Microsoft explains how to count to 7

Filed under: OS Updates, Windows, Microsoft

Microsoft explains how to count to 7

by Brad Linder Oct 15th 2008

As we noted the other day, Microsoft has decided not to bother coming up with a new name for Windows 7. It was good enough for the code name for the next version of the Windows operating system, and apparently it's good enough for the final name. But how exactly did Microsoft arrive at 7? After all, there have certainly been more than 7 operating systems bearing the Windows name.

It turns out, that not all Windows operating systems are created equal. So while Wikipedia lists 25 version of Windows (not counting Microsoft Bob), Microsoft doesn't count each and every one of those releases as a separate version of Windows.

Here's how it works: Microsoft gives a version number to each operating system. First there was Windows 1.0, then Windows 2.0, then Windows 3.0. Forget all the point numbers like 3.11 for a moment. Because the next major release was Windows 4.0, which is better known as Windows 95.

Every operating system up through Windows ME was built on the Windows 4 code, and it wasn't until Windows 2000 that Windows hit 5.0.

Windows Vista was version 6. And the next OS will be Windows 7.

So ignore Windows 98, Windows 98SE, Windows Home Server 2008, and pretty much everything you thought you knew about Windows. Because Windows 7 is the seventh version of the operating system.

Tags: windows, windows-7

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)

Jeff said 1:25PM on 10-15-2008

It's the platform that they're counting.. win2k/xp were the same platform, win95, 98, me were the same platform, etc..

timothy.brazer said 1:28PM on 10-15-2008

I thought Windows 7 was going to be version 6.1? Not the 7th version of the kernal?

Source: http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2008/10/14/why-7.aspx

Let me know if I am reading this wrong. 8^)

Stephen said 1:51PM on 10-15-2008

The current version of the kernal is at 6.1 right now since they are building a lot of the stuff on top of the 6.0 kernal right now. When they release 7, they will bump up the kernal version to 7.

Alex M said 3:35PM on 10-15-2008

It's "kernel". Normally I wouldn't bother with this, but "kernal" appeared 4 times in two paragraphs, and that's just hurtful.

Tim Brazer said 1:28PM on 10-16-2008

Thank you for the correction Alex.

Please refer to the quote from a post on Engadget:

"Then came 95 as version 4, with 98, 98SE, and ME all considered minor updates. 2000 got the next major update to 5, while XP is 5.1, Vista is 6, and this new one is labeled 7. The confusing bit is that it's actually numbered 6.1 internally, a minor version change for the sake of application compatibility"

http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/16/how-does-ms-number-thy-windows-let-mike-nash-count-the-ways/

I'll let you decide for yourselves. 8^)

Todd said 1:38PM on 10-15-2008

Loss of Consumer mind share through brand name confusion - I HAZ IT!

"I banish you. You are banished."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqfHAXypXZI

LiqwidZero said 2:07PM on 10-15-2008

2000 and XP were both built off Windows NT 4.0. I remember that OS from a ling while back. So wouldn't NT 4.0 be Windows 4?

LiqwidZero said 2:12PM on 10-15-2008

I mean Windows 5. Not 4.

Slipkid said 5:04PM on 10-15-2008

And 95 and 98 said nothing about being built on NT Technology. They started doing, at least saying that, on ME.

bugmenot said 10:20PM on 10-15-2008

2000 and xp were not based on NT 4.0.

LiqwidZero said 10:08AM on 10-16-2008

They were all based off the same kernel, which was the NT Kernel.

whiskey said 1:28PM on 10-16-2008

Microsoft had two branches for the OS since Windows 3.11 for Workgroups - Windows 3.1.

The next iterations where Win9x/ME (All 4) and WinNT (WinNT 4).

When Windows ME flopped, they decided to ditch that branch (there was going to be one but they decided it was best, and i believe it was) and developed Windows 2000 (5) and building from it you got Windows XP (5.1, a.k.a. back then Whistler).

Further development for the 5 release was Windows 2003 Server (which started the trend of deploying Desktop first, test and iron stuff, wait for mass adoption, then release Server stuff).

Then you get Vista (6, a.k.a. back then Longhorn) and now 7. AFAIK, 7 will incorporate most of the stuff that got left behind on Vista but will incorporate the newest kernel (toted as the micro Kernel, which has a more modular approach). By the way, Windows Server 2008 is based on Vista.

So what we have here is a new release (kernel and feature wise) but also founded off the Vista release, a tad like 2000/XP.

So everything (suppossedly) that runs on Vista, will also run in 7.

By the way, Brad, Microsoft Bob wasn't a new OS, it was just a shell, one that you can even run it on Windows XP.

The question here will be how many editions of the same release will there be for 7.

Jash Sayani said 3:35PM on 10-15-2008

Wow!! I didn't know they had an explanation for it!!!

James said 4:08PM on 10-15-2008

I know XP identifies itself internally as "NT 5.0", depending on the Platform SDK call you make to look it up. I figured that Vista was 6.0, and therefor Vista++ would be 7.0. Simpler, right?

Ridgecity said 4:45PM on 10-15-2008

I don't understand how they call Vista a 6.0 release, I see it as 5.5 and a Beta release by that.

Matt said 4:54PM on 10-15-2008

argh I almost forgot about Windows ME and now I'm gonna have nightmares again about that piece o shite lol

iliyan said 5:42PM on 10-15-2008

Oh, come on. Every freakin site out there is explaining where this "magic" 7 comes from. Only complete lamers cannot see the obvious! Everybody knows that Windows is currently in version 6. Everyone that has started cmd.exe at least once in their life should have noticed this.

Enough of this already and please focus on the real improvements. I don't mean eye candy.

Iliyan said 5:42PM on 10-15-2008

Drew Green said 6:23PM on 10-15-2008

Here's a simple overview, since people seem to be over complicating it:

Windows 1
Windows 2
Windows 3 (and Windows NT)
Windows NT 4
Windows 2000
Windows Vista
Windows 7

The kernel for XP, Vista and 7 are written off of the NT kernel. 2000 and XP are a similar kernel (you can call them the same for all intents and purposes). The Windows 9x family (95, 98, 98se, ME) are not written from the NT kernel. When ME died, so did the 9x kernel.

So now, rather than having a home OS line (9x) and a business OS line (NT), we just have XP Home and Pro, Vista (home versions) and Business, and now we're going to have Windows 7 (probably with some kind of home offering and business offering).

Hope that clears things up.

Mark said 6:32PM on 10-15-2008

Windows NT 3.1
Windows NT 3.5
Windows NT 3.51
Windows NT 4.0
WIndows NT 5.0 (2000)
Windows NT 5.1 (XP)
Windows NT 6.0 (Vista)

Presumably Windows 7 will be NT 7.0 by the time the final comes out. Not really that complicated (the old DOS line like Windows 98 do not count in any way).

| 1 | 2 | Most Recent | Next 20 Comments

Featured Time Waster

Civiballs is a beautiful, soothing physics puzzle Time Waster

I have an absolute weakness for physics games, and while Civiballs isn't the strongest physics-based game, what it lacks in the physics department it makes up for a few times over in style and fun.

In Civiballs, you are presented with a few colored balls, and your goal is to get those balls into the same-colored urn on the level. The "civi" part of Civiballs is that there are 3 sets of levels to play, each representing a different civilization. While the civilization doesn't affect gameplay, the artwork for each level is beautifully themed to it's appropriate era.

To play the game, you are given only one tool - a sword with which to cut the chains that are holding the balls. The puzzle part of the game is in figuring out what order, and with what timing to cut each chain. Do it right, and all the right balls end up in the right urns, with no stray balls entering an urn (a no-no). Do it wrong, and you get to start over again.

Civiballs is not terribly deep on gameplay; the entire game can be completed in about 15 minutes. But if you enjoy this type of game, it will be a very enjoyable 15 minutes.

View more Time Wasters