Another MS Lie: Windows 7 | The Coffeehouse

sysrpl

Big surprise here, Windows 7 isn't really version 7.

It's really Version 6.1.7600

Another MS lie.

PerfectPhase
"This is not war, this is pest control!" - Dalek to Cyberman

Strange, Office 2007 isn't Version 2007 either, it's just a name. Smiley

TommyCarlier
I want my scalps!

Windows 2000, Windows 98, Windows 95: name ≠ version.

Did Microsoft ever say that the version number of Windows 7 would be 7? No ⇒ no lie.

spivonious

Wow, have you been living under a rock for 8 months? It's always been 6.1 (as it should be, since there aren't any major changes from version 6.0).

Sven Groot
My name has 9 letters. Coincidence? I think not...

Most people realized this around the time M3 was released a year ago, so you're a little behind the times.

It was a deliberate decision because changing the major version number breaks too many apps, as they discovered with Vista.

rhm

It's a polished version of Vista. Like XP was 5.1 - a polished verison of Windows 2000.

wkempf

No, Microsoft didn't lie, as Windows 7 is a name not a version. But, let's play devil's advocate and agree with you that Microsoft lied about the version number. So what? What's the point?

figuerres
???

Seventh "major release" if you start with 95/NT

95/nt

98

me

2k

xp

vista

7

thats one way you get the "7" note i may have 2k and me in the wrong time order but....

Sven Groot
My name has 9 letters. Coincidence? I think not...

In reply to figuerres

#Oct 20th @ 6:42 AM

The canonical explanation is:

Windows 1.0 -> 1

Windows 2.0 -> 2

Windows 3.x -> 3

Windows 95/98/Me -> 4

Windows 2000/XP -> 5

Windows Vista -> 6

Windows 7

I was at Bic Camera (huge electronics store) recently, they were running a promotional video (that looked like it had been made by MS Japan), and it listed the "numbers" off like that.

Which does mean that, until Windows 7 itself, the "number" matches the major version number.

Larry Osterman told me he expects Windows 8 to be version 6.2 Smiley

Harlequin
http://twitter.com/TrueHarlequin

In reply to Sven Groot

#Oct 20th @ 6:48 AM

Would a full version number not mean a large part of the core was rewritten?

figuerres
???

In reply to Sven Groot

#Oct 20th @ 6:48 AM

Yeah that also gives us "7" ... and that might be a better way to get there given the way the UI has changed and the code base.

Harlequin
http://twitter.com/TrueHarlequin

In reply to Sven Groot

#Oct 20th @ 6:48 AM

Would a full version number not mean a large part of the core was rewritten?

contextfree

Ultimately, the winver version number is at the whim of MSFT just as much as the name (except for the above-mentioned compatibility concerns). They could have it report itself as version 92 billion kajillion if they wanted (OK, this might give them integer representation problems).