Most of you have probably heard - but for those who haven't... Windows 7 is the final name of their next OS

---

- Luke.

Windows 7 is the final name of their next OS

Oh, how boring of Microsoft... even MacOSX at least has cool cat names for code names...

But I suppose it's better than Windows '09 feeling outdated in 2010... like in the old days... ;)

(Methinks I'll stick with Vista until the next 'big change' come along.)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Most of you have probably heard - but for those who haven't... Windows 7 is the final name of their next OS

... probably to imply some connection to the new Intel i7 processor family.

---

Windows 7 is the final name of their next OS

Oh, how boring of Microsoft... even MacOSX at least has cool cat names for code names...

But I suppose it's better than Windows '09 feeling outdated in 2010... like in the old days... ;)

(Methinks I'll stick with Vista until the next 'big change' come along.)

Considering Microsoft already used most of the same codenames Apples uses currently about seventeen years ago, I guess Microsoft has just progressed that far beyond Apple.


What's funny is that I've seen people saying "Well, at least its not going to be Vista!", but the entire code base is from Vista. I bet people say that Windows 7 is "so much better" than Vista when it comes out, never really giving Vista much of a chance.

7th version? Really?

Windows 1.0
Windows 2.0
Windows 2.1
Windows 3.0
WIndows 3.1
Windows 3.11
Windows 95
Windows 98
Windows ME
Windows NT3
Windows NT4
Windows 2000
Windows XP
Windows Vista

That looks like about 11 major versions. I believe that there was an NT1 and an NT2, but I never used them.

---

BOINC WIKI

7th version? Really?

Windows 1.0
Windows 2.0
Windows 2.1
Windows 3.0
WIndows 3.1
Windows 3.11
Windows 95
Windows 98
Windows ME
Windows NT3
Windows NT4
Windows 2000
Windows XP
Windows Vista

That looks like about 11 major versions. I believe that there was an NT1 and an NT2, but I never used them.

Nope. No NT v1 or NT v2, unless you count OS/2.

Actually, here's the proper build up for Windows 7 (since it is an NT kernel, and they are claiming that this is the seventh NT kernel):

OS/2 v1
OS/2 v2

(This is where Microsoft and IBM parted ways, with Microsoft taking on development of OS/2 v3, which was code named OS/2 NT v3 with "NT" meaning New Technology).

Windows NT 3.1 (first version of NT available)
Windows NT 3.5 & NT 3.51 (still using the 3.x kernel)
Windows NT 4 (fourth kernel)
Windows 2000 (fifth kernel)
Windows XP (NT v5.1, still using fifth kernel)
Windows Vista (NT v6 using the 6th iteration kernel)
Windows 7 (as in Windows kernel version 7)


It works out as it should.

I guess Microsoft has just progressed that far beyond Apple.

Thems fightin' words, mister! ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

7th version? Really?

Windows 1.0
Windows 2.0
Windows 2.1
Windows 3.0
WIndows 3.1
Windows 3.11
Windows 95
Windows 98
Windows ME
Windows NT3
Windows NT4
Windows 2000
Windows XP
Windows Vista

That looks like about 11 major versions. I believe that there was an NT1 and an NT2, but I never used them.

Nope. No NT v1 or NT v2, unless you count OS/2.

Actually, here's the proper build up for Windows 7 (since it is an NT kernel, and they are claiming that this is the seventh NT kernel):

OS/2 v1
OS/2 v2

(This is where Microsoft and IBM parted ways, with Microsoft taking on development of OS/2 v3, which was code named OS/2 NT v3 with "NT" meaning New Technology).

Windows NT 3.1 (first version of NT available)
Windows NT 3.5 & NT 3.51 (still using the 3.x kernel)
Windows NT 4 (fourth kernel)
Windows 2000 (fifth kernel)
Windows XP (NT v5.1, still using fifth kernel)
Windows Vista (NT v6 using the 6th iteration kernel)
Windows 7 (as in Windows kernel version 7)


It works out as it should.

Pretty good overview of the Windows Pedigree OzzFan.

If I remember correctly one of the perks of the 3 Series was that they did not run the GUI in kernelspace, meaning that the display subsystem could happily crash ( and it did ) without bringing down the whole server. I wonder if that model will be coming back with 7. Maybe Vista already does that but I'm completely illiterate when it comes to Microsoft's latest :).

---

mambo

If I remember correctly one of the perks of the 3 Series was that they did not run the GUI in kernelspace, meaning that the display subsystem could happily crash ( and it did ) without bringing down the whole server. I wonder if that model will be coming back with 7. Maybe Vista already does that but I'm completely illiterate when it comes to Microsoft's latest :).

I'm pretty sure that for Vista, they were planning on doing a modular design model, but ran out of time or couldn't get it to work, so they went back to everything being all built-in. Linux has been modular like that since...I think the beginning? X Server isn't perfect..it crashes from time to time, and a simple 'kill -9 [processID]' and then 'startx' fixes that on-the-fly.

---

Linux laptop:
record uptime: 1511d 20h 19m (ended due to the power brick giving-up)

I sure hope it gobbles up a little less than 160GB, or else it shows to be a lot of bloathware again. What 160GB? The 160GB external USB drive that everyone gets that has "all the developer bits from the conference."

---

I sure hope it gobbles up a little less than 160GB, or else it shows to be a lot of bloathware again.

...let's hope it doesn't eat up 160G of RAM...

---

mic.

OK, this is kinda stupid. I just read on ArsTechnica that Windows 7 will actually be kernel version 6.1, just as the current private builds say.

So that means when kernel version 7.0 comes out (as Windows 8?), there's going to be some confusion among software developers trying to figure out which version OS is installed on a user's machine. I can see this causing some headaches.

OK, this is kinda stupid. I just read on ArsTechnica that Windows 7 will actually be kernel version 6.1, just as the current private builds say.

So that would mean an extension to vista like XP (kernel 5.1) was an extension to Windows 2000 (kernel 5).
This makes sense to me as they have done it before.

If history repeats we should expect a stability and performance improvement over vista along with some new gadgets (UI related most of them).

---

7th version? Really?

Windows 1.0
Windows 2.0
Windows 2.1
Windows 3.0
Windows 3.1
Windows 3.11
Windows 95
Windows 98
Windows ME
Windows NT3
Windows NT4
Windows 2000
Windows XP
Windows Vista

That looks like about 11 major versions. I believe that there was an NT1 and an NT2, but I never used them.

Nope. No NT v1 or NT v2, unless you count OS/2.

Actually, here's the proper build up for Windows 7 (since it is an NT kernel, and they are claiming that this is the seventh NT kernel):

OS/2 v1
OS/2 v2

(This is where Microsoft and IBM parted ways, with Microsoft taking on development of OS/2 v3, which was code named OS/2 NT v3 with "NT" meaning New Technology).

Windows NT 3.1 (first version of NT available)
Windows NT 3.5 & NT 3.51 (still using the 3.x kernel)
Windows NT 4 (fourth kernel)
Windows 2000 (fifth kernel)
Windows XP (NT v5.1, still using fifth kernel)
Windows Vista (NT v6 using the 6th iteration kernel)
Windows 7 (as in Windows kernel version 7)


It works out as it should.

Correct OzzFan, Before NT 3.x came out MS and IBM were jointly working on OS/2 for a while, At a certain point they had some sort of disagreement on the direction the OS was taking and both split up(I read that in either BYTE or Computer Shopper magazine back then in the stone age), MS developed NT 3.x and IBM kept on Developing OS/2 by Itself(Literally I think).

---

The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's

OK, this is kinda stupid. I just read on ArsTechnica that Windows 7 will actually be kernel version 6.1, just as the current private builds say.

So that would mean an extension to vista like XP (kernel 5.1) was an extension to Windows 2000 (kernel 5).
This makes sense to me as they have done it before.

If history repeats we should expect a stability and performance improvement over vista along with some new gadgets (UI related most of them).

Sure, but then that destroys their insistence that Windows 7 is the seventh major version of Windows. In fact, it will not be Windows 7.x, but Windows 6.1.

To be honest, I'm not sure Microsoft could improve Vista's stability if they wanted to. Its rock solid. The performance during certain operations could use a little help though.

7th version? Really?

Windows 1.0
Windows 2.0
Windows 2.1
Windows 3.0
Windows 3.1
Windows 3.11
Windows 95
Windows 98
Windows ME
Windows NT3
Windows NT4
Windows 2000
Windows XP
Windows Vista

That looks like about 11 major versions. I believe that there was an NT1 and an NT2, but I never used them.

Nope. No NT v1 or NT v2, unless you count OS/2.

Actually, here's the proper build up for Windows 7 (since it is an NT kernel, and they are claiming that this is the seventh NT kernel):

OS/2 v1
OS/2 v2

(This is where Microsoft and IBM parted ways, with Microsoft taking on development of OS/2 v3, which was code named OS/2 NT v3 with "NT" meaning New Technology).

Windows NT 3.1 (first version of NT available)
Windows NT 3.5 & NT 3.51 (still using the 3.x kernel)
Windows NT 4 (fourth kernel)
Windows 2000 (fifth kernel)
Windows XP (NT v5.1, still using fifth kernel)
Windows Vista (NT v6 using the 6th iteration kernel)
Windows 7 (as in Windows kernel version 7)


It works out as it should.

Correct OzzFan, Before NT 3.x came out MS and IBM were jointly working on OS/2 for a while, At a certain point they had some sort of disagreement on the direction the OS was taking and both split up(I read that in either BYTE or Computer Shopper magazine back then in the stone age), MS developed NT 3.x and IBM kept on Developing OS/2 by Itself(Literally I think).

Yes, IBM developed OS/2 v3.x and OS/2 4.x on their own. In fact, much of the code from OS/2 v3.x was still from Microsoft because Microsoft had much of the code written before their fallout with IBM. Some theories state that Microsoft was purposely coding OS/2 3.x to be difficult to use (for an example, check out how many steps it takes to install a printer in OS/2 v3) to push users over to the Windows platform.

7th version? Really?

Windows 1.0
Windows 2.0
Windows 2.1
Windows 3.0
Windows 3.1
Windows 3.11
Windows 95
Windows 98
Windows ME
Windows NT3
Windows NT4
Windows 2000
Windows XP
Windows Vista

That looks like about 11 major versions. I believe that there was an NT1 and an NT2, but I never used them.

Nope. No NT v1 or NT v2, unless you count OS/2.

Actually, here's the proper build up for Windows 7 (since it is an NT kernel, and they are claiming that this is the seventh NT kernel):

OS/2 v1
OS/2 v2

(This is where Microsoft and IBM parted ways, with Microsoft taking on development of OS/2 v3, which was code named OS/2 NT v3 with "NT" meaning New Technology).

Windows NT 3.1 (first version of NT available)
Windows NT 3.5 & NT 3.51 (still using the 3.x kernel)
Windows NT 4 (fourth kernel)
Windows 2000 (fifth kernel)
Windows XP (NT v5.1, still using fifth kernel)
Windows Vista (NT v6 using the 6th iteration kernel)
Windows 7 (as in Windows kernel version 7)


It works out as it should.

Correct OzzFan, Before NT 3.x came out MS and IBM were jointly working on OS/2 for a while, At a certain point they had some sort of disagreement on the direction the OS was taking and both split up(I read that in either BYTE or Computer Shopper magazine back then in the stone age), MS developed NT 3.x and IBM kept on Developing OS/2 by Itself(Literally I think).

Yes, IBM developed OS/2 v3.x and OS/2 4.x on their own. In fact, much of the code from OS/2 v3.x was still from Microsoft because Microsoft had much of the code written before their fallout with IBM. Some theories state that Microsoft was purposely coding OS/2 3.x to be difficult to use (for an example, check out how many steps it takes to install a printer in OS/2 v3) to push users over to the Windows platform.

That sounds like sabotage on MSes part, I guess We won't know why they really split up, As It's old news and water under the bridge. sigh.

---

The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's

There's a good reason for Windows 7 being Windows 6.1 instead of 7.0.

A lot of third party software checks the NT version number. If the major version isn't what the software expected, then it may fail to install. As such, for compatibility reasons (especially since Microsoft has been saying that they won't break compatibility with Vista), the minor version was incremented by 1, instead of the major version.

The same thing happened with XP.

EDIT: As a side note, it's refreshing to see that folks here agree that Vista is NT. I was on another forum the other day where the members were insistent that Vista wasn't based on NT.

There's a good reason for Windows 7 being Windows 6.1 instead of 7.0.

A lot of third party software checks the NT version number. If the major version isn't what the software expected, then it may fail to install. As such, for compatibility reasons (especially since Microsoft has been saying that they won't break compatibility with Vista), the minor version was incremented by 1, instead of the major version.

The same thing happened with XP.

I understand that's the current line given out to people, but then the logic really doesn't follow:

A) If they are worried about software that checks the major version and are afraid that they won't work, then why increase the major version ever? Why not make Vista NT v5.3 and Windows 7 NT v5.4 so as to not break compatibility with Windows 2000 and XP?

B) If this is indeed an 'increment' upgrade, then why give it a major version name like Windows 7, which implies kernel version 7.0? If this is not an increment upgrade, then make the major version number change and make developers test their code with Windows 7 accordingly like all other major Windows releases.

I just think that calling Windows 7 NT 6.1 is going to cause some confusion in the industry later on down the road. They initially were trying to say that they were calling this Windows 7 because this is the seventh major release of Windows, but then it can't be a major release if the version number is only incremented by a point upgrade.

I mean, a name is a name is a name, but the number certainly implies a major upgrade while only offering a point upgrade. Its only going to create more confusion, especially for those of us "techy" enough to try to keep track of such things.

Yeah It's a lot like with Windows 98 and Windows 98 Second Edition they ought to call it Windows VISTA Second Edition.