How does MS number thy Windows? Let Mike Nash count the ways.
By Tim Stevens 
posted October 16th 2008 8:58AM
posted October 16th 2008 8:58AM
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.]
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.
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.
The numbering logic doesn't make sense because it changed just like the naming plan.
I thought Windows NT was version 4, 2000 was 5, and XP was 6?
Actually, if you made a service call to get the version number, Windows 95 came back with "3.95".
It still had DOS underpinnings.
NT was a separate branch of Windows for business when Win95 came out. It's what Vista was built on. The Win95-WinME platform was Win 4.x for the DOS-based Windows.
Windows NT 6.0 = Windows Vista
Windows NT 5.2 = Windows Server 2003
Windows NT 5.1 = Windows XP
Windows NT 5.0 = Windows 2000
Windows NT 4.0 = Windows NT
That makes sense. Thanks Dude.
:-)
Yes. The description in the vista team blog does not make any sense. Especially, they completely ignored Windows NT 4.0. Your description is much better and much more logical.
It seems the marketing guys at microsoft don't understand their own product versioning.
Why have to take it soooo serious?
I think what you meant to say was, "Why so serious?"
There was also NT 3.51
Windows 6.1, 6+1 = 7
IMO this can't get any more stupid than this. This will eventually lead some other nonsense product names in the future. Either the version should be 7.0 or the name shouldn't be 7.
anybody is really looking forward to windows 7? is there anything really useful other than multi-touch from it? I was looking forward to DX10 on vista, but it turned out to be such a big disappointment.
The number 7 is considered very consumer friendly. The choice probably has something to do with consumer psychology.
As long as it's Windows 7 and not Windows 7 Home Premium 64-Bit Turbo Championship Edition. Please Microsoft, no more variants.
Come on, don't you guys know anything about computers? The problem with Vista had NOTHING to do with Microsoft, that would have been an amazing OS had they put their hands into the hardware as well.. The days of creating an OS and leaving the hardware up to whoever, are over. If Microsoft thinks they can do the same thing with "7" then you can expect another Vista flop... I guess they can demand very stringent specs from hardware manufacturers buut.. Well You don't need to take my word for all this, just use Vista to see how shitty things can be when you develop the two most important aspects of a computer - totally separately.
I still blame the OEMs for a lot of the first-round Vista problems personally. They tried stuffing their slightly-tested XP utilities into Vista to make sure that you saw their brand name in as many places as possible. Clean installs of Vista have not given me nearly as much trouble. I remember the OEMs screaming when Vista was put off for the holiday season (2006?) because they wanted it ASAP to boost their new machine sales.
If they would just make some branded wallpaper, verify the hardware, and make their applications optional downloads instead of prepackaged, I think that would help the problem.
@micro, well said. I got my laptop with vista from dell and it was just horrible. I did a fresh clean install of 64bit, tracked down all the drivers I needed because dell doesnt support 64bit, and I have not had a single issue at all. It is all the OEMs fault for installing vista on computers that just cant run it.
M$ is still to be blamed for distributing those horrible OEM versions, like their distribute xbox360 knowing there are RRoD problems.
I'd prefer if the next release of Windows was based on the 5.x code base. Why change what works?
Other names considered:
* Windows Vista Remix
* Windows Not-Vista
* Windows Seriously-it's not Vista
* Windows ME^2
* Bob
But seriously, are we at the point in attacking MS that we question their naming convention and site it as fault? And is the expectation, for those that think Vista really does suck, that MS would craft an entirely new operating system from the ground up? Look people, Vista might have some annoyances, but c'mon...it should be expected that the next 'big' revision was merely a refresh on the previous release.
And I may be alone on this, but as an interface, I like it. Sure, the security warning are annoying, and the hardware and software compatibility could use some help, but I would think it's easier to fix that then to start over.
Once and for all...
NT 3.1 - 1993
NT 3.5 - 1994
NT 3.51 - 1995
NT 4.0 - 1996
NT 5.0 - 2000 (Windows 2000)
NT 5.1 - 2002 (Windows XP)
NT 5.2 - 2003 (Windows Server 2003)
NT 6.0 - 2007/2008 (Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008)
And there was one OS to rule them all...
and Windows 1.x, Windows 2.x, Windows 3.x, Windows 4.x (95, 98, ME) were all graphical shells on top of DOS. The confusion comes more because people don't know about the 1.x thru 3.x history of classic 8- & 16-bit versions of Windows than anything else. If AMD & Intel started naming their chips by the x86 system again there would probably be similar confusion. Although since the 8086 was a 16-bit enhanced version of the 8088, we should probably have moved up to 80482 and should probably now be on x84...
Interesting that no one has pointed out the OS that was between Win 98 and NT....OS/2. Sure IBM ran with it, but that was VERY much a MS OS.
Windows NT is not Windows 3.1. NT was almost a completely different opsys back then. Windows NT 3.1 was the successor to windows NT 3.0 (i assume), and windows 3.1 (the OS that i'm sure we all remember, since it was almost the last fully 16-bit windows) was the successor to Windows 3.0.
As for why they are calling it windows 7 when it is really 6.1.. does that really make any sense? maybe they're trying to synchronize with an upcoming window mobile 7, but.. that's just stupid. there really is no good explanation
OK, Engadget either needs better writers, or the current ones must do *gasp* some research before posting. I won't get into the Apple-gadget business here, as there are enough trolls and crazy fanboys who do that anyway.
DOS-based Application:
1.0
2.0
[somewhere in between these is OS/2]
3.0
3.1
3.11
DOS-based hybrid OS:
95
OSR2 (the IE 4 Desktop Refresh was a separate add-on)
98
98SE
ME (introduced some consumer features)
NT-kernel (no DOS dependency):
NT 3.1 [was also called OS/3]
NT 3.5
NT 3.51
NT 4.0
2000 [& Server] (5.0)
XP (5.1) [added & refined consumer features from ME, SP2 only updates build #)
Server 2003 & XP Professional x64 (5.2)
Vista, Home Server & Server 2008 (6.0) [SP1 updates only the build #)
Windows 7 & "Server 7" (6.1)
"Cloud" ? (whether it's based on 6.0 or 6.1 is unknown]
"Midori" ?
"Singularity"?
and then there's the Live Platform [an integral part being Live Mesh]
i honestly think Windows 2010 would be a kick ass name :D
This is the same stupid naming scheme that AMD and Intel changed to with their processors. Names like Athlon XP 3000+ for a processor that only runs at 2GHz. Perhaps one day OSHA will set standards for naming but until then just deal with the fact that product names and versions just don't have to match or make any kind of sense at all.
What exactly are the problems with Vista? In all of your opinions. I'd just like to know why its bashed so heavily.
Here's one take:
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html
"Because it sucks."
"It's slow."
"You need a super-expensive system to run it."
"You need at least 2GB of RAM to run it 'OK'."
Those are the reasons I've heard from the mouths of people I used to respect when it came to the IT field. I'm running Vista Ultimate x64 on a computer that only cost $600 to build. Runs pretty well, scores a 5.2 in the Windows Experience Index.
Athlon 64 X2 DualCore 6000+ (3.00GHz), 4GB RAM, GeForce 8600GT, sitting on a Gigabyte GA-M61SME-S2.
3.11 was the version they re-wrote for v4 a.k.a. NT
3.1 was not a networking platform.
Calling it 7.0 makes sense when you're looking at code version, but saying its "Seventh in the Windows family" is completely wrong. Lets count..
1.0 = first
2.0 = second
3.0 = third
NT (4.0) = fourth
95 = fifth
98 = sixth
2000 = seventh
xp = eighth
vista = ninth
...
and lets not even get into all the Windows Server, Windows Media Center, and 64-bit version. So the next version is the tenth? That would make the marketing guy's job real easy-- Windows X. It's powerful sounding, the logo could a big 'X', they could tie it into their Xbox marketing, and subsequent versions could be X2, X3, etc.
the only problem is it sounds a little too close to Mac's OS X, and with Macboy's already saying that Vista is what Mac OS was years ago, it wouldn't help them any...
I wish they woulda just stuck with the year versioning. XP shoulda been Windows 2001, SP1 upgrades to Windows 2002, Windows Server was in 2003, SP2 in 2004, Media Center is 2005, SP3 in 2008, and version 7.0 is Windows 2010 if it gets doesn't get delayed any further. Unfortunately I don't understand why marketing types just feel the need to constantly change the moniker of a successful product line.
I see it as Windows Vista was version 6 Build 6000. With the SP1 update it became build 6001. As of right now Windows 7 is on Version 6801, shown in the leaked screenshots of the build. Maybe by the time it is released it will be Build 7000 thus Windows 7 Build 7000.
Honestly, who gives a rat's ass about how they number things? Seriously. Is it going to make it run better if it's named Windows 7 instead of Windows 6.1 or Windows 8? No? Then move on. I'm stunned how much press the numbering scheme question has gotten.
Question: If 98, 98SE, Me were all minor updates to Windows 95, why did MS see fit to charge for them?
If anything, Windows 7 is looking like a very minor upgrade to Windows Vista (basically a name change with some touch features no one will use), so on one hand he's understating development and on the other hand he's vastly overstating it.
Which shows you why MS of 2008 ain't the MS of 1998. Welcome to the Ballmer years.
Windows 7: A New Hope
that or, The Empire Strikes Back.
Which ever way you think about it. All the SW names fit well.
If they overhaul again the kernel and removing all parts that make lot of cost (in term of performance), Then I'm really agree it should have version 7. But I'm doubt of it.
As Vista is build with mind, the computers is get faster and faster, so the costly code on the kernel and shell will automatically adjusted. But well in reality, that is not the case, especially with now so popular netbook.
I'm still remember the plan of Vista that use file system based on SQL database. For high level programming, it seem a very good point, think of searching file is as an easy selecting data on table. Then Microsoft can ad-hock the feature with the programmer API. But think how much it will costly to make it run as acceptable performance. Luckily, they drop that plan when Vista need to be launch. But who knows that they still plan on that
"We're also not sure why we care."
haha if it was and OS X update they would be all over it saying how much better it was
So I guess this statement by Nash should stop all the insults from the Microsoft fanboys trying to insult Apple for charging people for having to purchase a "minor" update (Tiger to Leopard) seeing that Microsoft charged for multiple versions of 3.1. ;-)
The title of the post gives me literature-class nightmares.
Hum, I would say it is a subliminal message (or would it be a conspiracy?) from MS and Intel: "buy an Intel Core i7-based system and a genuine copy of Microsoft Windows 7 and get the best computer ever!"... Got it? Core i7, Windows 7...
Jokes apart, I really hope Microsoft creates a new OS (Midori anyone? http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/30/microsofts-midori-a-future-without-windows/), I still use Windows XP because Vista doesn't work with some equipments I use, like my EDGE modem (FYI, I'm changing to a 3G one) and my printer, as well as with some softwares.
why the heck are there so many comments on this?
It's versioned as 6.1 because that is the latest build they built off of. SP1. They can't version it 7 because any updates to it would version it beyond 7.0. They will version it 7.0.0000 when it is RTM.
I don't even understand how this isn't blatantly obvious.
Windows 7 Fatal1ty Edition.
Add picture of Wendel on the front too.
Currently Windows Mobile's running version 6.1. So updating that would also make it version 7.
No more differences between mobile market and desktop market. That's all.
I was really liking the advertising campaign response to Apple, but with this naming scheme Microsoft is just giving them more material for their commercials. Good job, Mike Nash - hope you enjoy those upcoming Apple commercials about this.