According to the official Windows Vista Blog, Microsoft has decided that, in order to keep things simple, the OS code-named "Windows 7" will officially be called "Windows 7." Sayeth the poster: "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."" Of course, this introduces a major issue - if the version number of Windows 7 is, in fact, 6.1 or 6.2, as many expect, how can you call it Windows 7? And if the kernel version is updated to version 7, how many apps and drivers might fail due to poor version checking? I'm sure the upcoming PDC and WinHEC events will shed some light on this.
Post a Comment
Member since:
2005-06-29
Member since:2006-01-04
Let's wait and see. Vista had a lot of cool things going for it in the first year of its development.
The first 80% of any software are always fun and games.
The last 20% are the hard stuff. And MS has not the best track record on getting those done in time.
Just one blog with nice posts does not convince me otherwise.
Member since:2005-04-01
Member since:2005-11-10
Yes, but the blog always stops short of actually answering any of the said feedback. For each of the topics they've covered, they've given points 1. 2. - the history of the feature, and what the identified problems are; but they leave out point 3. - what the solution in Windows 7 is going to be. They only say that things will be easier, clearer and better. The same smoke they were wafting with Vista.
The only thing that's given me hope so far is the only thing that exists as actual evidence and not merely floral wording from the engineers - the leaked screenshots of WordPad and Paint.
Member since:2005-06-29
So, first Microsoft gets a load of crap because they were too eager to blabber and write on and on about what might end up in Vista - and now they're getting a load of crap because they're being a lot more careful with making promises?
Seriously. Where will it end?
As Adam said, the E7 blog is great. It gives a lot of insider info, usage data, the areas and problems they're working on, some solutions they're considering, and you can give feedback via the comments - and then, a few days later, they respond to that feedback with a follow-up post.
Sure, it ain't no mailing-list bikeshed debates (if some of you were to actually read open-source m-l's, like I do, you'd understand the frustration), but it's better than nothing.
Member since:2005-04-01
Member since:2006-01-16
Member since:2006-01-24
Well I do enjoy reading the blog, mainly due to me being interested in OS development. But the name announcement is pretty much the least interesting blog entry for me so far and while it's certainly news I fail to see why it would be the cause of any excitement. I mean, what's in a name? That which we call Vista, by any other name would smell just as bad.
Member since:2005-07-06
Wow, first post.
The problem is that the version number doesn't convey anything to anyone. To developers, the internal version is likely still to be 6.x and the version number of 7 means absolutely nothing to end users given the naming scheme of Windows since Windows 95. Vista was a departure again. At least Apple have stayed consistent, called Mac OS OS X, given each version a proper internal version number for people who care and given each release a nice cat name for everyone else.
Is it? I don't see where the progressive and logical naming scheme comes from.
Member since:2005-07-06
I don't think the "nice glyph" remark is linked to logical considerations. It might merely mean that a 7 is a nice shape to make pretty pictures with.
What strikes me is that Intel also has their i7. Are we going to see a lot of 7 products from different vendors. Like the XP moniker when MS came out with Windows XP?
Member since:2007-06-12
Member since:2007-03-30
Member since:2005-07-24
A year?? i7 may be around, but I seriously doubt Windows 7 will be!
Not bashing, just a historical trend with no prior precedence to the contrary ( i.e. : they ain't ever got done on time... except once... because they bought the software from the Seattle Software Co. ).
--The loon
Oddly, I'd rather enjoy seeing Microsoft do a good job on Windows 7. Problem is that no single OS can be the best at everything.
"Always with the compromises." - Zoidberg.
Member since:2007-03-30
Member since:2005-07-06
It's not really of any use marketing-wise, and doesn't mean anything as a glyph, unless you can keep some sort of running theme going through future versions of Windows to link them all together. However, that's something that Microsoft are no good at really and they've put no thought into it whatsoever. You can have a go at Apple about lots of things but their OS X cat naming scheme is brilliant. It produces nice glyphs, glyphs that mean something to people via their continuity and memorable names.
Microsoft needed to break with previous naming schemes, and with Vista, by coming up with something fresh, memorable and continuous. That isn't it.
Member since:2005-07-06
My big problem with the car scheme and its usage is you cannot tell which order they come in. Is Leopard newer or older than Jaguar? No way to tell and as a non fan boy casual OS X user I cannot remember.
Member since:2007-02-17
These guys:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Ubuntu_releases
... only got it right after their fourth try. For their first two releases, you have to go by the numbering rather than the alphabetic order.
You wouldn't think it would be that hard, would you?
Member since:2005-07-22
Member since:2005-07-06
its NOT a good name, for the simple reason that it isnt windows7 - its windows6.1.
vista is windows6. this version is an incremental upgrade to vista just like xp was an incremental update to windows2000. and just like xp is windows5.1 this version should be named windows6.1
calling it windows7 is the worst possible name as its entirely misleading on several levels.
/stone
Member since:2006-07-25
the internal number scheme does affect the fact that this is the seventh version of windows to be released.
I too think this is a good name, i never liked the XP or Vista mokia. It'll be nice if they could get into the logical apple method of numbering, i.e. SP1 could be 7.1, etc..
Im just glad they didn't use the year method as before, a la windows 2000. As this is well and truly in the windows server arena, Windows 2008, Exchange 2007 etc..
Edited 2008-10-14 15:49 UTC
Member since:2005-07-06
It worked out OK for Java 2 Solaris 7. Only the nerdiest of computer nerds will even care that the new numbering system is 'wrong'. 99.95% of their target audience won't care in the slightest about internal numbering or how "misleading" it is.
If you really think that Windows 7 "is the worst possible name" that they could come up with then you really need to get out more.
Member since:
2005-07-06
[quote]Of course, this introduces a major issue - if the version number of Windows 7 is, in fact, 6.1 or 6.2, as many expect, how can you call it Windows 7?[/quote]
You do realize that you are talking about Microsoft's marketing department, don't you? Can you think of the last time they made sense? I'd finger "Windows for Workgroups" myself.
Member since:
2007-07-11
Member since:2006-09-19
Member since:2005-07-24
Upps, you lose!
Not unless things change very radically in that time.
Linux does a truly horrible job of dealing with drivers for new hardware. And I'm not talking about drivers for new hardware not existing, or vendors not providing the specs, or anything like that. That is a separate discussion.
I'm talking about the fact that the prescribed course for any user with a piece of new hardware is to upgrade to the latest version of their distro. And if the latest stable version does not support the hardware, then using the latest beta, or even alpha version of the distro may be required. I had to move to an early alpha version of my distro of choice just to get SATA working on my Intel G43 chipset motherboard. That is a totally brain-dead driver management policy. The truly horrifying thing is that some within the community apparently think that policy is fine and dandy.
Edited 2008-10-14 19:43 UTC
Member since:2006-01-10
You don't have to do that. You can backport drivers, in case you didn't know. Not to mention that all you need are the kernel headers.
I installed the newest e1000e driver off of the sourceforge page when the whole fiasco of that happened with the .26 / .27 kernels and it worked flawlessly.
So this whole "Having to upgrade the whole distribution" is plain poo.
Member since:2005-07-24
Member since:2005-08-07
lemur2 asked...
With Linux ... why not be up-to-date?
Because sometimes stability matters?
Please note, the OP in the conversation chain is talking about having to install bleeding edge beta or even alpha quality software simply in order to have full hardware support for his hardware.
Of course, using your examples above with Win9x and Vista, the advantage of Linux is you can compile a kernel to get your hardware to work. Try doing that with a proprietary OS...
--bornagainpenguin
Edited 2008-10-15 03:31 UTC
Member since:2007-02-17
If you are going to bolt bleeding edge beta or even alpha quality hardware into your machine, you may well have to put up with very recent and not-yet-well-tested versions of software.
That's life. Deal with it.
Precisely.
Edited 2008-10-15 03:53 UTC
Member since:2005-08-07
lemur2 said...
That's life. Deal with it.
We're not talking about hardware that is bleeding edge, just the realities behind having to develop drivers independently and usually without the support of manufacturers.
I don't think its fair to call retail hardware bleeding edge or alpha unless there are issues with the actual hardware independent of the drivers used in whichever OS.
So do I understand the realities of the situation, I just think it sucks and people shouldn't be so hard on those who find themselves stuck due to the unavailability of tested and stable drivers.
Its actually pretty cool that as many people put up with the current situation as do...
--bornagainpenguin
Member since:2005-07-24
Nice try, Lemur. But while I was dealing with hourly lockups of an alpha version of a Linux distro, Windows users were enjoying stable performance from their new Intel-based motherboards. (Your implied claim that Intel sells alpha quality hardware to the public makes you seem pretty desperate to come up with a defense.)
This statement neatly embodies the reason that in the last 16 years(!) Linux has gotten almost nowhere on the consumer desktop.
http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=10
And that situation will continue as long as such an attitude is prevalent.
Fortunately for Linux, the old guard is slowly but surely being marginalized by new players who have a clue as to real users' needs.
As to concerns about upgrades being "Windows-think" as you call it... when are some Linux advocates ever going to get it through their heads that one's *time* has value? And why waste the time to upgrade to a shiny (and possibly unstable) new Linux version just to get what XP gives you (in this case, in more stable form) with a simple driver update?
I'm a Linux advocate. Majorly. But your defense of our current driver management policy is off the deep end, and makes it appear that you will go to any length to try to defend "The Linux Way".
Edited 2008-10-15 04:49 UTC
Member since:2007-02-17
Its alpha quality hardware if it doesn't have a working driver on release.
A Windows-only driver is not acceptable. Motherboards for IBM-PCs and derivatives are not designed to run only OS from one vendor. Linux, Mac OSX and Windows all run on x86 and x86_64 architecture machines.
Even with Windows ... if you get new hardware, newer than the OS with which you try to run it ... then problems may well be evident.
This is not a valid argument to put forward against Linux. If there is a working Windows version of drivers, and not a working Linux version (even though it should be more or less only a slight adjustment to the code and a recompile to provide that) ... then that is an argument against that Intel motherboard, and not against Linux at all.
Windows Vista driver problems are, after all, always blamed on the hardware manufacturer, and never on Microsoft.
What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
Member since:2006-01-09
Nice try, Lemur. But while I was dealing with hourly lockups of an alpha version of a Linux distro, Windows users were enjoying stable performance from their new Intel-based motherboards. (Your implied claim that Intel sells alpha quality hardware to the public makes you seem pretty desperate to come up with a defense.)
This statement neatly embodies the reason that in the last 16 years(!) Linux has gotten almost nowhere on the consumer desktop.
http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=10
And that situation will continue as long as such an attitude is prevalent.
Fortunately for Linux, the old guard is slowly but surely being marginalized by new players who have a clue as to real users' needs.
As to concerns about upgrades being "Windows-think" as you call it... when are some Linux advocates ever going to get it through their heads that one's *time* has value? And why waste the time to upgrade to a shiny (and possibly unstable) new Linux version just to get what XP gives you (in this case, in more stable form) with a simple driver update?
I'm a Linux advocate. Majorly. But your defense of our current driver management policy is off the deep end, and makes it appear that you will go to any length to try to defend "The Linux Way". "
Steve, I do understand where your frustration is coming from. I truly do. My laptop has a weird and cheap webcam that is not supported by any driver at the moment (although there is a driver in the earlier stages of development that reportedly works for some people) and sometimes one just wants to use Skype with videoconferencing like everybody else. However, Lemur's point still stands: as you are well aware the OSS community has limited resources when it comes to code or maintain drivers for new pieces of hardware, specially considering that most manufacturers don't take the trouble of publishing the hardware specs so that one can take them and write drivers without having to reverse engineer anything or to allocate the resources to write and maintain the driver themselves.
If I were a driver developer, I obviously would want to get the latest kernel and follow closely the mailing lists to make sure that I will not be using a deprecated API or something along these lines due to the ever changing nature of the kernel API - which can be a source of frustration for some in itself - and that often means that I will be playing with beta or even alpha code. And it is obvious that my code probably will not tap into everything that the device might be able to do initially as no specs were made available to begin with! Yes, it is frustrating but that how it is.
To me, it is a huge deal that there are some kind souls out there willing to spend the time required to backport some bleeding edge hardware drivers to older kernel releases, even those on the distros' payroll, as it takes a lot of effort and dedication to do it. Most of us have not paid for this software and therefore are not entitled to anything so I'm grateful when someone takes the time to do it.
Unfortunately, our choice of OS leads to this sort of problem and no amount of wishful thinking can change that and blaming this or that group of people not only is unfair but is not helpful at all. One really has to take hardware support into account when deciding to use non-Windows systems. If you REALLY need some hardware functionality that is only available on Windows and nothing but Windows, then by all means go use Windows!
And while we're on that subject, your post is showing signs of a disturbing trend that has been growing a lot on Linux land lately that is the attitude of dismissing the hard work of the people that brought us Linux as we know it in the first place, the "old guard" as you call them. The hipsters came on board and they want to shake things and make them better because "they know what end users needs" and then out of a sudden they know better than the people that worked hard to build the whole thing from the ground up until now. Perhaps most people will not use xfig, xclock or the other old xutils and countless Athena and Motif/Lesstif apps these days but these tools served us well in the past and have their place on the UNIX ecosystem.
Linux does not need to dethrone Windows to become successful. Anything that is not Windows will not satisfy its current userbase and these people will not be satisfied until Linux become a free Windows clone at which point the things that got most of us into Linux in the first place will be slowly taken away.
It just needs to reach some critical mass so that it will be treated as an equal to other mainstream OSes by the industry players and hardware manufacturers. THEN these things will begin to change. Think about it.
Member since:
2006-11-17
I was wondering how they would call it. I couldn't sleep until now. So they decided they will call it 'Windows 7' ... Wow! What a BIG event! They must have been very busy for a long time working on that name! We have reached a huge milestone here, haven't we? After the release of Mandriva 2009, python 2.6, linux kernel 2.6.27 and OpenOffice 3.0, OSNews covers the name of Windows 7! What exciting times! "Windows 7", that sounds like the future is here! Do we know the name of the next Notepad? I can't wait to know its name, this is so important to me! I can't use it if they don't call it notepad 7. I really want to know... please!
Edited 2008-10-14 13:38 UTC
Member since:2005-07-24
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-07-24
The advertising possibilities are endless (eternal?), especially for an October release. This family just got Windows 666 Home Server:
http://tinyurl.com/4ddejm
Edited 2008-10-14 14:47 UTC
Member since:2005-06-29
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2006-09-27
http://sourceforge.net/projects/notepaddotnet/
;)
Member since:2006-09-19
it'll be called Notepad NT, ("new technology" for those that just came in) because it'll support text files longer than 64Kb.
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:2006-01-02
Member since:2005-07-24
Well... I didn't criticize. Because it doesn't get much worse than this:
http://labor-liber.org/images/gnu-head.jpg
Member since:2005-07-08
Member since:
2005-08-07
Am I the only one whose lost nearly all enthusiasm for new Microsoft releases these days?
I used to at least follow stuff when XP was still known as Whistler and actually liked the Watercolours theme back in the earlier betas.
I even followed Vista quite a bit back when it was still known as Longhorn and found myself entranced by the various screenshots and videos of the Operating System, despite my decision to start moving to Linux at the earliest possibility.
Having used Vista quite a bit at the store and while working on people's computers and having verified for myself just how broken the OS is I simply can't seem to get excited about Windows 7 the way I used to about earlier Microsoft releases.
Is anyone else feeling this way? Did you used to be all geeked out about the newest and latest features in Windows (stuff like .Net, WinFS, Monad) and now just can't force the same kind of enthusiam you once had?
--bornagainpenguin
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-07-06
No, you're not alone. Waaaaay back ...I once downloaded a beta of what would become Windows98 - Memphis....over a dialup connection! It took 5 days with the connection being dropped deliberately by my ISP every 2 hours. Oh, the thrill of loading that up on my 486 laptop with 8mb of RAM. Sure, it ran like a pig with chronic arthritis...but it was 'state-of-the-art' baby! 
I've been using various flavours of Linux as my primary OS for going on 6 years now and rarely give Windows a second glance. That's not to say they don't do some good stuff...I'm just not a member of their target market anymore.
Member since:2005-08-07
jack_perry joked...
LOL. I don't think I was even playing with Windows seriously at that point. Maybe I was only using WordPerfect Dos at that time? I forget, it was a while ago, but I think at that time I was much more of an end-user.
wakeupneo reminisced...
I think I may have seen that one floating around at one of the other forums I've been a member of. I never ran it on my desktop, but I do remember being enamored by the IE4 desktop update when it first came out. I eventually moved into the 98Lite camp though and became all about deintergrating IE from the desktop, even though I still liked IE when used in one of the many shells for it allowing tabs and ad-blocking.
wakeupneo commented...
Ditto here. I may still run Windows XP on my entertainment box but its been Linux all the way on my laptops for awhile now. Especially on my Eee901, now that I've licked the battery life issues with eee-control-tray!
--bornagainpenguin
Member since:2005-11-13
Yep big time my friend.
I find that I can't get excited anymore. Their software has reached the point where its over complicated and each upgrade is a performance hog.
The magic is gone, if it was ever really there to begin with.
I still do windows for a living, but I don't get excited over it anymore.
Member since:
2005-11-26
Member since:
2005-07-13
I know i am going ot walk into a local best buy and see the sales people pushing OSX on noob computer users and citing this as their reasoning, "well the new version of windows is called windows 7. Windows 7 is good and all but apple is on OSX, and thats 3 higher so you know its better." *purchase*
Member since:
2006-07-26
And if the kernel version is updated to version 7, how many apps and drivers might fail due to poor version checking?
What a great example of why proprietary software sucks. If Linux, or FreeBSD, or some other open source OS decided to change their versions to A, B, C, or jump up a thousand to Linux Kernel 1002.6.27 how long would it take for drivers to be updated.
If you're at the mercy of proprietary drivers, you're doing something wrong.
If an operating system somehow tries to alleviate things like this where "oh, XYZ driver is asking for the version of the kernel... report the older version so that it'll work", then the operating system is doing something wrong.
It will lead to that. Microsoft has done it before where they explicitly check for certain processes known to not work on newer versions of it's OS and then it runs in some legacy mode, just so someone doesn't have to recompile a new version. This is wrong. Let the shit break, and have them fix it.
Member since:
2006-07-16
If Microsoft has an ounce of sense, it will learn another lesson from the Vista fiasco and consolodate Windows 7 back to two versions: Professional / Enterprise and Home / Personal. It was misleading and outright gouging to produce six variants of Vista. Everyone wants Ultimate but most OEM's shipped Home Basic, which was useless or Home Premium (or maybe if one was lucky, Vista Business.) Better yet, Microsoft should simply produce one lean, fast core OS with strong security features and let businesses and home users add the superfluous features a la carte like Aero glass & other themes, Media center, drive encryption, etc. via separate PLUS! packs. This way, users can tailor the OS to their specific needs and not waste space or resources on features they don't want or need. In my opinion, Microsoft's biggest mistake over the years is trying to cram everything but the kitchen sink into each new Windows release while still trying to maintain backward compatibility with DOS!
Member since:
2006-04-11
They are calling it Windows 7 not because it'll be a version 7 kernel (it's just kind of a re-release of Vista's), but because as the blog says "it is the 7th release of Windows" which I think makes sense, what does not make sense is from what point they are counting it as the 7th... by naming only the consumer versions you end up with ~10 (or 8 if you want to remove NT and 2000). The 7 will be just a pretty name IMO, it's really ambiguous from every other perspective. All said, having Vista all over again is disappointing to say the least.
1. Windows 1.x
2. Windows 2.x
3. Windows 3.x
4. Windows NT
5. Windows 95
6. Windows 98
6 1/2. Windows ME
7. Windows 2000
8. Windows XP
9. Windows Vista
10. Windows 7???
Member since:2005-07-13
just to clerify what you said, for those who don't know about the kernel numbering in windows. if you have ever been into safe mode you will notice up at the top of xp it says 5.1 and vista it says 6.0
that is because these are the version numbers behind windows. though i thought windows 7 was actualu going to be 6.1. much like xp was 5.1 to windows 2000's 5.0.
Edited 2008-10-14 16:05 UTC
Member since:2005-08-18
Member since:2005-07-06
Anybody familiar with Linux should have no problem accepting that the kernel has a different version nr. than the distro. I mean Linux is at 2.6.something while Fedora is at version 9.
Member since:
2006-05-30
From the linked blog post, the guy explains that they got away from naming Windows after years because they don't keep to a yearly release schedule. Okay, that makes sense.
Then he mentions that they wanted to avoid coming up with another "aspirational" name for Windows 7, because, in Microsoft's view, Windows 7 is delivering on their "aspirations" for what they had in mind for Windows Vista in the first place.
And so, Windows 7.
-- Here's my comment: Why not name it "Windows Buena Vista"? You know. As in, "Windows: Good Vista". 
At the very least, they're consistent in their inconsistencies.
Member since:2005-07-22
Member since:2006-05-30
Member since:
2006-11-26
Member since:
2005-06-29
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:
2006-04-18
This is fantastic news. I'm so overwhelmed with joy about the new name of Windows, I told my wife not to cook dinner tonight and order pizza.
I am also excited about the 7 different versions of Windows 7 that's going to come out.
Windows 7 - 3rd World Country Edition
Windows 7 - Basic Edition For Folks Livin' In The Hood
Windows 7 - Basic Edition
Windows 7 - Home Edition
Windows 7 - Professional Edition
Windows 7 - Ultimate Edition
Windows 7 - Enterprise Edition
Member since:
2005-11-12
calling it windows7 is the worst possible name as its entirely misleading on several levels.
It is obvious you have never worked in marketing before or associated with a lot of marketing folks. Bigger numbers are better in marketing. It is a perceptual thing; it makes people feel like they are getting their money's worth. Following software engineering standards is not part of the marketing world.
Edited 2008-10-14 21:16 UTC
Member since:2008-10-11
Member since:2006-01-01
It is obvious you have never worked in marketing before or associated with a lot of marketing folks. Bigger numbers are better in marketing. It is a perceptual thing; it makes people feel like they are getting their money's worth. Following software engineering standards is not part of the marketing world.
Exactly, in fact I was a bit surprised they didn't name it:
"Windows 12, We went one higher than 11!"
Member since:
2006-02-06
