Home > macintosh, operating system, windows > Windows 7? Aren’t they missing a few?

Windows 7? Aren’t they missing a few?

Microsoft has now announced the final name for the next version of Windows, and it’s a return to the numbers last seen in the early 90’s. The one thing I can’t figure out is where the number seven comes from. Working backwards, Vista is 6, XP is 5, so what was Windows 4? Windows 3 was the last numbered version (including 3.1 and 3.11) before Windows 95, so are 95, 98, 98SE and Me all lumped into the Windows 4 group?

I can understand leaving Windows 2000 out of the consumer products since it didn’t quite deliver the one windows for all role that XP eventually served, but I think Microsoft is missing a trick here. Counting all the versions of Windows as separate would mean Windows 7 would actually be Windows 11 (1, 2, 3, 95, 98, 98se, Me, 2000, Xp, Vista being 1 to 10). That’s one higher that the current version of Mac OS. I know it’s now 10.5 on the Mac, but it’s still 10. And 11 must be better, so this could be the basis of the new marketing push since Mac OS X is favourably compared to Vista so often. And given Microsoft’s success with it’s marketing strategies lately I don’t see how this one could do any worse.

Windows 11. One higher that the competition so it must be better.

UPDATE Looks like I was partly right on this one. There’s now a post at windowsvistablog.com that says Windows 95 to ME were all versions of windows 4 and NT was 3.1. Windows 2000 was 5 and XP was 5.1.

Advertisements
  1. October 15, 2008 at 12:30 am

    Well what they’re really doing is following the NT numbering, which started with Windows NT 3.1 to match Windows 3.1, but was based on NT. Then it went onto Windows NT Workstation 4.0, Windows 2000 was 5.0, XP is 5.1 (it was all in the GUI) and Vista is 6.0. Thus, seven.

  2. basshead
    October 15, 2008 at 3:32 pm

    I’ve added an update to the post as there’s now an explanation of the numbering system at the windowsvistablog. Microsoft are saying Windows 4 covered 95 to ME.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: