Why is Windows7 called Windows7?

Discussion in 'Windows Vista General Discussion' started by Wingwong Woo, Aug 17, 2008.

  1. Wingwong Woo

    Spirit Guest

    Only matters how MS sees it and that's how they derived 7.
     
    Spirit, Aug 18, 2008
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. There's been a lot of noise in this thread!

    Just to clarify: Microsoft ran two completely different desktop OS
    development streams, both of which were called Windows.

    The first were their "toy" OSs, and went:

    Windows 1
    Windows 2
    Windows 3.xx
    Windows 95
    Windows 98 (xx)
    Windows ME
    ---abandoned---


    Their "professional" OSs went like Mike says:

    Win NT 3 (interface like Windows 3)
    Win NT 4 (interface like Windows 95)
    Win NT 5 aka Win 2000
    Win NT 5.1 aka Win XP
    Win 6 aka Vista
    Win 7 aka Win 7


    Windows XP was released after the final gasp of the "toy" stream, and was
    designed to take over that customer base. Since then Microsoft have just
    the one desktop OS.

    Some people say that XP was a merger of the two streams. This is
    emphatically not the case - the two OSs had completely different
    architectures. XP was very much the next development of the NT stream, with
    new code added so it would support most of the apps that ran on Windows
    95/98/ME.

    SteveT
     
    Steve Thackery, Aug 18, 2008
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. Windows 7 will doubtless require a quad processor and 3 + gig of ram

    just to boot.

    This whole process will take seven minutes

    - Hence the name

    Windows Seven
     
    cheley_bonstell88, Aug 18, 2008
    #23
  4. Wingwong Woo

    Wingwong Woo Guest

    It's Wingwong, asshole. You **** off. You suck tits of bull.
     
    Wingwong Woo, Aug 18, 2008
    #24
  5. Wingwong Woo

    Wingwong Woo Guest

    But the ancients thought they were.
     
    Wingwong Woo, Aug 18, 2008
    #25
  6. Well, I think it is weird, as when it was called Windows Vienna, it was also
    referred to as NT7. Presumably, when it was re-codenamed Windows 7, it was
    still planned to be NT7. Now, Windows 7 is being rushed to release as soon
    as possible, due to Vista not selling as well as hoped and so being made
    more of an interim fix for Vista.

    ss.
     
    Synapse Syndrome, Aug 18, 2008
    #26
  7. Maybe it's WankWang. No Girl For WankWang. Only Wank.
     
    Ringmaster's Keeper, Aug 18, 2008
    #27
  8. Wingwong Woo

    Ken Blake Guest

    1. Windows 1.0-3.1
    2. Windows 95/98/Me
    3. Windows NT
    4. Windows 2000
    5. Windows XP
    6. Windows Vista
    7. Windows Vista


    This isn't really accurate. Note the following:

    1. Windows 1.0, 2.0, and 3.x were very different, and it doesn't really make
    sense to call them a single version. Windows 3.0 was really the first
    version to be successful.

    2. The first version of NT was 3.1 (followed by NT3.5, 3.51, and 4.0),
    presumably to match the numbering of the consumer version that was around at
    the time.

    3. "Windows 2000" was just a marketing name for what, under the hood, was
    called Windows NT 5.0

    4. Similarly, "Windows XP" was just a marketing name for what, under the
    hood, was called Windows NT 5.1

    5. And "Windows Vista" was just a marketing name for what, under the hood,
    is called Windows NT 6.0

    6. Presumably, the next version of Windows will be NT 7.0 under the hood,
    but nobody yet know whether Microsoft will cfall it that when they release
    or, or come up with other new marketing name.

    So I were counting major versions of Windows, I'd do it as follows:

    1. Windows 1.0
    2. Windows 2.0
    3. Windows 3.x (including Windows for Workgroups)
    4. Windows 9.x (including Me)
    5. Windows NT 3.x
    6. Windows NT 4.0
    7. Windows NT 5.0 (2000 and XP)
    8. Windows NT 6.0 (Vista)
    9. Whatever name they give to the next version.
     
    Ken Blake, Aug 18, 2008
    #28
  9. Why does IE7 suck so bad? And same with Office 2007?!

    --
    "...every non-modular OS SUCKS...Speaking for myself only."
    - zachd [MSFT]

    DRM and unintended consequences:
    http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/security/?p=435&tag=nl.e101
     
    The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly , Aug 18, 2008
    #29
  10. "The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy'"
    So why do you say that IE7 sucks? What's wrong with it?
     
    Ringmaster's Keeper, Aug 18, 2008
    #30
  11. Wingwong Woo

    Spirit Guest

    Except for the error on 7. its all accurate based on Core and it is
    the reason 7 is called 7. Have a nice day.
     
    Spirit, Aug 18, 2008
    #31

  12. You obviously do not have a clue about what you are attempting to make up
    imaginary lists about.

    ss.
     
    Synapse Syndrome, Aug 18, 2008
    #32
  13. - The new interface sucks and is unintuitive
    - It feels like MS added bloat to try to make it look pretty, forsaking
    the performance of IE6. IE6 is faster than firefox 2.x which is faster
    than IE7.
    - It does not have settings you can crack open to performance tweak it
    like firefox does (


    --
    "...every non-modular OS SUCKS...Speaking for myself only."
    - zachd [MSFT]

    DRM and unintended consequences:
    http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/security/?p=435&tag=nl.e101
     
    The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly , Aug 18, 2008
    #33
  14. Wingwong Woo

    Mr. Bean Guest

    No. Microsoft said they planned to have more frequent releases of Windows
    in the future when Vista first came out. They didn't plan to have such a
    long time frame between the release of XP and Vista, they effed up Vista
    when they used XP as the base and had to go back and re-write it and used
    Windows server OS base instead of XP. Windows7 release schedule was planned
    before Vista was even released.
     
    Mr. Bean, Aug 18, 2008
    #34
  15. The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy'
    wrote:
    Sorry, I hit send early on accident. Here are the more of the reasons I
    don't like IE7:

    - Web Proxy Auto-Discovery IE7 bug
    http://aviv.raffon.net/2008/05/14/I...LinksquotCrossZoneScriptingVulnerability.aspx

    - IE 7&8 bug
    http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=710

    - Another IE 7&8 bug
    http://sirdarckcat.blogspot.com/2008/05/ghosts-for-ie8-and-ie75730.html

    - IE 6, 7, & 8 bug which has been known about since 2006 and unpatched!!!
    http://isc.sans.org/diary.html?storyid=4562

    What it boils down to most is bad security! High risk Vulnerabilities
    sitting out there unpatched for up to 2 years?! No thanks, I'll use a
    different, more secure browser, thank you!

    --
    "...every non-modular OS SUCKS...Speaking for myself only."
    - zachd [MSFT]

    DRM and unintended consequences:
    http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/security/?p=435&tag=nl.e101
     
    The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly , Aug 18, 2008
    #35
  16. Wingwong Woo

    Spirit Guest

    Lol, I have more than a clue, I know exactly.

     
    Spirit, Aug 18, 2008
    #36
  17. Wingwong Woo

    Xenomorph Guest

    DOS-based:

    Windows 1.0
    Windows 2.0
    Windows 3.0
    Windows 3.1
    Windows 95 - 4.0
    Windows 98/98SE - 4.1
    Windows Me - 4.9

    NT-based:

    Windows NT 3.1
    Windows NT 3.5
    Windows NT 3.51
    Windows NT 4.0
    Windows 2000 - 5.0
    Windows XP - 5.1
    Windows XP x64 / Windows 2003 - 5.2
    Windows Vista - 6.0
    Windows Vista SP1 / Windows 2008 - 6.1
     
    Xenomorph, Sep 7, 2008
    #37
  18. Wingwong Woo

    BtheD Guest

    Why? That's another question. Here's what I remember from installing
    these:

    Windows 3.0
    Windows 3.1, 3.11

    Windows 95 v3.?
    Windows 95A v3.?
    Windows 96 (95 OSR2) v3.?
    Windows 97 (95 OSR2.2) v3.?
    Windows 98 v4
    Windows 99 (98SE) v4.1
    Windows 2000 (Me) v4.2
    Windows 2001 (Windows 2000) v5.0 Was to have been NT5 at long last.
    Windows XP v5.1
    Windows Vista v6.0
    Windows 7 v7.0???

    It's like the Christmas Alphabet: a b c d e f g h i j k m n o p q r s
    t u v w x y z.

    I'd have to re-install windows 95 to be sure. (That'll happen.)

    And that's the way it is here in San Jose on one of the few dates
    that's almost the same upright or upsidedown:

    09 06 2008
    06 09 5008

    Well, I said almost.

    BD
     
    BtheD, Sep 7, 2008
    #38
  19. Wingwong Woo

    BtheD Guest



    Why? That's another question. Here's what I remember from installing
    these:

    Windows 3.0
    Windows 3.1, 3.11

    Windows 95 v3.?
    Windows 95A v3.?
    Windows 96 (95 OSR2) v3.?
    Windows 97 (95 OSR2.2) v3.?
    Windows 98 v4
    Windows 99 (98SE) v4.1
    Windows 2000 (Me) v4.2
    Windows 2001 (Windows 2000) v5.0 Was to have been NT5 at long last.
    Windows XP v5.1
    Windows Vista v6.0
    Windows 7 v7.0???

    It's like the Christmas Alphabet: a b c d e f g h i j k m n o p q r s
    t u v w x y z.

    I'd have to re-install windows 95 to be sure. (That'll happen.)

    And that's the way it is here in San Jose on one of the few dates
    that's almost the same upright or upsidedown:

    09 06 2008
    06 09 5008

    Well, I said almost.
     
    BtheD, Sep 7, 2008
    #39
  20. Wingwong Woo

    BtheD Guest



    Why? That's another question. Here's what I remember from installing
    these:

    Windows 3.0
    Windows 3.1, 3.11

    Windows 95 v3.?
    Windows 95A v3.?
    Windows 96 (95 OSR2) v3.?
    Windows 97 (95 OSR2.2) v3.?
    Windows 98 v4
    Windows 99 (98SE) v4.1
    Windows 2000 (Me) v4.2
    Windows 2001 (Windows 2000) v5.0 Was to have been NT5 at long last.
    Windows XP v5.1
    Windows Vista v6.0
    Windows 7 v7.0???

    It's like the Christmas Alphabet: a b c d e f g h i j k m n o p q r s
    t u v w x y z.

    I'd have to re-install windows 95 to be sure. (That'll happen.)

    And that's the way it is here in San Jose on one of the few dates
    that's almost the same upright or upsidedown:

    09 06 2008
    06 09 5008

    Well, I said almost.
     
    BtheD, Sep 7, 2008
    #40
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.