Hi there, Mike Nash here.
For me, one of the most exciting times in the release of a new product is right before we show it to the world for the first time. And that time is right now.
In a few weeks we are going to be talking about the details of this release at the PDC and at WinHEC. We will be sharing a pre-beta "developer only release" with attendees of both shows and giving them the first broad in-depth look at what we've been up to. I can't wait for them to see it.
And, as you probably know, since we began development of the next version of the Windows client operating system we have been referring to it by a codename, "Windows 7." But now is a good time to announce that we've decided to officially call the next version of Windows, "Windows 7."
While I know there have been a few cases at Microsoft when the codename of a product was used for the final release, I am pretty sure that this is a first for Windows. You might wonder about the decision.
The decision to use the name Windows 7 is about simplicity. Over the years, we have taken different approaches to naming Windows. We've used version numbers like Windows 3.11, or dates like Windows 98, or "aspirational" monikers like Windows XP or Windows Vista. And since we do not ship new versions of Windows every year, using a date did not make sense. Likewise, coming up with an all-new "aspirational" name does not do justice to what we are trying to achieve, which is to stay firmly rooted in our aspirations for Windows Vista, while evolving and refining the substantial investments in platform technology in Windows Vista into the next generation of Windows.
Simply put, this is the seventh release of Windows, so therefore "Windows 7" just makes sense.
We are very excited about the opportunity to tell you more about Windows 7 in the coming weeks, and show you how we have continued to build on investments begun in Windows Vista to deliver on the next release of the Windows operating system.
I look forward to sharing more with you in the coming weeks and months.
How can we be assured of Windows 7 being better that the horrible Vista OP? Vista has been the biggest mistake of my life!
For those of you who like your Mac, stick with it and have fun. But don't try to compare Windows (any version) to Mac.
1. Mac is the most closed OS around. They support only Apple hardware, and there is very little third party software developed for it (compared to what is developed for Windows).
Mac users claim that they don't have driver problems. This is because you only get a few choices on a Mac.
Microsoft has delivered an OS that runs with thousands of drivers, thousands of devices, gives you a choice of where you purchase your hardware, and makes it very easy for both novice and professional to develop apps that run on Windows.
I could say that I never have to change the oil on my bicycle. Does that mean that my bicycle is better than my car. No, it means that my car is intended to do more than my bicycle, is more complicated, and because of this is more prone to have problems.
Mac users want to claim that it is an even comparison between Mac and Windows, but it is not even close. Have Mac become more open to where Dell, HP, eMachines, Asus, Gateway, Lenovo, etc. can develop machines that run the Mac OS. Then let each manufacturer use dozens of different video, network, and audio cards, with different BIOS and chipsets. Then see how well the Mac OS works.
2. People beat up Vista because of all the prompts users got from the User Account Control. I've used a Mac, and it is much worse about this than Vista. Not only do I have to approve of changes on the Mac, I have to enter a password. Vista was never this bad.
3. If Apple really wants to do something innovative for the Mac, how about providing a right mouse button.
free kamerali sesli sohbet chat sistemleri
Will windows 7 support the serial cable port, unlike Vista
Да все ещё может измениться и имя и дата выхода и мнение о операционке!
The server version of Windows 7 will indeed be purely 64-bit, no 32-bit version will be available.
It will also support up to 256 logical CPUs.
XP only supports 32 at most.
is ok, this release windows 7, but how of history about vista.
i not yet long time use windows vista (we know vista any release), but not any peaple uses all product vista.
microsft say in vista, can't virus invection, but we knows any virus can include in this os.
so i hope in release windows 7, microsoft can be analyze very good again about this virus and bugs about windows vista + windows 7
Did I say "XT 64-bit"? aww... I meant "XP 64-bit".
The XT was 8 bit, not 64 BTW.
I see there are some mixed statements here about version numbers of earlier windows'es. To clear things up a bit, here is a list of the main Windows versions (not including server releases).
Windows main versions:
Version 1 (codename "Interface Manager")*:
Windows (version 1.01)
Windows (version 1.02)
Windows (version 1.03)
Windows (version 1.04)
*(there was no Windows (version 1.00).)
Windows (version 2.03)
Windows 286 (version 2.1)
Windows 386 (version 2.1)
Windows (version 3.0, with and without multimedia extension)
Windows (version 3.1, codename "Janus")
Windows (version 3.11, kindof a "service pack" to 3.1)
Windows (version 3.2, a chinese version of 3.11)
Windows For WorkGroups (version 3.1, codename "Kato")
Windows For WorkGroups (version 3.11, codename "Snowball")
Windows NT 3.1 (codename "NT OS/2")
Windows NT 3.5 (codename "Daytona")
Windows NT 3.51
Windows 95 (version 4.0, codename "Chicago")
Windows 98 (version 4.1, codename "Memphis")
Windows ME (version 4.9, codename "Millennium")
Windows NT 4.0 (codename "Cairo")
Windows 2000 (version NT 5.0)
Windows XP (version NT 5.1, codename "Whistler")
Windows XT 64-bit (version NT 5.2)
Windows Vista (version NT 6.0, codename "Longhorn")
Windows 7 (version not clarified yet, codename "Windows 7")
I bet it's called Windows 7 because :
The God's Number is 7 ,according to the bible, 7 is the number of perfection,so who ever built it must to be Christian !
Thank lord finally now we gonna have some decent system to produce our musics,Art Projects,e.t.c...
BY THE WAY WHAT WOULD TAKE ME TO GET A FREE EDITION OF WINDOWS 7 ?
When Windows vista came out, didnt someone say that Vista was supposed to be the LAST 32 bit operating system?
Besides some compatibility, why bother with a 32 bit system?
Wouldnt now be the time to make the hard transition to 64 bit? I mean how long is it going to take to get rid of 32 bit? Was it this long with the 16 to 32 bit conversion?
too late.I dont care,I bought a Mac. I couldnt stand vista anymore sold the laptop
I really don't care about Vista or 7 or Windows Tiddly Dee. MS has forgotten that there are a large number of Power Users out there and now seem to be catering only to the family PC users who only access e-mail and browsing the Internet. As a Windows developer, I rejected Vista because I do not need the nagging every step of the way. I am still a very big fan of XP and until MS comes up with a 'Professional' version of an OS, I will remain on XP.
Well i must say its a shame that microsoft have to release what surely would have been a simple vista ver 2 with some improvements and step ups as a whole new OS and add yet another new interface look to learn just to get people to stop whining and give vista a chance.
As A IT Professional, i am constantly hearing people who should know better complaining about vista this and vista that. But ask what their problem is, and its usually a driver written by a 3rd party or for a device that should have been put out to pasture a long time ago, and has nothing to do with vista. Either that or they cant accept the new look and are trying to put things back to "classic" mode.
If your so determined to not accept change and stay with the classic look, go get yourselves a nice copy of Windows 98 and have your fun.
And while your at it please get rid of that old printer or other hardware that you thought would work with the latest gear. Its like people trying to connect a roof rack from a 70's model car to the same brand but current model. chances are it will need modifications and probably still wont fit or work correctly.
in computing terms a device or hardware component can be as out of date as that 70's roof rack in only a year or two. we all know this, so why cant we apply the knowledge?
My Vote, Yes Windows 7 sounds like a good name, but lets wait until we actually have a windows version 7 to use it on. until then how about we just call an apple a apple, and name it Windows Vista R2. If we can do that and also get realistic regarding what we are attaching to the os, we can get on to worrying about something that actually matters.
And yes this goes for all you people that insist that just because you purchased new equipment a month before Vista was released or even in the initial months after release for bargan basement prices and wonder why it doesnt run vista well. Ever thought it could be that it was cheap because it was out dated or past it?
My only criticisms for Microsoft is this. If you are going to allow people to use your logo and put "ready for xxx" stickers on gear, make sure there is a rule that says they can only use the stickers if it actually does meet requirements, and if the os really needs 2 Gig to work properly and 1 Gig to operate minimally, SAY SO! dont sugar coat it and say "requires 512Mbts" it may boot, eventually next week sometime, but it really doesnt work.
Im sure i will have a lot of people wanting to disagree, and hooked on their points, so ill put up a link for you to a windows 98 blog or something when (and if) i can find one!
What will I do with the VISTA OS, its not worth the money I paid for, will Window 7 can replace VISTA OS some kind of a upgrade edition ?
I have a dual feeling about "Windows 7" as a new name...
On one hand, this decision looks like the only way for MS to come back (finally!) to the most sensible product naming convention that was being used by so many software products for decades: title and version number - simple and clear. (Those at MS who endorsed year-based and "aspirational" naming schemes must have been smoking something... Total nonsense!)
On the other hand, if "Windows 7" is going to be just a cosmetic improvement of Vista... well, in this case naming it "Windows 7" instead of "Windows 6.1" really looks like a sham, a lame marketing trick...
I want to make amends regarding my earlier negative attitude towards Vista.
I recently purchased a high-end laptop from Dell with Vista and experienced poor performance and hangs in Win Explorer.
I immediately blamed MS for this erratic behaviour and compared to my old XP laptop which doesnt exhibit these problems. I critizised Vista in different places, and planned to downgrade (upgrade?) to XP.
Finally I came across Mark Russinovich and his sysinternals and started an investigation on my own.
I cant say I have pinpointed the problem, but I have surely removed it, by experimenting in safe mode, and utilising the autorun application in the sysinternal suite.
VIsta now behaves as robustly I can expect, and my plan to downgrade to XP has been laid aside.
I recommend all disbelievers to watch the webcasts of Mark Russinovich, I love his attitude towards finding the root cause of problems in Windows,
My recommendation to MS would still be to somehow build in better preventive behaviour with regard to failing 3rd party applications. Perhaps some kind of integration testing certifcation scheme, that could be used to alert users, and automatically setting save points, when installing.
Will Windows 7 need more advanced system requirements than Windows Vista? I find that the system requirements for Windows Vista are too high already since my PC is relatively slow and does not run nearly as fast as my friend's Apple MacBook with Mac OS X Leopard with comparable system configuration
Hey the screen shots of windows 7 are quite impressing and you guys have done good work for rich graphics and can you place extra <a href="www.helpdesk4pc.info/microsoft-windows-7-screen-shots-leaked.html" title="windows 7 is ready for download">screen shots of windows 7</a>.
Sorry to say, I am a life long Windows user who is now switching to Mac.
Since Windows has so many problems.
Maybe this will be there first decent OS.
I guess I am the only person that likes VISTA. I like it so much, that when I decided to get a laptop, I bought one since I have never built a laptop I wanted VISTA on it as well. Guess Microsoft needs anothe couple hundred bucks for a new system.
No it wouldn't be 10...
have you microsoft people been smoking crack or are you just plain stupid? i dont know if you heard this before but uh, VISTA IS A FREAKIN FAILURE! you spent a billion on that. whats the headline for this gonna be, microsofts 2 billion dollar failure, or microsoft ceo has been labelled as officially retarded?
develop by 7 members i hope it is better than vista drivers wise and compatibilitie mode. Pc is way better than mac. mac only got final cut studio and auto cad is beautifull thas'it, pc just need a good front introduction made of transparent and neon rainbow colours in the background with the option of motionallowing the computer to greet you on star up touch screen also microsoft may have talented people but not creative like interior designers
Actually, wouldn't it be...
1.0 = Windows 1.0+
2.0 = Windows 2.0+
3.0 = Windows 3.0 - 3.11+
95 = 4.0
98 = 5
ME = 6
2000 = 7
XP = 8
VISTA = 9
next version = Windows 10 or maybe they should call it "Windows OSX" Since they seems to follow leading technology from Apple.
Vista has brought some major hassles. When creating Windows 7, can features like the handy tool Delete be reintroduced? I get so much trouble brewing whenever I try to rework files' locations and such, from all the moved/missing features. So I ask... Resimplify Windows machines, for the user's aid? I know most like music, and sometimes a person checks too late and finds too many copies...
Hopefully W7 Doesn't Stink Like Vista did! Maybe You Should Rename It?
After Windows 7 comes then our next operating system will be Azure and the source is here en.wikipedia.org/.../Windows_Cloud and here www.microsoft.com/.../windowsazure.mspx The it was going to be called Windows Cloud but they have named to Windows Azure.
a fool n his money are soon parted should have had that as vistas slogan
Great statement of the name but the whole article is totally useless where nothing about Windows 7 is discussed. Zero information. A totally useless blog.
Hats off to Microsoft for this excellent OS. I am waiting for the BETA version. Please release it as soon as possible.
The reasoning for the version number has already been stated multiple times. Read the posts!
In essence, it is the 7th NT OS, whether you count the desktop or server lines (not both). The 9x line died with ME.
Pleaseeeee Dont Name It Windows 7
Please Remove the Security nag screens that often appear before starting any of the application. Instead you can Generate A List of Trusted Applications which can be updated via windows update. In this way trusted programs will not have to gain permission or need any setup and security will not be compromised.
Seriously guys? You guys need to lighten up a little on the whole version thing. I came here from a link to learn about windows 7 and I find you all arguing about what version is what? I didn't even know they had version numbers and I'm certainly not computer illiterate.
in the big picture, the typical consumer doesn't get a whip about whether Windows 7 is version 6.1, version 7, or version 29.
Really, most people (me included) don't care.
Bricco, for screenshots see this blog post we posted yesterday:
Overall, Windows 7 is looking very promising, Yes I can understand why some of you would say that Windows 7 is Vista R2, as it employs many of the same features, but it is really not. It runs more efficiently, with lower boot times, and has a redesigned interface that is more user-friendly. Also a few options are looking very promising for IT professionals. However, there is still the fact that some things need to be added, and I take these examples, and give them on the Win7 blog in hopes that MS will listen.
Windows 7 proposed features:
1.) keep the versions minimal. at the most 3, but preferably 2, one
version geared at the home user, and 1 version geared towards businesses. if you are going to go with more than 2, get rid of home basic altogether and just have home, business, and ultimate.
2.) keep the services and feature set on a fresh install low
and make services such as windows gadgets, the media center
games, etc downloads available via Windows Live.
3.) Offer an "Advanced" install option that lets experienced users pick and choose the services and applications they want to be installed (some Linux distributions allow for this). This will reduce memory usage and disk space wasted on services that few people will use, like smart cards, or the touch services on incompatible PCs. This will also allow Windows 7 to be run on older hardware, as someone without the requirements to run aero (or some other service) can simply choose not to install it.
4.) have an install feature that detects data on disks, so that
when you do a fresh install, it is not necessary to move all the
data over and reinstall them. this would be similar to an "upgrade"
5.) basic Anti-Virus software via
Windows Solution Center that would run along with
Windows Defender, because not all of us can
afford third party expensive virus protection software.
6.) Being a user of Windows Server 2008, I can really appreciate the server manager, as being a user friendly and great tool
for managing disks, roles, and services. Make a similar client
side version to run on home PCs, that makes it easier to access
"the bowels of windows"
7.) a feature that effectively emulates older x86 hardware/device drivers through virtualization so that older devices and software (that ran on windows 2000/XP) can be run without the compatibility issues that plagued vista.
8.) set up some of the services to take better advantage of multicore processor technologies such at the core i7 that is coming out, doing this effectively improves boot times on newer machines, as more cores can handle more threads.
if you implement these features, I believe Windows 7 will be a killer
OS and a must have for businesses and the home user alike
I've heard a lot about window's 7...how about some screenshots?
Since Windows is constantly trailing Apple and now Windows 7 will treat Gadgets like Apple has been doing their Widgets all along, good move really as it works better. Maybe the choice of Windows 7 was deliberate in hopes that the community would adopt a measure like the Apple Community did with Apple Mac OS 10. Apple OS 10 a.k.a. OS X (Roman numeral 10?). Therefore maybe what Windows actually wants is for you to call it Windows VII looks better in print and hey it's got the V for those Microsoft folks that just don't want to turn loose of VISTA.
One thing VISTA did do was convince me that I needed to try Apple and I did and never looked back. Thanks VISTA for leading me to a close to perfect OS.
OMG....it's a name. What's the big deal about calling the OS Windows 7, or any other name for that matter? It's just a name. I swear, the people that get on here and b***h, complain, and whine about something so small are just pathetic. Those of you that are crying about this, do your parents even know that you're online right now? Futhermore, what's the big deal with all the Vista bashing? I've had no problems to speak of with the OS since I got it. Noone held a gun to your head and made you buy Vista, if you don't like the software, then get something else and quit b****ing about it.
does this mean that we are going to have to buy another upgrade to Windows? I just got Vista. Also what does this mean for Internet Explorer 8 which is a joke since it doesn't work with anything yet!
Why MS called it Windows 7?
i guess its
3.11 = windows 3 - ONE
95 = 4 -TWO
98 = 5 -THREE
ME = 6 - FOUR
XP = 7 - FIVE
VISTA = 8 - SIX
next version = Windows 9 not "7" - SEVEN :))
What happened with the project in conjunction with Intel, with a honeycomb system?
I just purchased a machine with Vista 64Bit, when will this version become absolete? And will this version be upgradeble to W7?
I don't care what it is called "a rose by any other name ..."), I just want an OS which is resilient, reliable, and faster than immediate predecessors.
I was FORCED to upgrade to Vista Business as I has XP Pro installed which was needed in a prior occupation. I just hope the single version concept is honoured.
Call it anything you want, whatever the name if it doesn't fulfill expectations it will get panned.
This is posted on another site, but, it's relevant here too...
I can understand and appreciate both sides of this argument. Obviously there are good reasons for and against considering this the 7th major release. I, however, just don’t care. I’ll have to update a few scripts and queries based on whatever the final version number may be, but, if it ends up as 6.1 or 700000 I’ll have to do that anyway so I don’t care.
If Microsoft can say that it’s the 7th major release or the 17th, just give me a good OS. I’m not one to complain about Vista, my transition to XP was actually much more painful, but if they want to improve the OS I’m all for it.
I don’t care if they call it Windows Babykicker if the kernel is solid. The name is nothing more than a name in the end.
I really want to get that operation system
I use Window Vista and I think that Window can make the revolution of the computer
I believe I can explain why Microsoft has chosen Windows 7 as the monicore for the next generation operating system.
Most people today have never seen or heard of Windows 1.0/2.0 (which I still have the install disk for) because it was really nothing more than a command shell for MS-DOS with a few niceties.
If you use that logic, than the version counting would be as follows from the first commercially successful release:
Windows 3.0/3.11WG = Version 1
Windows 95/NT 3.5= Version 2
Windows 98/SE/4.0 = Version 3
Windows 2000/ME = Version 4
Windows XP = Version 5
Windows Vista = Version 6
Windows 7 = Version 7
Therefore the version is not based on actual version, but instead the release date groupings of the commercially successful versions of Windows since 3.0.
Hope this helps,
not sure why some people bag on Vista... wish some would explain??? I have had Vista since day one ad have had one issue with a driver for a printer, other than that I have not had one thing wrong with it. MS has to do a better job with th next release because Vista was doomed before it was give a chance.
I have been using Vista for a week now and it seems as though your years of research was purely marketing motivated. Vista locks up more than Windows 2000 did however it is more aggravating. Your marketing department should not be in charge of R & D so they can sell double the quantity of XP. Sadly, I now have to purchase XP because the Vista has got to go. I wish I had a monopoly.
Another OS people are just starting to use Vista and really getting over there hardware and software issue's now this.
There is a site that states Vista was a mistake from Microsoft that they should of kept Windows XP and just move to Windows 7.
I have to agree with that because with Windows 7 you can be sure there will be hardware and software issue's.
As for me my Vista is rock solid but all my hardware is Vista ready and certified.
Now I can see why people are flocking to Linux.
Instead of different releases, you should, pretty please, consider making an install wizard with preconfigurations for different purposes. For example, "What will you be mainly using your computer for?" Gaming, general computing(surfing, office, etc.), Digital creation(3D, music, etc.) Then, enable and disable system services based on these choices. Also, make it easy to switch between these modes after the installation so that maybe in ECO mode a computer can run cool, silent and much more energy efficient while surfing, chatting and working with office apps and when we switch to POWER mode, we get all the horse power our hardware can offer - Without the need of any third party drivers or apps.
Windows leads the way how hardware manufacturers design their stuff. Simplicity and flexibility is what all users want. Having said that, please get rid of the unnecessary boot welcome screens too. I know I'm welcome when I push the power button. It's MY computer. :)
Wow okay so from what I hear Vista was terrible and I have watched people's computers crash from it. I agree with every thing that Project Mayu said. All of those changes need to take place in 7. Don't particularly like the name, I like something like XP or vista better. But whatever works it's just a name. I also skipped Vista and stuck with XP. I actually like Windows more than Mac and Vista really lost some ground. So MS has some catching up to do and hopefully 7 will get there. The main thing, don't offer the different versions. Get everything in one computer or at the most two. No five hundred versions of Windows 7. And try to make it really customizable. Those are my suggestions.
Is this windows going to be better then windows Vista??!!
I hear the new surface computer interface - the one that Bill Gates himself said would be such a killer feature in Windows 7 - yeah, THAT new technology. Well, the screen ALONE to support that is currently around $5-10,000.
That alone makes it a complete failure for Windows 7. Perhaps by the time Windows 8 rolls out surface MIGHT be something to consider, but for now we might all want to get real and scratch "surface" from one of the features we'll be using in Windows 7.
This makes Windows 7 just Vista 2.0 with minor under the hood adjustments, some ribbon bars, and a few UI updates. Some of the features are cool, but they will only apply to the 2% of people who would actualyl use them or want to pay exhorbitant fees for them and deal with version 1.0 technologies.
Please Microsoft. For the love of all that's holy can't we just ditch the entire Vista core and start over with something that works?
Hey, Windows 7 is good! I agree with Mike that another 'aspirational' name would kinda be too much. Changing back to a numeric version naming regime signals just the continuity and commitment that ... yada yada
Also, I congratulate Microsoft for the very happy choice of 7 over 7.0. There's a big difference.
Anyway, I wanted to opine that 7 is as good a number as any, because the lines are somewhat blurry anyway. It all comes down to how you delineate major and minor versions, right? I think most would agree, for example, that ME was still 98.
Certainly It's not really that important :-)
Windows 7 nice name a nice and easy 1 to use and name lets hope there wont be as meny version of it then what there is of windows vista.
Read my earlier posts
Windows is now purely based on the NT line, so the 7th MAJOR release will be the next.
Windows NT 3.1 was the first NT version to match the original Windows line (which included Windows 9x).
Second was: Windows NT 3.5
Third: Windows NT 4.0
Fourth: Windows 2000 (5.0)
Fifth: Windows XP (5.1)
Sixth: Windows Vista (6.0)
And finally seventh: Windows 7
The other thing I thought about was Windows 7's development in general.
Wasn't it original supposed to be on a whole new kernel called the "MinWin" kernel before the public perception backlash of "Well...if that's true, then we'll just skip XP and go straight to 7" which prompted Microsoft to stick to the Vista kernel and give people the perception of "7's going to be just like Vista, so waiting for 7's not going to help much"
I'll post an updated list later (I wish there were an edit button in this blog!)
The reason I counted both lines is because some people are justifying the name "7" by counting ONLY the consumer line or ONLY the business line. Either way, using only one of those two lines still doesn't add up...
There were multiple versions of windows 1 and 2, most known is Windows 286 2.1 (for Intel 80286 CPUs).
You're also counting two orinally seperate lines, only merged at XP.
You also missed Windows 95 B USB (OSR2.1) and Windows 95 C (OSR2.5)
Er...left out a few above...
5. (C) Windows for Workgroups 3.11
10. (B) Windows NT 3.51
That's not quite right.
You forgot Server 2003. :)
In any case, we have the following (feel free to correct me--too many people are spewing misinformation here, and that just might include myself, so I'll eat some crow to make sure we eventually get the right info):
NOTE: (C) = consumer line (B) = business line (CBW) = merged workstation line (CBS) = merged server line. If I don't have a notation, I don't know which line it came from. :)
1. Windows 1.0
2. Windows 2.0
3. Windows 3.0
4. (C) Windows 3.1
6. (B) Windows NT 3.1
7. (C) Windows 95 Version a (OSR1)
8. (C) Windows 95 Version b (OSR2)
9. (B) Windows NT 3.5 (Workstation, Server)
11. (B) Windows NT 4.0 (Workstation, Server) (BackOffice Small Business Server 4.5) (Service Packs 1-6 and 6a)
12. (C) Windows 98
13. (C) Windows 98 Second Edition
14. (B) Windows 2000 (Professional, Server, Advanced Server, Datacenter Server) (Small Business Server 2000) (Service Packs 1-4) [also known as NT 5.0]
15. (C) Windows Millennium Edition
16. (CBW) Windows XP (Starter, Home, Professional (including Tablet PC and the various Media Center Editions)) (Service Pack 1-3) [also known as NT 5.1]
17. (CBS) Windows Server 2003 (Standard, Enterprise, Datacenter (includes R2) (includes both 32 and 64-bit versions) (includes Windows XP 64-bit Edition*) (Small Business Server 2003 Standard and Premium) (Service Packs 1-2) [also known as NT 5.2]
18. (CBW) Windows Vista (Starter, Home Basic, Home Premium, Business, Enterprise, Ultimate (including 'N' versions)) (Service Pack 1) [also known as NT 6.0, Build 6000 is no Service Pack, Build 6001 is SP1]
19. (CBS) Windows Server 2008 (Standard, Enterprise, Datacenter) (Small Business Server 2008 Standard, Premium) (Essential Business Server 2008 Standard, Premium) (starts at Service Pack 1 level already) [like Vista SP1, it's NT 6.0, Build 6001]
20. (CBW) Windows 7 (versions unknown at this point) [NT 6.1 or 7.0?]
Again, please feel free to correct the above. It's debatable that #18 and #19 should be merged since I merged XP 64-bit with Server 2003 since they're on the same kernel. Some may also argue that #7 and #8 should be merged as well as #12 and #13--it depends on whether those editions should be viewed the same as Service Packs. On the other hand, if those stay separate, should Server 2003 R2 (and upcoming 2008 R2) be on separate lines as well?
Vista sucks, xp is ok and still majority of windows users are sticked to it, will wait to see how Windows 7 is differ.
seen so many issues with vista scared to even try 7
Smart decision windows. Simplifying = good.
Please tell me you are bumping the version number to 7 in order to match. "XP" and "ME" were product names and not version numbers, but 7 is in fact a number. Typically, when someone releases software and they put a number after the product name, that number represents the version of the product. If you guys wind up releasing Windows 6.1 and branding it as "Windows 7," you will create confusion. People will see the numbers, not your "brand."
I think Microsoft should focus on stability, speed and simplicity like many others say.
Everybody jumps on the bandwagon to complain about a new Windows release. Ususally it's because they hate change. they just mastered the previous release and the new one will most definately have bugs, maybe a lot of them, but it's been almost 2 years now since Vista's release date and many fixes have been introduced. Now, Vista works incredibly well, you can turn off all the overhead you want just like XP and 2000. The OS works, and I am very excited to see what the highly paid prodigies (and you super geeks know I'm right, you're smart but these guys that MS hires are smarter and it burns you up inside) at Microsoft have come up with next. Let go of the past, you can't stop change... and my freinds (I mean that endearingly) if you think Microsoft is not going to be the pioneer of change for many years to come, you are just plain lying to yourself. You can fight it or embrace it. Windows 7... it's coming, and your family and freinds will be using it like it or not.
I think it is a good idea to keep it simple.
Come on Windows 7!!!!!
Computing relies on logic but the explanation of why the next version of windows is 7 is far from logical
Ah Windows 7, back to the basic's with the naming system. Great Idea, kind of like breaking down the old walls. Now if only the operating system stands up to it's name and the catch phrases. Yet the real question is;
Will Windows 7 be with or without the WALLS Microsoft enforced in Vista. Can't wait to get my hands on the beta. If it is anything like the Beta of IE 8 all Windows 7 will be is Vista ME 2.
Just have to wait and see...
"Vita per Moenia"
Nt4 - version 4
2K - version 5
XP - version 5.1
Vista - version 6
Windows7 - version 7
In order to use more than 3GB system RAM(3.25GB for me) the operating system needs to be 64-bit rather than 32-bit. Graphics RAM is not included in the 3GB total.
This is a 32-bit Windows limitation.
if its like vista,please inprove it or there goes your work down the drain.add a built in antivirus in windows 7 and give zonealarm as a bundled firewall.thankz
All I hope for is that windows 7 will recognize all the ram I have installed in my computer including the ram on my video cards. Not just the 3 gb that xp does.
I already stated the maening of the 7!
7th NT Desktop operating system
Instead of new NT versions relating to Win 9x there were service packs, up to SP6a for NT4.0.
>The decision to use the name Windows 7 is about simplicity.
Hopefully with that sentiment in mind, Microsoft will do away with all the different versions and have just ONE version of Windows. No Home Edition, no business edition, no ultimate edition. Just Windows 7!
Not bad. Let us know when it's done and I'll see if it runs in Parallels on my new Mac.
What does the '7' mean? Is this the number of gigs of RAM required just to run the new OS?
J'aime bien le nom "Windows 7",c'est un chiffre porte-bonheur... :-)
I've watched over the last year peoples comments and downright bashing of Vista. Checking on the writers of the various comments and blogs, one has to come to the opinion that those who are doing the most complaining and bashing are simply igorant. Most probably never upgraded the hardware required to run a system like Vista. I don't remember negative comments by gamers who already had killer systems and understood what was expected and required in order to get the results they were after. I think too many people got along for too many years pushing the download button and having everything delivered ready to go. Just as equipment, software and ways of thinking had to be changed when DOS with 5 1/4 inch floppies gave way to to modern computing, the future of computing requires some change and I believe it all started with Vista. I'm excited to see where its all going and wish that those standing in the way of progress would crawl back in their stone age caves and let the rest of us get on with it. I say hooray for Vista, hooray for Windows 7 and HOORAY for Microsoft! I don't believe for one second that any of the simian miscreants gives a damn about the name, its just that they have nothing better to talk about, and are even less informed. Almost every blog and post is a mirror image. Do away with all but one, anyone of them, and you would still be just as informed, misinformed or uniformed, as the case may be.
I dont beleave in windows even if they called windows super edition (better than linux) some thing cant change another nongood OS.
Congrats on the good progress the team seems to be making on Windows 7. From everything I read about it, it seems like it's going to be an incredible OS and definitely one of the most stable releases of Windows to date.
Personally, I've chosen to skip Vista entirely and stick with XP until Windows 7 comes out. From what I hear, it will well be worth the wait.
Thanks for keeping us updated!
Microsoft introducing another bloated windows called "Windows 7" hahahaha
Same old crap, no native 64bit support still, same old crap WOW64, and no options to choose what to install, so that means it will install all the bloat again...
Sticking to windows xp sp3, untill ms get their act together.
we are waiting for the beta version.
well only trouble is that some ppl will think windows 7 is older then windows 95 and say why upgrade
Hooray for version numbers! I've never liked using years or aspirational names. I hope other Microsoft teams and other vendors do the same.
1. Pack it so full of features, so i don't have to buy anything.
2. Have everything turned off by default, and not installed.
3. Don't put limitations on things such as TCP/IP
4. Put a verify on CD/DVD/BLUERAY. So many bad DVD's that people will never know about, until they try to use them.
5. At least test keyboard usage before releasing, so many ctrl+v that never pasted any files.
6. Stop making everything a popup, make a manager for file copying etc.
7. Only release a 64bit version.
8. Make the start menu search the games menu as well, when i type in the name of a game I expect it to show up.
9. Let ready boost work on any drive, Im sure the 4GB ram drive that runs at 150MB/s is fast enough.
10. selective balloon tip disabling, I oh so wish to disable a single programs balloon tips popping up all the time next to the clock
11. Icons and thumb nails, should not be able to crash explorer. We don't want a repeat of the dreaded "avi file" explorer crash loop bug (please fix this bug its not funny any more)
12. Drop support for pre vista drivers, they are so unstable
13. Fix the delete bug in media center, why give the option to delete the file after playing it, if it's not going to unlock the file first.
14. Fix the not responding bug on file copying etc. Waiting an unknown amount of time for it to start responding again, is stupid.
15. Add a program sandbox feature, if i don't trust a program, it should not be able to make permanent changes.
I think you should have named it Windows Mojave.
alexandertg, I could not agree more. Things have gotten far too muddy and complicated. Windows 7 is perfect. Simple and to the point. Now if they only release ONE version of it, I'll be in heaven.
@Blade: You forgot Windows 1, 2, 3
@primal: Exactly. The number came out of thin air, but if that's what it is, how could they ignore 95, 98, and NT?
I guess its
Windows NT wasnt really part of the typical run of operating systems but was designed for a different purpose. As for Windows 95 and Windows 98, I'm not sure what to say really, I guess they were just updates on 3. Although this one seems like an update on Vista.
Interestingly, if they'd counted NT, 95 and 98 then this would have been windows 10, which would have been a good opportunity to return to numbers. 7 seems more random.
Or how about "Vista 2"
I've got a new moderate-to-high-end laptop this month. Vista runs like crap on it. Let's see if Windows 7 runs it fast enough.