Microsoft settles on a name for next Windows release

Windows Vista hasn’t really been blessed with either a good code-name or a good final name. Dubbed "Longhorn" during its development, the operating system finally donned the Vista label in mid-2005. Paul Thurrott quoted Microsoft’s Jim Allchin as saying on the subject, "’Vista’ creates the right imagery for the new product capabilities and inspires the imagination with all the possibilities of what can be done with Windows – making people’s passions come alive." Not everybody felt quite as enthused.

Microsoft has been seeking to turn the page since it started work on the next release of Windows, trading Vista’s opulence for quick boot times and fewer built-in apps. The same goes for the name: Microsoft has been referring to the next release as "Windows 7" internally, and now, a post on the official Windows 7 blog says Microsoft will use that as the final name. Microsoft’s Mike Nash comments:

The decision to use the name Windows 7 is about simplicity. Over the years, we have taken different approaches to naming Windows. We’ve used version numbers like Windows 3.11, or dates like Windows 98, or "aspirational" monikers like Windows XP or Windows Vista. And since we do not ship new versions of Windows every year, using a date did not make sense. Likewise, coming up with an all-new "aspirational" name does not do justice to what we are trying to achieve, which is to stay firmly rooted in our aspirations for Windows Vista, while evolving and refining the substantial investments in platform technology in Windows Vista into the next generation of Windows.
Simply put, this is the seventh release of Windows, so therefore "Windows 7" just makes sense.

As an interesting side note, a Microsoft PR representative reportedly told Paul Thurrott in 2005 that Microsoft almost used the Windows 7 name for Vista. "He noted that Microsoft had considered other names, like Windows Seven, Windows 7.0, and Windows 7, but thought Vista communicated the company’s vision of the possibilities of this next Windows version nicely."

Comments closed
    • gargar
    • 11 years ago

    good name! i always hated Vista’s name.

    • jackrabbit
    • 11 years ago

    Romeo & Juliet (Act II, Scene II)

    JULIET
    ‘Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
    Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
    What’s Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
    Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
    Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
    What’s in a name? that which we call a rose
    By any other name would smell as sweet;
    So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call’d,
    Retain that dear perfection which he owes
    Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name,
    And for that name which is no part of thee
    Take all myself.

    • odizzido
    • 11 years ago

    They could call it “Windows: Bag of Barf” as long as they fix the issues vista has IMO. Actually, I would love that name.

    Actually 7 is a good name. Vista has a bad rep and using a number instead of a word puts it as far away as possible from vista.

    • moose17145
    • 11 years ago

    Yea i have no idea why everyone is so bent outta shape over the fact they are just gonna leave it “Windows 7”. I like it personally. But then then again i think longhorn sounds better than Vista… so what do i know…

      • UberGerbil
      • 11 years ago

      A lot of geeks are borderline Asperger’s sufferers….

    • eitje
    • 11 years ago

    Here you go: a french guy that has mapped Windows history.

    ยง[< http://www.levenez.com/windows/<]ยง

    • sdack
    • 11 years ago

    Hopefully they start giving their services patches names instead of numbers.

      • UberGerbil
      • 11 years ago

      Like Apple does?

        • ludi
        • 11 years ago

        ba DUM /[

          • UberGerbil
          • 11 years ago

          Try the chicken!

    • FubbHead
    • 11 years ago

    They’ve used year or release before, and still use it for many (all?) other products, so why not stick to that? Would make perfect sense.

    • cegras
    • 11 years ago

    I like ‘Windows Seven’ more.

    Also, why are people arguing the naming scheme if microsoft employees are saying ‘this is the seventh release’?

    Sounds pretty definitive to me.

    • fpsduck
    • 11 years ago

    Hey! The inspiration of Windows 7 name came from Se7en movie (seven deadly sins).
    * Lust
    * Gluttony
    * Greed
    * Sloth
    * Wrath
    * Envy
    * Pride

    ๐Ÿ˜‰

      • UberGerbil
      • 11 years ago

      Well, Vista had Pride, Sloth, and Gluttony covered, so with the new version we get all the fun ones.

      • NeronetFi
      • 11 years ago

      I hope its not Sloth, all we need is another lazy OS.

        • BobTheBacterium
        • 11 years ago

        I’m looking forward to a new, lustful OS

        ….but does that mean that the OS itself will be rated M?

          • NeronetFi
          • 11 years ago

          ๐Ÿ™‚ Thats the one thing M$ has not done yet. Use sex appeal

            • Lord.Blue
            • 11 years ago

            Then you didn’t see the photo shoot of Catherine Bell showing off Windows Vista on an Asus machine.

    • UberGerbil
    • 11 years ago

    Those of you obsessing over the numbering (and while that’s a geek thing to do, I don’t know why it matters to you so much) — the DOS/Windows lineage and the NT lineage were always separate, and always had separate version numbers. The Windows 1.x (tiled) and 2.x (overlapped) that ran atop DOS, followed by Windows/386, 3.x, Windows for Workgroups, 95, 98, 98 SE, ME… that lineage was a dead end, and had its own version numbers

    NT is in the OS/2 lineage. The first “NT” was originally OS/2 3.0 — codenamed “Cruiser” — but when the rift with IBM occurred the MS kernel guys removed the OS/2 user-mode API, added the Win32 API, and called it 3.1. (Actually, the rift occurred in part because they were planning to do that anyway, but that’s a whole other story). So “NT” began at 3.1, but it was legitimately the 3rd version in its lineage. There was an NT 3.5 and a 4.0; Windows 2000 was 5.0 and XP was 5.1 (you can verify this by opening a command window and using VER). Vista was 6.0. That makes the next version 7.

    If they want it to be. You could claim it’s 6.1 to Vista’s 6.0, in the way XP was to 2000. Or you could argue about /[

      • Scrotos
      • 11 years ago

      Excellent post. Hopefully people will actually read it.

      • DaveJB
      • 11 years ago

      1 = Windows NT 3.1
      2 = Windows NT 3.5x
      3 = Windows NT 4.0
      4 = Windows 2000
      5 = Windows XP
      6 = Windows Vista
      7 = Windows 7

      Makes sense, I suppose. You have to lump NT 3.51 in with 3.5, but I don’t think those two versions were really that different, were they?

        • UberGerbil
        • 11 years ago

        No, It’s
        OS/2 1.0 (used the 286 protected mode hack)
        OS/2 2.0 (proper 386 protected mode)
        NT 3.x (changed the driver model, added Win32, NTFS)
        NT 4.x (moved GDI and USER into kernel space)
        NT 5.0 (changed the driver model, shipped as “Windows 2000”)
        NT 5.1 (minor update, shipped as “Windows XP”)
        NT 6.0 (changed the driver model, shipped as “Windows Vista”)
        NT 6.1 (minor update, will ship as “Windows 7”)

        Of course, we haven’t seen the full extent of the new version yet, and the changes above the kernel may be significant enough to justify calling it 7.0 for end users; but we already know the kernel changes won’t be extensive (and arguably may be less than those introduced by XP SP2, which didn’t even get a minor version bump). It’s a bit like Win Server 2003 R2.

        But again: version numbers and names are arbitrary and are more about marketing fantasies than any technical reality. Trying to make them fit into some consistent ontology is just a recipe for failure.

      • indeego
      • 11 years ago

      Here are the inconsistencies where an OS product changed format:
      Windows Consumer 3.x–>r{<95<}r-->98--98SE-->r{

    • ClickClick5
    • 11 years ago

    I knew it! “Windows 7” is just easy to say.
    HAHAHAHAHA! I just won $30!
    OH! My day just got better!

    • relmerator
    • 11 years ago

    I guess all that time Bill has been spending with Jerry Seinfeld left an impression.

    • 5150
    • 11 years ago

    Ugh, I simply hate it. Totally unimaginative, bland, and boring. M$ $uck$

    • Corrado
    • 11 years ago

    They could go the way of Ubuntu and call it Windows 7 ‘Daffy Dachshund’ or ‘Happy Hippo’

    • herothezero
    • 11 years ago

    Windows 7 is a good name; I don’t care for “aspirational” names nor the names of cats.

    Numbers are good.

    • derFunkenstein
    • 11 years ago

    what kind of drugs are these people on?

    Windows 1, 2, 3.x, fine.

    Windows 95
    Windows 98
    Windows ME
    Windows XP
    Windows Vista
    Windows……seven?

    Yes, 9x/ME were all based on a 4.x kernel, but to call this the 7th “major” release is a lie. Or ignoring ME like most folks do. Maybe that’s the idea.

    • dalisam
    • 11 years ago

    Why not, AMD had an “Athlon XP” now Intel has the “Core i7”. Should go good together.

    • eitje
    • 11 years ago

    Windows VII. ๐Ÿ™‚

    At this rate, we’ll have a Windows X before we have an OS X+1 ๐Ÿ˜‰

      • derFunkenstein
      • 11 years ago

      Yeah, OS X isn’t really 10 anymore. It’s sufficiently different that with 10.4 they probably should have jumped to 11, and made 10.5 like 11.375 or so.

    • PRIME1
    • 11 years ago

    I thought they were going to call it Windows Vista ME……

    Other rejected names:

    Windows 360
    Windows OSXX
    Windows 7.11 for convenience stores
    Windows 2013
    Windows Zune
    Windows Siete

      • ludi
      • 11 years ago

      Windows 7: Bride of Bob.

    • NeronetFi
    • 11 years ago

    I can see the ad’s now. Intel i7 with Windows 7 they were meant to be together. Anyone know of a new chipset coming out that starts with a 7? If so then HP will prolly release the Lucky 7 gaming pc ๐Ÿ™‚

      • jdaven
      • 11 years ago

      Well most chipsets right now start with 7 from AMD and Nvidia. AMD has 740G, 770, 780G, 780V, 790X, 790FX, 790GX. Nvidia has 7050, 7050PV, 7100, 7150, 720a, 750a SLI, 750i SLI, 780a SLI, 780i SLI, 790i SLI, 790i Ultra SLI.

      So I guess you could say there are a few although these are current generation and will be replaced with 8xx series from both companies soon. So I guess Intel and MS are one version behind the chipsets if that makes any sense whatsoever. ๐Ÿ™‚

        • NeronetFi
        • 11 years ago

        LOL yeah I knew about the current chipsets that start with 7. I just wasnt sure if there were any in the works that people might be looking foward to.

      • idiot@core
      • 11 years ago

      I hope they get a female James Bond 007 to promote it.

      If it turns out to be a really great product we could call it Seventh Heaven ๐Ÿ™‚

      • UberGerbil
      • 11 years ago

      So “7” is the new “X”

    • burntham77
    • 11 years ago

    This seems like a throwback to the Windows 3.1 days. Maybe that’s a sign that they are moving towards a leaner OS? One can hope.

      • Scrotos
      • 11 years ago

      You mean we’ll have to boot to DOS to play our games?!?

    • adisor19
    • 11 years ago

    Hmm, i like it. It’s simple and to the point : the seventh major release of windows.

    Adi

    • nagashi
    • 11 years ago

    Hey, if they stick to this maybe we’ll actually be able to remember the order that they came out in in 30 years ๐Ÿ™‚

    I can’t say I hate the name.

    • Forge
    • 11 years ago

    Calling Vista ‘Windows 7’ would have been fairly deceptive, since it is NT 6.0.

      • derFunkenstein
      • 11 years ago

      which is really 4.0, since they started NT at 3 to keep it in step with the consumer Windows OS.

        • jdaven
        • 11 years ago

        See my post (comment #17) for the versions of windows with product names.

        • UberGerbil
        • 11 years ago

        No they didn’t. See my post.

        The NT guys in those days didn’t care about what the consumer Windows guys were doing, because they were doing a server OS with its own set of version numbers.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This