worked with the 64Bit version of windows it would be equivalent to Version 7?

[Will H. @ Oct 16th 2008 9:26AM]

There's a lonely bit somewhere in your office, waiting for you to find it and show it love.

[bob sakamano @ Oct 16th 2008 9:39AM]

does anyone want to come over after school and play nintendo 63 with me?

[Precurse @ Oct 16th 2008 9:45AM]

@Shadow

That was the only way they could get by on those 7 long years of Vista development

[Dave @ Oct 16th 2008 9:52AM]

63-bits? I think that you got shortchanged on a bit there. I'd ask Microsoft for some compensation :). I hope that they aren't doing this to everyone who thinks that they are getting the 64-bit version :O.

[TheGasMan @ Oct 16th 2008 11:58AM]

It was 64-bits before the market crisis.

[Mario @ Oct 16th 2008 9:17AM]

As long as they make it secure and fast, I don't care if they call it Windows Asswipe.

[ace1000_x @ Oct 16th 2008 10:25AM]

Would they base the "Windows Asswipe" GUI on the picture of that dude?

I mean pardon my ignorance, but who is that?

When i saw that picture i thought this was a article about the Gears Of War locust.

[Quix @ Oct 16th 2008 11:45AM]

"As long as they make it secure and fast, I don't care if they call it Windows Asswipe."

I think users have already used that designation for Vista.

[johnzilla @ Oct 16th 2008 12:53PM]

That's Windows Asswipé to you.

[brian @ Oct 16th 2008 9:19AM]

Windows 7 does not sound all that bad.... it's simple and solves the purpose.....what people actually want is a solid OS like Win2003 or WinXP. As long as Microsoft gets this picture, it can soon start kicking Apple as* again like old days. I am not a hard core MS fan but I hate the stupid Apple fan boys who have nothing else to do in life other than spreading bad about MS!!!
http://www.livbit.com

[7on @ Oct 16th 2008 11:56AM]

Snow Leopard does not sound all that bad.... it's simple and solves the purpose.....what people actually want is a solid OS like Tiger or Panther. As long as Apple gets this picture, it can soon start kicking Microsoft as* again like old days. I am not a hard core Apple fan but I hate the stupid MS fan boys who have nothing else to do in life other than spreading bad about Apple!!!
http://spamlink.com

[Will H. @ Oct 16th 2008 9:19AM]

I can't imagine that Vista is a step UP from XP, or that 7 is a step from Vista seeing how soon it's coming out. Maybe they should start numbering backwards, because that's what I did, went back. I was using Vista for over a year, but it finally got to the point where it was still as broken as it was when I started using it, so I went back to XP.

I'm calling it right now, Windows 7 = Windows ME 2009/2010 Edition

[dcoaster @ Oct 16th 2008 9:25AM]

Quite hilarious. It's people like you whose credibility is washed down the drain for making remarks about a piece of software THAT ISN'T EVEN IN BETA YET.

[wiregr @ Oct 16th 2008 1:22PM]

It is in beta. That beta just happens to be called "Windows Vista".

[gfar @ Oct 16th 2008 9:19AM]

Mike Nash needs to get another job or write about something people care about.
Who cares; a Vista by any other name would suck just as much.

[Phil Perman @ Oct 16th 2008 9:20AM]

I was under the impression 95, 98 and ME didn't count in this naming scheme because they weren't built on windows NT which started at windows 3.1. The consumer OS's started using the NT architecture with XP, which was NT 5.1 (with Windows 2000 being NT 5), Vista being 6 and 7 being, well, 7

[Serge @ Oct 16th 2008 9:24AM]

that makes a lot more sense than what engadget just wrote.

was windows 3.11 really NT? weird... what was NT 2? or NT 1?

[Phil Perman @ Oct 16th 2008 9:37AM]

3.11 wasn't NT, Microsoft just started NT at the same time 3.1 was out and decided name NT to match it.

Sounds a bit more complicated than it really need to be, but then Microsoft does like to keep us on our toes

[Andrew @ Oct 16th 2008 10:00AM]

NT had versions 3.51 and NT 4.0, 2000 was NT5 and then XP was 5.1

The consumer versions went from Windows 3.1 to 95 (With Windows for workgroups in between). Windows 95 was never Windows 4. Microsoft kept the NT numbering scheme when the finally gave DOS the boot and started using the NT kernel and architecture in the consumer products (XP). They new DOS was dead with Windows 2000 and that is where the numbering became consistent.

[newsguy @ Oct 16th 2008 11:18AM]

The numbers still don't add up>

Windows NT = 3.1
Windows 2000 = 4
Windows XP = 5
Windows 2003 = 6?
Windows Vista = 7

Windows 7 = 8

[tcc3 @ Oct 16th 2008 11:41AM]

That's because you missed an NT. There was a 3.1-like NT release. NT4 was the new 95 like interface. 2000 was NT5 and was referred to as such by many people until the 2000 name was announced.

[OziD @ Oct 16th 2008 12:56PM]

so what you are all saying is...

Windows 3.1 wasn't Windows 3.1? And I've been fooling myself for 15-ish years?

I feel like I need to start over.

[Ike Turner @ Oct 16th 2008 9:24AM]

Oh shit! No iPhone news to post, let's just slap some wack ass MS bashing news post!

[Skyride @ Oct 16th 2008 9:26AM]

Windows 7 needs to be the last version of windows ever. Or at least in terms of what it is currently. We need a 100% complete re-write of windows. Its so based around legacy support that people seem to be obcessed with. Supporting legacy means less performance for current technology. Ive just started using ubuntu on my laptop (although 64bit vista on my desktop isn't going anywhere in a hurry) so i understand how this prospect could be scary. But we do need to do this. I want a clean, simple OS. Please don't fill it with 15 billion applications. Take the linux approach. Write your OS and put other peoples software on it. Not bloat.

Im sure alot of dev's will agree with me on this.

[Mario @ Oct 16th 2008 9:34AM]

I'm not a dev, but I do agree with you. I'd like MS to build, from the ground up, a genuinely secure and pared down OS, that is easily expandable. Legacy programs can run in a sandboxed virtual machine.

Of course, corporations like McAfee and Symantec would be displeased, and I don't know how much influence they have on MS.

[Skyride @ Oct 16th 2008 9:42AM]

Ye, I only said dev's because few people who aren't dev's know what i mean (im not a dev myself btw).

Symmantec and so on don't have too much power over MS. They have some of the OEM's balls in a vice but most OEM's would take MS over Symmantec any day. Symantec have too much money. A family member of mines who is an interior designer was actually involved in the revamp of their offices in ireland. Total project cost: £25 million. Just to revamp a 2000 person office. Don't get me started on norton. I'd rather have a virus than norton. Its a virus in itself. The only criteria its not a virus on is there was no malicious intent.

[Jeff @ Oct 16th 2008 9:56AM]

That won't happen. The legacy support is necessary in Windows because it's the standard OS, and when it's the standard, you can't completely change it up every few years. That's why GM, Dodge, and Ford so rarely change their van designs, if they did, the van converter industry would shut down for two years while they updated their products.

Of course, I think it would be a good idea to start cutting off legacy support at XP, that might happen. If you're still using software from Windows 98, you have issues.

[Skyride @ Oct 16th 2008 10:06AM]

Jeff, I take your point but heres what I am saying. If you buy a new computer in 10 years running my hypotehtically, completely rewritten windows 8 and your 10 year old printer won't work, tough. Simple as. Buy a new printer. Say it costs... £40? It'll be a far better printer. Its peoples unwilling-ness to change. Also you could run older apps via an emulation tool like what WINE does on linux. Very easily, and if that still dosen't work, you can dual boot like mac users do with bootcamp and i don't see them complaining much?

Your kidding me on if people have apps from 95 era that they absolutely need and use on a daily basis but there isn't a new version. These sort of people just needed to be slapped with a baseball bat into the 21st century.

[newsguy @ Oct 16th 2008 11:26AM]

Legacy support isn't going anywhere, is overtime has been phased out. In Vista they stopped supporting dos applications and Windows 3.1 app's, it will take time to wipe out all legacy code because so many companies still rely on older code for applications they do not want to rewrite or are too costly to rewrite.

You are not a dev thats why you see things the way you do, many of us who are developers see that moving forward is not a problem but with large companies running older applications and are UNWILLING to pay to update that code then problems arise.

Maybe you didn't notice all the crying people were having running some applications on Vista? The common complaint was - X game or X application ran fine on Windows XP why does Vista not work with it?? So Vista was blamed, when in all honesty it was poor programming and sloppy coding that caused incompatibilites ( for the most part devs were writting for single user systems with the idea the user was an admin account and had write access to the registry and system files). So taking your idea of removing all old legacy code what you get is 10x the numbre of people crying about things not working because Windows 7 is breaking your older code.

[Tiago @ Oct 16th 2008 11:29AM]

I'm a developer and I don't agree with you.
You probably have no idea the ammount of effort involved in creating something like a new operating system from scratch nowadays. Something new would have to do everything Windows does (or close to it) and do it much better for it to be worth abandoning everything that has bene built on top of it.

And be that as it may, Windows DOES NOT need a rewrite.
Sure, it has problems. most of them however are in the user space. The shell could use a lot of reworking but the foundations are pretty good.
Most of the crashes people have are due to bad drivers. Yet most people don't bust Nvidia's or AMD's balls, they just blame Microsoft because they don't know any better.

A lot of people bash Windows and say it should do this or that or it should have been developed like this or like that, but they're just ignorant.
It's ok, i'm ignorant about a lot of things.
Difference is i'm humble enough to admit I don't know crap about cars and I don't go around car forums saying my car should have been done with this or that engine/transmission/whatever.
Gonna stop right there before I go off on a(n even bigger) rant.

[gyffes @ Oct 16th 2008 1:01PM]

Why is this comment so low-ranked? It's spot on in terms of explaining why Windows is so bloated AND so difficult to manage (ever try tweaking a specific DLL?) -- it's carrying legacy code dating back to 3.1, at least.

People knock Apple (you know who you are) for saying, "Ok, those of you whose machines are XX years old, you won't be able to run this software..." but that ignores 2 key facts:

1) Often, the new software WILL run on the older machines and
2) This allows Apple to purge old code in favor of lighter, cleaner, rewritten code.

Never underestimate the power of a clean slate, something M$ hasn't seen in 15 years. I understand that there are businesses out there that rely upon some ancient, hand-written bit of code that ONLY runs on DOS; those companies need to suck it up and join the 21st century. Compete or die, but don't drag the rest of us down with you just b/c you're too lazy/cheap to upgrade your internal software.

[bjsguess @ Oct 16th 2008 2:41PM]

If you thought the whining about Vista compatibility issues was bad wait until you write a new OS from the ground up.

I'm not opposed to the idea. Having even a smaller release "new version" running parallel to Windows 7 might work. But, you will never be able to do a complete re-write on the core, mainstream, Windows OS. Businesses would never adopt due to the amount of testing required and all of the hardware they currently own.