Select a language to translate this page!
Powered by Microsoft® Translator
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.
You guys plan on clarifying how your number of Windows releases total came to seven (including Windows 7), right?
Wow, can't say I'm surprised though, considering the amount of publicity the "Windows 7" name has gotten. Though it does seem like an odd shift to go from "Names" (Millennium/XP/Vista) back to numbers again.
Please tell me this is some kind of early an April Fool's joke.
Or that you're changing the current "6.1" version number to 7.0. Because the way it is right now sounds like a disaster waiting to happen. "Are you running Windows 7?" "No, it says 6.1" Then what will happen when the "real" Windows 7.0 comes around in x years? "Wait a second I thought Windows 7 was released years ago..."
This just sounds like a nightmare. I guess you guys thought Windows 6.1 didn't slip off the tongue, but still, don't lie to people and muddy everything up.
How can we be assured of Windows 7 being better that the horrible Vista OP? Vista has been the biggest mistake of my life!
I'm very glad to see Windows 7 as the official name.
Will this desire for simplicity in branding extend to culling the myriad versions of Vista? It would be nice, when advising people whether to adopt Windows 7, if I didn't have to explain the sometimes arbitrary differences between versions and leave them wondering if they are missing out on something by selecting the wrong version (or that they got ripped off by buying the most expensive version *cough*Ultimate*cough*). I'd like to be able to just say "Get Windows 7" and list the benefits without caveat.
PatriotB when you ask users if they are running Windows XP, they say they are running Windows XP not Windows 5.2. People say they were running Windows 2000 not Windows 5.1. The average user today probably does not care much on what version number Windows XP or Windows Vista even is. I doubt consumers when they are asked if they are running Windows 7 will go "no, its Windows 6.1". The name of a Windows release isn't always tied to the version number of the OS - especially since no Windows release since Windows 98 (before that, Windows NT 4.0 was the last version-numbered named Windows which came out shortly after Windows 95) had been named after a version number to-date.
Why not call it Windows Vista NT.... just to remind that's not the OLD Vista...
It's all in the name:
Windows 7, 7.1, 7.11, 7.2, hopefully each revision will be a free or at least cheap ($10.00) upgrade. I think it would help cut piracy.
By the way guys the versions of windows are as follows (I noticed quite a few wrong ones here)
Windows 2000 = 5.0
Windows XP = 5.1
Windows Server 2003 = 5.2
Windows Vista / Server 2008 = 6.0
NOTE: Vista SP1 and S2008 share the SAME kernel (Build 6001), while Pre-SP Vista uses an easrlier one (Build 6000). All of these share the same version number of 6.0.
IMHO Windows 7 should be version 6.1 as its changes will be like the changes from 2K to XP, not as significant as XP to Vista. BUT, since they are calling it Windows 7, they might as well version it as 7.0 just to simplify things. True, current builds say 6.1, but if you have ever seen pre-release builds of other versions of Windows there are commonly things left behind from the previous version. (MANY betas of Windows XP still said Windows 2000 in the setup screen's, etc.) This makes me think it may be changed for the final, but we'll just have to see. It still does make sense though, if the VERSION stays at 6.1, while the name is 7, even though it seems strange, due to the smaller amount of changes present. Plus, how many average users even KNOW what the version of Win 2K or XP or anything is anyways?
Extide thanks for the comment! And I personally stand corrected regarding XP's version number being 5.1 not 5.2. My apologies. It's been quite a while since I've fired up XP in Virtual PC.
I think this is a good name. Now, please take one further step. Release the "business" version before the "retail" version. Give the business users and the developers several months to get used to the concept of Windows 7 as something other than a pretty face.
You put a lot of effort into great new kernel and .NET features in Vista, and it bothers me to see that work dismissed by people who can only see the pretty face, so they assume there's no brain in there. So, for the first few months, try no lipstick, sensible shoes, conservative business suit, and maybe they'll see that Windows 7 has some brains.
[Still fighting the association between .NET 2.1 and Vista]
Based on what I'm reading in "Engineering Windows 7", the Product Teams are really looking very closely into the operating system and, more than that, they are reading and responding to the comments posted.
"Extide thanks for the comment! And I personally stand corrected regarding XP's version number being 5.1 not 5.2. My apologies. It's been quite a while since I've fired up XP in Virtual PC."
Actually you're both right!
- If you are using an x86 processor, it will be 5.1 always.
- If you are using an ia64 processor (doubtful!), it will be 5.1 or 5.2 depending on which 64-bit XP release you have.
- If you are using an x64 processor, it will be 5.1 if you are running the 32-bit version of the OS, or 5.2 is you are running the 64-bit version of the OS.
Thankfully the 64-bit XP wasn't as widespread as 64-bit Vista so people don't usually have this confusion. :-)
My eyes are bleeding...
Trackback From: http://arch7.net/10
"Windows Millennium Edition" was codenamed "Millennium" so you should remove the incorrect line as quickly as possible. And now Microsoft should feel responsible to clarify whether this is going to be NT 7.0 or not in the final release.
And you're belittling Windows Me (assuming you consider it Windows 98 Third Edition) if you are counting it from Windows 95 and saying it's the seventh *significant* release since. (As if there were no versions before 95).
Nevertheless, the product name isn't bad as such, but it has neither any meaning nor any aspiration. Earlier names were meaningful or aspirational.
I *do NOT* like the mismatch between version number and product name to keep app backward compatibility.
Windows 7, oh God! Vista ..
Simplicity. It's back to basics.
I hope for all our sakes this name represent Windows battle cry to simplify the entire Windows experience.
Give me a clean GUI and let me get to work.
Seven deadly sins
Seven ways to win
Seven holy paths to hell
And your trip begins
Seven downward slopes
Seven bloodied hopes
Seven are your burning fires
Seven your desires
adrian smith/bruce dickinson - iron maiden
Windows 7 sounds good.
I was pleased to hear that the windows xp simple and simple but comfortable and I'm very happy with Fedora 7 whether Fedora 7.why should mimic the Windows 7
Just thinking about the future...
Vista = Windows ME 2
Windows 7 = Windows ME 3?
OK I'll bite. why Windows seven
3.11 = windows 3
95 = 4
98 = 5
ME = 6
XP = 7
VISTA = 8
next version = Windows 9 not 7
What versions are windows NT4.0 (4.0 - I assume)and Windows 2000 (5.0??)? where do they feature in this version counts (I assume windows NT4.0 and 2000 are desktop versions and not servers).
Why not simply call it version 10 and call it WinTen?
@Brandon -- a few comments:
1. The version number shows up in lots of common places -- system diagnostic reports which will say simply "Windows NT 6.1", user agent strings, log files, etc.
2. Updates for Vista/Server08 are files in the form of Windows6.0-KBxxxx.exe. If the update-naming scheme is maintained for any length of time (which is questionable in and of itself), it'll be wierd to see things labeled Windows6.1-KBxxxx but applying to something called Windows 7. And in the future to see things labeled Windows7.0-KBxxxxx and not apply to Windows 7. My guess is that naming scheme will have to be abandoned.
3. Prerelease versions of the Windows SDK for Vista were originally installed into a "v1.0" folder. They wisely changed this to v6.0 to match Vista's version upon release. Frustratingly for versioning sticklers like myself, when VistaSP1/Server08 were released, they changed this to v6.1, even though the OS itself is 6.0 SP1. I suppose now the Win7 SDK will be in a "v7.0" folder, and it'll never get united again.
Versioning can get messy. There are so many people out there (even somewhat-knowledgeable ones like Paul Thurrott for instance) who still believe that Server08 is NT 6.1 for some reason. Some are expecting 7 to be updated to 7.0 by the time it RTM's. I doubt that'll happen, since Win7, as worthy a release as it is, just isn't major enough to warrant a major version change.
My personal guess: Steven Sinofsky came over from Office, where except for Outlook 98 hasn't seen a minor version since prior to Office 95. He probably thought, let's just get Windows to all round numbers as well -- 7, 8, etc. Only thing is, Windows isn't Office. It has a major-then-minor release heartbeat which has worked great in the past (3.0/3.1, 95/98, 2000/XP), so why break it with a series of medium-sized releases? My guess is that there was a shift after the Win7 code name was revealed, and that it was too late by then.
My advice: Use code names that aren't numbers. Pick a product name that doesn't conflict with version numbers. Quite simple.
For the love of god, it's only a name!
No other product is called windows 7 so how confusing can it be? Live with it, it's no big deal!
Geez, people are dying in the world so try worrying about something NOT trivial!
Thanks for the info, Mike and Nash.
But make sure that it will not be a Windows Vista again!
You are releasing a new version of Windows to the market claiming a lot of features. When doing that, think of the performance also.
There are many operating systems, where UI is extra ordinary with limited resource requirements. A resource hungry Operating system like Vista can not compete with that.
Although the memory is becoming cheaper, nobody wants the OS to suck 3GB of memory for normal operations. If this is the requirement of an operating system, there is no doubt that they are going to loose the market.
Security features are rocking in Vista, but irritates a normal user. There are many cons like this about Vista and I know you know it better than me.
An example of a very good operating system is Ubuntu 8.04. It loads with many features with 300MB of memory and I love its performance and quick responses to my interactions.
Why can't Microsoft develop an operating system with a lot of features guaranteeing the performance also?
Surely, it will be the next flop, if the you are to develop a Vista 2.
Windows 7 is the 7th major version in the desktop NT line.
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
Please dont call it Windows 7 Please!
In Hong Kong, 7 in Chinese sound like the word
As a microsoft fans,I dont want mac fans joking about the name, It will be hell annoying!!!!!!!!
Windows 7 is introduce earlier than 2010 and formerly code named "Blackcomb" and "Vienna," Windows 7 is supposed to be more user friendly, focusing on how a user works rather than on applications.
"http://www.widecircles.com">Social Bookmarking Service</a>
Windows 7 was originally code named Blackcomb before XP was released.
Blackcomb was supposed to be 6.0 but Longhorn (orignially intended to be 5,3) was loaded with many of the proposed Blackcomb features becoming Vista.
Whatever they call it, it's still Windows with a version number....
Great name! Please keep it to just one SKU.
The name of windows is less important than the stability of it.
Win 3.1 (Normal)
Win 3.11WG (Good)
Win2000 SP1 (less bad)
Win2000 SP2 (normal)
Win2000 SP3 (good)
Win2000 SP4 (excellent)
WinXP SP1 (less bad)
WinXP SP2 (normal)
WinXP SP3 (good)
WinVista SP1 (less bad)
Conclusion: Microsoft can't offer a first release good, need minimun 2 SP to obtain a good version and stable.
I'm glad MS have gone back to a sensible naming convention. All that "aspirational" nonsense with Vista was really very tiresome.
Let's hope there's more substance to Windows 7 and less of the airy-fairy aspirational tripe!
As for the actual name, I'd rather it was called "Windows 2010" for the following reasons:
A) Sensible, non "aspirational" name.
B) Shows a commitment from MS that they're going to stick to a some kind of schedule (i.e. no later than 2010).
C) Gives MS enough breathing room for slight slippage of the planned 2009 release date.
D) Gives consumers a clear idea of where the OS comes in relation to previous releases.
I have been ranting about this OS since I started to use it's early form.
Windows 7 is what Vista could have been!
The Post at this link explains how they came up with 7, http://www.averagetech.com/2008/10/14/next-windows-to-be-named-7-officially/
Just keep the OS as simple as possible, don't put much features in it, don't include lots of crappy program's never used, don't put in unused services.
This should be very basic, and you should be able to download what you (think you might) need from the MS website. Keep it modular. Configure an optional setup for basic users, but not for those who know what they are doing!
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.
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"
@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?
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.
I think you should have named it Windows Mojave.
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.
Hooray for version numbers! I've never liked using years or aspirational names. I hope other Microsoft teams and other vendors do the same.
well only trouble is that some ppl will think windows 7 is older then windows 95 and say why upgrade
we are waiting for the beta version.
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.
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!
I dont beleave in windows even if they called windows super edition (better than linux) some thing cant change another nongood OS.
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.
J'aime bien le nom "Windows 7",c'est un chiffre porte-bonheur... :-)
What does the '7' mean? Is this the number of gigs of RAM required just to run the new OS?
Not bad. Let us know when it's done and I'll see if it runs in Parallels on my new Mac.
>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!
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.
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.
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
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.
Nt4 - version 4
2K - version 5
XP - version 5.1
Vista - version 6
Windows7 - version 7
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"
Computing relies on logic but the explanation of why the next version of windows is 7 is far from logical
Come on Windows 7!!!!!
I think it is a good idea to keep it simple.
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 Microsoft should focus on stability, speed and simplicity like many others say.
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."
Smart decision windows. Simplifying = good.
seen so many issues with vista scared to even try 7
Vista sucks, xp is ok and still majority of windows users are sticked to it, will wait to see how Windows 7 is differ.
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?
Er...left out a few above...
5. (C) Windows for Workgroups 3.11
10. (B) Windows NT 3.51
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)
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...
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"
Read my earlier posts
Windows is now purely based on the NT line, so the 7th MAJOR release will be the next.
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.
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 :-)
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?
Is this windows going to be better then windows Vista??!!
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.
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. :)
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.
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.
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 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,
I really want to get that operation system
I use Window Vista and I think that Window can make the revolution of the computer
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 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.
I just purchased a machine with Vista 64Bit, when will this version become absolete? And will this version be upgradeble to W7?
What happened with the project in conjunction with Intel, with a honeycomb system?
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 :))
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!
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.
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.
I've heard a lot about window's 7...how about some screenshots?