The announcement came at a sales force conference in Orlando this week. Microsoft plans to get back to releasing Windows upgrades on a regular schedule. Windows Vista was released more than five years after the last operating system, Windows XP.
But we kind of knew all that. So the only real news to come out of this sales force meeting is that Windows is no longer using the codename "Vienna" for the next operating system. The nomenclature behind "Windows 7" is a bit unclear though. The way we see it, the new OS should be called Windows 11. Or if you take out NT, Windows 10. Perhaps OS 10?
- Windows 1.0
- Windows 2.0/2.1
- Windows 3.0/3.1
- Windows 95
- Windows 98
- Windows ME
- Windows NT
- Windows 2000
- Windows XP
- Windows Vista
- Windows 7
[via Engadget]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
7-21-2007 @ 1:11PM
Brandon Smith said...
They are counting from NT on:
1. NT 3.1, 3.5, 3.51
2. NT 4
3. NT 5 == Windows 2000
4. NT 5.1 == Windows XP
5. NT 5.2 == Windows 2003
6. NT 6 == Windows Vista
7. NT 6.1 == Windows Server 2008
NT's first release started at 3 so market perception wouldn't discredit it because the crappier 9x DOS-based codebase had a higher number (already at 3.1).
Reply
7-21-2007 @ 1:11PM
chalkley said...
Windows: Lucky 7's Edition.
Reply
7-21-2007 @ 1:11PM
pmow said...
Then what about 2003? I thought they counted only the non-server OS:
1. Windows 1.0
2. Windows 2.0/2.1
3. Windows 3.0/3.1
4. Windows 95
5. Windows 98
6. Windows ME
7. Windows XP
8. Windows Vista
9. Windows 7
Reply
7-21-2007 @ 1:11PM
Laydros said...
I think the numbering even works from non-NT.
Before XP, NT and Windows were different products, they didn't follow each other. So there was Windows 1 and 2, then NT came out and it got the number 3 because Windows was 3. I might be wrong but I'm pretty sure 95, 98, and ME were all 4.x. 2000 was NT 5, and XP was so similar, it was still NT5. Windows and NT merged with XP so that was when Windows got a version 5. Then Vista was 6.
Reply
7-21-2007 @ 1:12PM
Dennis said...
Also. Windows ME doesn't count. that was more a bastard child made my some retarded interns...
Reply
7-21-2007 @ 1:12PM
Emceay said...
Ah hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Wait three years for the next windows? And have them tell me they're cutting out the real upgrade in an effort to make the 2010 release date? Or, maybe it'll just end up taking them until 2012. Ubuntu will be on v10~12 by then poised to steal market share.
Reply
7-21-2007 @ 1:12PM
LordDaMan said...
It's based on the version of the kernal
windows 1, 2 and 3 had kernals with teh same numbering
Windows 4 was 9x . win95 was 4.00.950, win98 was 4.10.1998, and ME was 4.90.3000
Since NT adopted the mioanstream numbering: NT 3.1 was 3.1, NT 3.5 was 3.5, NT4 (and server) was 4.0, win2000 (and server) was 5.0, XP was 5.1 (more of a chnage here then any of the 9x series), server 2003 was 5.2 (another big jump), Vista is 6.0, and Windows seven is of course 7.0
Reply
7-21-2007 @ 1:33PM
pjcamp said...
Windows Linux???
Reply
7-21-2007 @ 2:54PM
asurroca said...
Thank you LordDaMan... I thought it was common knowledge that Windows 95, 98, and Me were all 4.x versions. Windows 95, Windows Vista, Windows 2000, those are all just brand names and have nothing to do with the software version...
So, the list looks something more like this...
1. Windows 1.0
2. Windows 2.0/2.1
3. Windows 3.0/3.1/NT 3.x
4. Windows 4.x (95/98/Me/NT)
5. Windows 5.x (XP/2000/2003)
6. Windows 6.x (Vista)
7. Windows 7.x
Reply
7-21-2007 @ 8:35PM
gopanthers said...
Windows 7 is right. They're only talking about consumer non-enterprise versions. NT and 2000 were never for the home user.
#1 - 1.0
#2 - 2.0
#3 - 3.0
#4 - Windows 95
#5 - Windows 98
despite the funny joke earlier, it's true that Me doesn't count. It was always technically known as "Windows 98, Millennium Edition" and not a fully new version.
#6 - Vista
#7 - The next P.O.S.
Reply
7-21-2007 @ 10:41PM
Ed said...
Microsoft is right on this one (they should!). Windows 95 through ME are Windows 4.x (NT3 and NT4 being parallel, special flavours of Windows 3 and Windows 4). Windows 2000 (NT5), XP, 2003 are Windows 5's (NT being merged with the regular Win-over-DOS versions). Vista is Windows 6.0.
Confusing? Yes. But try opening the Comand Prompt and typing the command 'ver'.
Reply
7-22-2007 @ 9:11AM
dg10050 said...
@#3
"Confusing? Yes. But try opening the Comand Prompt and typing the command 'ver'."
I tried that but all I got was "bash: ver: command not found"
:P
Reply
7-22-2007 @ 9:12AM
catchwa said...
Just a little bit of research would have negated the need for half of this post...
Reply
7-23-2007 @ 8:19AM
The Steven said...
You forgot Windows for 286, Windows 386, Windows For Workgroups (3.11)
Reply
7-23-2007 @ 8:19AM
Bill Williams said...
7?!? George Constanza has that name reserved for his firstborn. Once again, M$ steals from thought leaders
Reply
7-23-2007 @ 9:08AM
Yayaja said...
To anyone considering upgrading to Vista, I would highly recommends waiting it out. Vista is NOT worth it right now and if it wasn't for the fact that i had to buy a new computer because my old one suffered from a case of explosive diarrhea, I would still be using good ole' XP.
Reply
7-23-2007 @ 9:10AM
Rainman said...
So where does Microsoft Bob fit into all this?
Reply
7-23-2007 @ 12:57PM
John Kelly said...
@gopanthers - I tried to leave out the corporate versions but did decide to include XP
Reply
7-24-2007 @ 11:08AM
Wordfromthe Wise said...
or is it LUCKY NUMBER SEVEN ?? ^^ lol
Reply
7-30-2007 @ 10:46PM
Techticles said...
Windows 7 may be delayed and IT decision makers would not want to wait for ten to 12 years before upgrading their OS from Windows XP.
Reply