Comments on: Microsoft’s Next OS To Be Called “Windows 7″. Seriously.

By: Peeps

Peeps — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 02:53:57 +0000

It’s “friend”, not “homie.” Gosh.

By: Locoma

Locoma — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 14:17:10 +0000

Not bad at all? At my programming course we have 2 different lab rooms with computers. Nobody wants the room with windows Vista because the computers work like shit and after a year they are practically unusable. Both labs were under the exact same use conditions for the whole year. We ALL thought the XP lab was the shittier at first and now we plead for it to be available.

By: Locoma

Locoma — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 13:54:38 +0000

Oh my god, man, you can’t say that “Me” was the same OS as “2000″. “2000″ was based on NT technology (which was way more decent) while “Me” was a really crappy new release of the previous 98SE (opposed to the NT line). Just by using them you can tell there’s a HUGE difference.
So “2000″ was 5.0 (not Me), which was followed by XP (5.1).

By: Blaber

Blaber — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 19:27:41 +0000

You guys must have forgotten to follow up on Microsoft’s history.

The first version that was widely released was Windows 3.1 (this is what Windows 7 is getting back to, the relase number system for simplicity’s sake).

Then Came NT which was developed for the professional environment as an attempt to take on a new OS in town (Linux). (These OS’s eventually moved into the server realm and are not considered part of Microsoft’s PC operating systems.

Next was Windows 95 (or 4.0 if they had kept the original naming scheme. They changed it because at the time most people had never heard of a release candidate, alpha, beta, pre-release version of software.)

Next up was Windows 98 (or 4.5) it was basically an upgrade to windows 95. Not a whole lot of features just a new name.

Then came ME AND 2000 they were different releases of the same operating system (5.0)

Followed by XP (5.5) which was built on the stability of ME and 2000. (XP was a play on the word experience because at the time microsoft thought it would be brilliant to roll out software as a service and instead of selling the software on a disk you would access it and run it over the internet as a terminal and therefore fall in love with the “microsoft experience”)

The next major release of Microsoft Software was Vista (6.0) which was a major upset for the company.

And now we have Windows 7 (7.0 for those of you who are paying attention. which brings us back to the original naming convention of release number. (now that most people understand the concept of build and release numbers.) (the higher the number the better the software [typically])

sorry to ramble just had to clear some things up

By: shyamala

shyamala — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 15:30:31 +0000

No,many are conffusing to understand about that OS…

By: Ish

Ish — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 06:05:23 +0000

It’s “not” not “no”…
Sorry I just don’t know how to correct down the word homie, so yeah.

By: Heather

Heather — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 21:13:39 +0000

First off, Microsoft has NEVER had a steady nameing scheme for ANY of their products and probably never will.
~it started with version numbers
Windows 1 (obviously version 1)
Windows 2 (obviously version 2)
Windows 3.1 (obviously version 3.1)
~then switched back and forth between release year and name
Windows 95 (version 4.0)
*Windows NT 4.0 was released a year later
Windows 98 (version 4.10)
*Windows ME (version 4.9)
Windows 2000 (version 5)
*Windows XP (version 5.1)
* Windows Vista (version 6.0)

And now there is:
Windows 7 (version 6.1)
Tell me how that is even related to “It’s about time Microsoft adopted a naming system that might actually make some sense to users” That makes absolutely no sense. it is technically the 9th release of Windows (i am counting ME and 2000 as 1since ME was the home user edition and 2000 was the business edition) and the 5th NTFS release.

In short, not what i would call a naming scheme. Mac (and i am not exactly a fan of these beastlies) on the other hand used to have a naming scheme that made sense. The “X” in OS X that is “so hard to pronounce” stands for 10 as in after OS 9….. they are still sticking to version numbers though.
You want an OS with a real naming scheme? take a look at Ubuntu, titled after the release year.month. example: 8.10 what released in October of 2008 and 9.04 will be released in april of 2009.

By: moxl

moxl — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 20:50:13 +0000

Oh yes!
And “Vista usually refers to a distant view” according to the Babylon dictionary (http://www.baby...n/vista/English).

In MS Vista’s case this means something you better watch from far away.

But there are also examples that give us hope for Windows 7 on older Hardware:
http://max.zamo...1600-tablet-pc/

By: CES 2009, un non-évènement annoncé ?

CES 2009, un non-évènement annoncé ? — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 08:24:24 +0000

[...] 7, le successeur to Vista, sera présenté en version Beta publique ( plus [...]

By: Ballmer’s CES Keynote Promises To Be A Snoozer (Non-Announcements Revealed!) « ArticleSave

Sat, 03 Jan 2009 07:27:41 +0000

[...] 7, the successor to Vista, will officially enter public beta (you can already read about it [...]

By: Ballmer’s CES Keynote Promises To Be A Snoozer (Non-Announcements Revealed!)

Ballmer’s CES Keynote Promises To Be A Snoozer (Non-Announcements Revealed!) — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 23:03:32 +0000

[...] 7, the successor to Vista, will officially enter public beta (you can already read about it [...]

By: Ballmer’s CES Keynote Promises To Be A Snoozer (Non-Announcements Revealed!).

Fri, 02 Jan 2009 21:57:09 +0000

[...] 7, the successor to Vista, will officially enter public beta (you can already read about it [...]

By: Windows 7 preview and Apple fanboys, Windows 7 doesn't suck, Mac Sucks, Windows 7 vs Mac, Superbar, Dock | What Really Sucks

Sun, 28 Dec 2008 11:57:02 +0000

[...] Techcrunch says: Windows has had one of the most ridiculous naming schemes in the history of software. First there were logical (but ugly) version numbers, like the once commonplace “Windows 3.1?. Then with the release of the overhauled Windows 95 the company adopted a naming system based on the year of release, which it continued until Windows 98. [...]

By: » А вы знали об этом????? Виталия

» А вы знали об этом????? Виталия — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 22:39:10 +0000

[...] вот, следующая версия Windows будет называтся Windows 7 (об этом уже официально объявили), чтобы вернуть ощущение итеративности. Чтобы когда [...]

By: johnnyplay

johnnyplay — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 09:19:34 +0000

Hey! The next os from microsoft is named “Vienne” not microsoft 7(may be?).

Or I think they have not given it a permanent name yet…

By: jeremiah

jeremiah — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 07:01:42 +0000

Can’t they count? Windows 3.1 was at least the 4th release, making Windows 95 number 5 (or more), 98 would be number 6, 2000 would be number 7, XP number 8, Vista number 9, so this should be Windows 10 (or X, if they wanted to follow the Apple thing…). Maybe they’re hoping for “lucky Windows 7,” but I expect Vista to fade away like the bad memory that Windows ME was. 2000 and XP were much more stable.

By: טכנולוגיה אנושית » ארכיון הבלוג » תאז”כ

טכנולוגיה אנושית » ארכיון הבלוג » תאז”כ — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 08:35:02 +0000

[...] מיקרוסופט, שכל כך טובים במתן שמות (אהממ), קוראים לכלים שלהם Productivity Suite. תודו ש-GTD יותר מוצלח. [...]

By: sidhu

sidhu — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 14:21:29 +0000

i think now vista is not popular but why next…….?

By: Bob

Bob — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 20:40:01 +0000

It’s “the” no “da”, homie

By: HD Boy

HD Boy — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 07:12:28 +0000

Whatever Microsoft calls the next version of Windows, it will be based on Vista and so, it might as well be called Vista SP2. They can change the name, and even put lipstick on the pig by changing the packaging. But they can’t change what it is at its core without rewriting the entire, insecure and bloated OS from the ground up.

By: Next version of Windows to be called Windows 7

Next version of Windows to be called Windows 7 — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 07:24:52 +0000

[...] TechCrunch - Microsoft’s Next OS To Be Called “Windows 7?. Seriously. [...]

By: Mark

Mark — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 05:47:39 +0000

…erm… Amen?

By: Mark

Mark — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 05:45:33 +0000

Hehe used to confuse me too.
Apple is the company, and brand the of computers.
Macintosh (Mac) is just the operating system that they all run now.
(There used to be other operating systems from apple, but since Mac came out, they have only upgraded the ‘Mac OS’ version it instead of switching names)

The reason they are used interchangeably is that, generally speaking, only Apple computers run Mac, and unless you install an OS via Boot Camp, Apple computers run only Mac.

By: Mark

Mark — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 05:38:49 +0000

It’s “brother” not “bro”, you person!

Haha, jk, I just had to add to da chain.

By: Charmaine Chen

Charmaine Chen — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 06:03:40 +0000

Somehow, I prefer the fancier names… partly because Windows did not name its previous OS based on a numerical format so… the sudden appearance of a Windows “7″ is a tad confusing