WinInfo Daily News   |   Windows IT Pro
in

SuperSite Blog

Will Windows 7 get a new name for its release?

Sigh. :)

It is a codename, after all.

Must be a slow news day. But what the heck, let’s beat it to death. Ed?

It struck me that it’s entirely possible, even likely, that the next release of Windows will get a new name before it hits the streets.

Well. It is a codename after all.

Windows Vista was version 6.0, with a new major version number that reflects the big architectural changes that went into it. Windows 7, as dozens of leaked screen shots attest, is version 6.1. This numbering is almost certain to remain in the final product, primarily for the sake of compatibility. If the major version number is incremented to 7.0, many applications written to work with Windows Vista would fail to install, simply because of sloppy version checking.

This is rather faulty reasoning. Microsoft has frequently bumped up the Windows version number artificially. In fact, they have artificially bumped the Windows build number (a different animal entirely, I know) on more recent versions of Windows than the reverse. Regardless, I would argue that not only will the final Windows 7 version number indeed be 7.0, but that it would be extremely simple for Microsoft to seamless fix application compatibility behind the scenes, rendering the second half of that bit above entirely moot.

This whole issue is silly. But since we’re on it, my guess is for Windows 2010, not Windows 2009, if they do in fact go with a year-based name. Microsoft would never name a Windows product for the year before the product comes out after all. And even if it does ship in 2009, it won’t ship early enough in that year to warrant the 2009 tag. But that’s just my opinion.

I also happen to think that Windows 7 is a fine name. And if they do bump up that version number, as I expect, then they should just go with Windows 7.

Published Oct 08 2008, 11:25 PM by pthurrott
Filed under:

Comments

 

drylight said:

I bet that they will find a new name. The Vista name is so tarnished by being associated with an inferior, bloated, security/virus/spyware ridden OS with a truly ugly user interface that they will surely dump the name. Trying to flog the dead horse that is Vista is just Microsoft pushing *** (Vista) uphill.

October 8, 2008 9:51 PM
 

shark47 said:

"The Vista name is so tarnished by being associated with an inferior, bloated, security/virus/spyware ridden OS with a truly ugly user interface that they will surely dump the name."

Of course they'll dump the name. This is not Vista. Except for Windows 98 SE, I don't think they ever reused a previous OS name. At least, not in recent times. But somehow, the dimwits and drylights will make this all about Vista. And, no, I'm not calling drylight a dimwit. Although, I'm not denying it either.

"...security/virus/spyware ridden OS..."

What's a security ridden OS?

October 8, 2008 9:58 PM
 

johnbaxter said:

I'd like to see "Windows 7".  I'm guessing that I won't, but it feels like the right name.

I'm reminded of be careful of what you wish for, though.  I--along with many others--wanted Apple to release browser etc thing codenamed CyberDog as "CyberDog".  Apple did so.  Then dropped not only CyberDog but the entire foundation upon which it rested.

October 8, 2008 11:07 PM
 

daveinla said:

They should give it a name and not artificially bump the version  number or some cabalistic journalist is gonna argue that they are trying to milk some money for a minor upgrade and that a 6.1 version doesn't justify a price. You never know... some might say that MS are just plain liar and that windows 7 is just Vista with a few more options and less bugs. Ohh wait have I seen that somewhere ?

October 9, 2008 12:50 AM
 

mikegalos@msn.com said:

Let's get some terminology down. A software product coming out of Microsoft has a 3 part version. Something like X.YY.ZZZZ

X is the Major Version number

YY is the Minor Version number

ZZZZ is the Build number

Changing a major version number is a HUGE deal that involves changes to contracts and forces corporate customers to do major evaluation cycles that they don't do on a point release so it is never, ever done without a LOT of good reasons.

Changing a minor version number (sometimes called a "point release" is not as big a deal but implies that core designs weren't changed. Lots of features could be added but the architecture is likely to not be different.

Build numbers are effectively internal and get changed pretty easily to track lots of different things.

I'm guessing (and it's just a guess) that it will be something like Windows 2010 and that it will have a version of something like 6.2.6300

btw: you'll note that Apple is even more tight about doing major version releases and we've been seeing version 10.x of their OS now for close to a decade.

October 9, 2008 1:52 AM
 

benjwah said:

I'd really like to see it be called, "Windows 98, 3rd edition".

Just to confuse people.

October 9, 2008 2:09 AM
 

richardfrisch said:

Maybe they should call it Windows OS XI.

October 9, 2008 4:05 AM
 

Waethorn said:

"Maybe they should call it Windows OS XI."

LOL!  How about "Snow Vista"?  :P

October 9, 2008 7:42 AM
 

rjohn05 said:

Snow Vista!! Ha!

October 9, 2008 8:16 AM
 

Master3 said:

Windows 7 Snow Feisty Fawn Ultimate Edition!

October 9, 2008 9:45 AM
 

danieldecker said:

@ mikegalos@msn.com

"btw: you'll note that Apple is even more tight about doing major version releases and we've been seeing version 10.x of their OS now for close to a decade."

Mike, that's a fundamental misunderstanding of Apple's numbering scheme.

Since the introduction of OS X they have artificially restricted the "major" version number, 10, since it is the 'brand' of the OS. In it's current scheme, changing the 10 would be like changing 'Windows'. They have since moved to using the second number, after the point to denote new major versions. I think you probably understand this without my explanation. And of course updates and bug fixes can increment the third number. They also employ a build number that ha a version scheme all on it's own.

October 9, 2008 10:18 AM
 

mikegalos@msn.com said:

danieldecker

Hardly true. The core architecture hasn't changed. As I said, companies are loathe to change major version number. Now, you could argue that Apple doesn't use 10 in their naming but then you'd have to say that each little bug fix release is a full "point release"

Are you really saying 10.5.4 was a full point release over 10.5.3 that's the equivalent of upgrading the version from 5.4 to 5.3? The were released only a month apart.

October 9, 2008 10:59 AM
 

mikegalos@msn.com said:

danieldecker

btw: we're agreeing that 10 is the major version number. You say it's artificially frozen to keep it equivalent to X, I'm saying there are additional factors that make them not want to change the major version number.

October 9, 2008 11:02 AM
 

danieldecker said:

Nah Mike, I think perhaps I had a little mush mouth.

In Apple's scheme, 10.x.xx, the x is the "major" version number. Like 10.4 to 10.5 The last number, the xx is obviously for incremental updates and bug fixes. The tick up form 10.4 to 10.5 certainly did contain some architectural changes. From 10.5.0 to 10.5.1 and so on have only been minor interface tweaks and bug fixes.

The '10' is still artificially frozen for marketing purposes. Apple has seemingly shifted their "major" number one point to the right.

It will be interesting to see if Apple will abandon the '10' or are we destined to see 10.10.0, ;-)

October 9, 2008 11:23 AM
 

tayme said:

@danieldecker - Of course, you are probably right...but Mike will never admit it. It sounds a lot like what Sun did with Solaris when they jumped from Solaris 2.6 to 5.7...It is pretty well known that Solaris 7 was Sun OS v5.7, Solaris 8, Sun OS v5.8, and so on. The second digits being used for marketing purposes.

--tayme

October 9, 2008 12:17 PM
 

Waethorn said:

"The '10' is still artificially frozen for marketing purposes."

It likely has to do with the original reason for using "X" instead of "10" is because of the fact that it uses Unix, with X-Windows being always associated with Unix.  Calling it OS XI or whatever, would be dumber.  Of course, calling it X+1 would be even dumberer.  :P

"Apple has seemingly shifted their "major" number one point to the right."

No....THAT'S marketing talking now.

October 9, 2008 12:57 PM
 

shark47 said:

tayme, Mike was right about 'nucular' and the GOP. Most Dems didn't consider McCain to be a Republican and actually liked him until he won the nomination.

Windows Me X Ultimate Edition SP2

October 9, 2008 12:59 PM
 

subzerohitman721 said:

Since Windows Seven is ushering the age of cloud computing separately from the Windows Strata, I have proposed that Windows Seven release name should be "Windows Apollo" after the moon missions of the late 1960's and early 1970's.  Much like the Mercury Program set up Apollo, Vista sets up Windows Seven.

You could actually have Earth as the orb and clouds forming the Windows Logo. You could easily use the "One small step for a man, One giant leap for Mankind" for marketing purposes. I could also envision using the music of "Thus Spake Zarathustra" and the symbolism of the monolith from 2001: A Space Odessy for marketing too.

I believe it would make a bold statement about the next version of Windows, IMO. Vista being the secure OS getting you into the cloud era, Apollo takes to the the cloud and beyond. The Greeks and Roman god Apollo was the god of of light and the sun; truth and prophecy; medicine and healing; music, poetry, the arts, and more. So a lot of great things from that name.

October 9, 2008 1:17 PM
 

Waethorn said:

Um, ok, so has anybody actually confirmed (with Microsoft) what the hell Windows Strata is compared to Windows 7???

TG Daily says Windows "Cloud"/"Strata" is an API, nothing more.  Other sites say it's an OS that "looks like Windows Server 2008".  So which is it?

If it's some sort of cloud-computing OS, where does that put Windows 7, with most of the conventional middleware being displaced by means of Windows Live S+S offerings???

Um, isn't Windows 7 a "cloud OS", as defined by Microsoft's S+S vision, now that Windows Live is going to be a dominant user experience?!

C'mon Paul.  Shed some light on the subject.

PDC is still some days away after all....

Someone tickle Ballmer again.  Maybe we'll get some more hints on this.

October 9, 2008 2:04 PM
Acceptable Use Policy

About pthurrott

Paul Thurrott is the guy behind the SuperSite for Windows. Way behind. :)
SPONSORED LINKS FEATURED LINKS

EMC SAN vs. DAS Exchange 2007 CalculatorCalculate your savings now! Let Your Users Reset Their Own Passwords: Free Download Try a 30 day free trial of Desktop Authority Password Self-Service – it provides an easy-to-use, robust system for allowing users to reset their own forgotten passwords or locked accounts. Disaster Recovery Strategies – Tips and TricksDetermine how you can achieve your DR objectives as simply and cost-effectively as possible. Get Windows IT Pro & Mark Minasi’s Favorite Power Tools GuideOrder Windows IT Pro now and get "More of Mark Minasi's Favorite Power Tools"--a in-depth guide to the most useful Windows commands --FREE with your paid order! Subscribe today, and save 58% off the cover price! Migration, Virtualization, Availability, and Desktop ManagementRealize the importance of a workload optimization strategy...it can affect your bottom line! Deep Dive into VMware vSphere, eLearning SeriesJoin John Savill to explore the major functionality capabilities of the vSphere virtualization platform, including identification of the changes from ESX 3.5.
Windows IT Pro |  Subscribe |  Register |  FAQ for Windows |  Media Kit |  WinInfo News |  Europe Edition |  About Us |  Contact Us/Customer Service |  Affiliates/Licensing
SQL Server Magazine |  Office & SharePoint Pro |  WinDevPro |  asp.netPRO |  IT Library |  Technology Resource Directory |  ITTV |  IT Job Hound

© 2009 Penton Media, Inc.     Terms of Use | Privacy Statement | Reprints and Licensing