Windows 7 equals some strange math
In many ways, Microsoft's decision to keep the Windows 7 name was entirely logical.
It was the product's code name, something relatively simple, and it is generally seen as a lucky number (at least here in the United States).
But to arrive at the number 7, Microsoft does some strange math, as general manager Mike Nash outlined in a blog posting Tuesday. Nash writes:
The very first release of Windows was Windows 1.0, the second was Windows 2.0, the third Windows 3.0.
Here's where things get a little more complicated. Following Windows 3.0 was Windows NT, which was code-versioned as Windows 3.1. Then came Windows 95, which was code-versioned as Windows 4.0. Then, Windows 98, 98 SE and Windows Millennium each shipped as 4.0.1998, 4.10.2222, and 4.90.3000, respectively. So we're counting all 9x versions as being 4.0.
Windows 2000 code was 5.0, and then we shipped Windows XP as 5.1. Even though it was a major release, we didn't want to change code version numbers to maximize application compatibility. That brings us to Windows Vista, which is 6.0. So we see Windows 7 as our next logical significant release and seventh in the family of Windows releases.
Well, there you have it.
Perhaps more noteworthy is the fact that, although Vista got the version number 6.0, Windows 7 won't actually be version 7.0. Rather, it will be Windows 6.1.
That goes to the very fine line Microsoft is trying to walk with Windows 7. The company is at once trying to reassure IT folks that it is not a radical departure from Windows Vista and at the same time tell consumers it is a significant upgrade from Vista.
In his blog post, Nash tries to thread that very fine needle as well.
"We learned a lot about using 5.1 for XP and how that helped developers with version checking for API compatibility," Nash wrote. "We also had the lesson reinforced when we applied the version number in the Windows Vista code as Windows 6.0--that changing basic version numbers can cause application compatibility issues. So we decided to ship the Windows 7 code as Windows 6.1, which is what you will see in the actual version of the product, in cmd.exe or computer properties."
But he tries to convince consumers that they shouldn't read too much into that decision. "There's been some fodder about whether using 6.1 in the code is an indicator of the relevance of Windows 7," Nash wrote. "It is not."
Of course, the real proof will come in two weeks, when Microsoft hands out the first Windows 7 code to developers and outlines what the operating system update is all about. Then we will all be able to better judge for ourselves just how big a deal Windows 7 is (or isn't).
- Topics:
-
Windows
- Tags:
-
Microsoft,
-
Windows,
-
Windows 7,
-
Windows Vista,
-
PDC2008
- Bookmark:
- Digg
- Del.icio.us
But just for the fun of it, what do you get when you add all windows together.
Windows: CE+ME+NT= CEMENT....LOL
xbox 360...what the hell happen to xbox 2 to xbox 359??????
As for Windows Vista SP1 being 6.1, no its not, check winver and you will see that its still 6.0. So, Windows 7 being NT 6.1 doesn't necessarily mean its minor. Microsoft needs to maintain compatibility, not all applications are programmed to do OS version checking. Microsoft wants to avoid this.
Btw: I write Windows application installers for a living. I know that of which I speak.
Windows 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0 were all major releases, each significantly different from the other. All variations of 3.1 and 3.11 were technically far superior to 3.0, but were basically the same generation of Windows, with mostly the same UI and so on. Windows NT debuted at 3.1, as indicated, and sort of melded in with the version system already in place. When Windows 95 and NT4 came out, each one got a face lift, and they looked much the same in terms of the UI, so they were collectively version 4 of Windows. Then came 98, 98SE, and Me, all evolutionary advancements of the original Win95, not warranting a version change.
Windows 2000 was a MAJOR upgrade from NT4, as it introduced some very significant networking capabilities (serious Active Directory overhaul), Plug-n-Play hardware support along with the Device Manager, etc., so it definitely deserved the generation 5 designation. Windows XP, at least in its original incarnation, was mostly an evolutionary update of 2000, so for businesses it was a minor update, but for consumers it was a major upgrade because it put to rest the old DOS-based underpinnings of the consumer line of Windows, and all the instability that went along with it, so the 5.1 version fits for both sides, still 5th gen for business, new 5th gen for consumers. There is one anomaly here though, that being XP SP2. That wasn't really a service pack, but rather a complete OS overhaul. Most of the changes weren't visible to typical users, but they were significant. It really should have been released as an updated version, like 98SE back in the day, but they decided to put it out for free in a service pack. XP SP2 is more like a version 5.5, still the same outer shell, but all remodeled inside.
That brings us up to Vista, which contrary to the ignorant opinions of some, is practically a complete OS rewrite. New kernel, new hardware layer, new networking stack, new just about everything, not to mention a serious security overhaul. This is definitely the 6th major generation of Windows. Of course, as history goes, there's generally one or more slight updates to Windows that are passed off as new "versions" before another major update comes out. This one is being billed as a major update, which is back-to-back with another major update.
Time will tell if it's really a major update or not. I'm inclined to think that from most perspectives, it won't be seen as a major update, which is going to make the 7 tag somewhat difficult to attach, especially if they insist on keeping the "hidden" version number at 6.1. But in the end, it will be whatever Microsoft wants it to be, and I happen to think that "Windows 7" just sounds cool, looks cool, and so on, so I'm inclined to go along with it and enjoy it. Honestly, some things just aren't worth losing sleep over. ;)
So Microsoft are now hoping that luck will save them because they tried everything else.
I am waiting for Android 1.0. I think it will be much better than Windows 7.
-
by misfire99
October 15, 2008 3:23 PM PDT
- Gee all this time I thought windows was monolithic. And MS testified in court that they couldn't remove IE because it was part of the operating system. I guess that means it is monolithic. But here we have people talking about the windows "kernel" Gee it must be Linux in disguise.
-
Reply to this comment
-
-
See all 43 Comments >>