Is windows 7, windows 7 for a reason?

FatRakoon

FatRakoon

FatRakoon

Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
10,475
Location
Behind you... Naked!
Correct me if I am wrong here, but its simply called it because its NT v7 right?

Well, ok,thats fine, but look at a few things...

Windows 2000 and Windows XP both share the same NT5 Kernel, Vista is NT 6 and Windows 7 is NT 7

Now, Windows 7 is basically looking and feeling exactly like Vista.
It is pretty much vista from what I am seeing with this beta version that Im tinkering with, that it is Vista, but with the rotten parts of vista taken out.

But why are they so quick to move on to the next Kernel?
Its as if they are dropping NT6 before its really had the time to develop.

Am I right here or am I just talking jibberish again?
 
1/ Windows 95
2/ Windows 98
3/ Windows ME
4/ Windows 2000
5/ Windows xp
6/ Windows Vista
7/ Windows 7
 
Gigi said:
1/ Windows 1.0
2/ Windows 2.0
3/ Windows 3.0, 3.1
4/ Windows 95,98, 98 se, millinium (4.0,4.0.1998, 4.10.2222, and 4.90.3000, respectively)
5/ Windows 2000, xp (5.0, 5.1)
6/ Windows Vista (6.0)
7/ Windows 7 (6.1)
Click to expand...

Edited
technically 7 should be with vista as it is Nt 6.1
But
So we see Windows 7 as our next logical significant release and 7th in the family of Windows releases.
Click to expand...
And this is why
We learned a lot about using 5.1 for XP and how that helped developers with version checking for API compatibility. We also had the lesson reinforced when we applied the version number in the Windows Vista code as Windows 6.0-- that changing basic version numbers can cause application compatibility issues.

So we decided to ship the Windows 7 code as Windows 6.1 - which is what you will see in the actual version of the product in cmd.exe or computer properties.

There's been some fodder about whether using 6.1 in the code is an indicator of the relevance of Windows 7. It is not.

Windows 7 is a significant and evolutionary advancement of the client operating system. It is in every way a major effort in design, engineering and innovation. The only thing to read into the code versioning is that we are absolutely committed to making sure application compatibility is optimized for our customers.
Click to expand...

Taken from
http://windowsteamblog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2008/10/14/why-7.aspx
 
Last edited:
Is there any connection between Windows XP and the Athlon XP and Windows 7 and Core i7?
 
Does the speed of this release stirke anybody else as odd?

Similar to when XP was released and it was commented that is was the OS that Win2K "should" have been. Will it turn out the Windows 7 is what Vista "should" have been?
 
Ok thanks for that guys, although I have to say that the list thats got 95,98, and ME in is wrong, as they are a completelky different line to NT and have been stopped

Windows PRE v3 was not really all that much of a big deal back then, I used PCs since about 1985 and I was lucky enough to own one of the first 286 machines and my uncle who, was a head programmer for ICI (now retired ) gave me all up to date software, but he never bothered with v1 and v2 and only gave me Windows 3/ WFWG3.1 and NT3 so before that, they kind of never really took off for the mainstream users, I suppose maybe it was OS/2 insterad?? - but v3 was a big success

4 = Windows NT4
5 = Windows 2000 and XP
6 = Windows Vista
7 = W7 then

Ok, cool cheers guys.
 
FatRakoon said:
Ok thanks for that guys, although I have to say that the list thats got 95,98, and ME in is wrong, as they are a completelky different line to NT and have been stopped

Windows PRE v3 was not really all that much of a big deal back then, .
Click to expand...

It might not of been a big deal, but they existed and so our counted.

As for 95,98,me that is what the windows development team say and they where all nt4.xxxxxxxxx

Vista should be nt7 but due to computability they are just calling it 6.1
 
Last edited:
Well I dont think Ill be upgrading from vista to windows 7, cos whats the point.. its a tad waste of money and time when you've all ready got vista 32/64 bit, dont you think guys???
 
Phil2008 said:
Well I dont think Ill be upgrading from vista to windows 7, cos whats the point.. its a tad waste of money and time when you've all ready got vista 32/64 bit, dont you think guys???
Click to expand...

it all depends what you need.

Vista media centre was enough for me to upgrade. Let alone the loads of other benefits vista has. windows7 will also run faster than vista so gamers should like it.
 
What?
I got hold of a naughty W7 and Im absolutely shocked at how much better and smoother ands quicker, and smaller it is than Vista!

Its what vista should have been.

I do fell right now, that with W7 being released only round the corner practically, that buying into Vista would be a shame now, because Vista users will not bother upgrading and will lose out on the benefits of W7

I for one am cerinaly going to buy it as soon as I can... 64 Bit though.
 
is there any estimate on when w7 open beta will be?

It should be faster they said vista was unforgivable on the speed stakes and wont happen again.
 
Pulse said:
What about CE?
Click to expand...

Yes, but we could also say what about XP Media Center, or Windows 2003 or even 2008, but these are only additions to already out systems

Hang on...

XP MCE is the 2005 release of XP ( 32Bit Pro with alterations ) right...

2003 is ... What?

I know that XP64 is built around the 2003 x64 Server code, to give it much better security and reliability than basic XP, but then why is there a 32Bit too?

2008 servers are Vista and thats a cool

Anyway.

One more normal question Id like to know the answer to...

Why the hell are they still bothering with 32Bit?

When was the last 32Bit CPU made?

Does anyone here actually use a 32Bit CPU anymore?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom