Windows Seven isnt Seven?

[pparks1]

nah.. it's vista service pack 3, renamed windows 7 so the microsaur could package it and sell it for $200 a copy instead of offering it for free as an update..

In all fairness, Windows XP was a pretty big change from Windows 2000. And Windows Vista was a big change from Windows XP. However, Windows 7 really isn't that radical of a change from Windows Vista. I don't necessarily think that I would refer to it as a service pack...but I can certainly understand the viewpoint of those who feel that it's not worth the price of a full new operating system.

 

[logicearth]

Versions numbers are just that, version numbers a means to keep track of different versions of the same thing. It should not be taken seriously. I could start my version number in the hundreds and decrement the number for newer versions. It would not matter to anyone but myself, because they are used for tracking.

 

[KazeNoKoe23]

nah.. it's vista service pack 3, renamed windows 7 so the microsaur could package it and sell it for $200 a copy instead of offering it for free as an update..

Was that sarcasm? lol

Not directed towards you but, I love how people just say W7 is Vista SP3 when they obviously don't know anything and just judge it by the UI.

Its a full OS, not an update. SP's are not meant to reshape the OS completely.

Refine it, yes, reshape it, no.

Truth. The closest a Service Pack came to doing that was XP SP2.

 

[Zidane24]

Lets not also forget Windows 2000 SP6 err...Windows XP

In all seriousness go back and review 2000 and XP...then compare it to Vista and 7

2000 was great for its time...XP was fantastic and XP has many similarities to 2000

Is this starting to sound familiar? Vista SP2 is now great...7 is fantastic but I bet you don't hear folks call XP a "Service Pack"?

Honestly it is just another attempt at people to bash an OS just because they hate to see a company they despise to succeed...everyone please...don't feed the trolls

 

[Coolness]

Yeah, well maby its not a service pack, but it sure is similar to vista. Just better . But im sure those that dispise Microsoft have their reasons, like how they runied Netscape . (I dont hate Microsoft

 

[alphanumeric]

Weren't they going to call it Vista SE (second edition)

I'm just kidding around of course. I skipped Vista so I don't know how similar 7 actually is to Vista but I've heard 7 called all kinds of things along the way.

 

[bigmck]

Windows 95 wasn't the 95th and Windows 2000 wasn't the 2000th. So, I don't really pay much attention to the numbering or naming.

Windows 95 was the year it came out. Maybe Windows 7 should be Windows 9???

 

[pezzonovante]

So, what will the version number be for Windows 8? Is it gonna be 7.0 or 8.0 or 6.5?

 

[mxosder16]

So, what will the version number be for Windows 8? Is it gonna be 7.0 or 8.0 or 6.5?

That discussion is going on over at the eight forums, check it out...

[SOLVED] 6.2? What Kernel # do you think Win8 will have - Windows 8 Forums

 

[pezzonovante]

So, what will the version number be for Windows 8? Is it gonna be 7.0 or 8.0 or 6.5?

That discussion is going on over at the eight forums, check it out...

[SOLVED] 6.2? What Kernel # do you think Win8 will have - Windows 8 Forums

Thanks for the link.

 

[richc46]

All here know its just Vista under the hood. They just do not want to make it public.

 

[pezzonovante]

All here know its just Vista under the hood. They just do not want to make it public.

I wonder why they don't make it public. Because I used to love Vista. Before I got my hands on Win7, I thought Vista was the greatest thing since sliced bread. XP was the worst version of Windows I ever used, and I have been using Windows since the 3.1 days.

 

[Coolness]

All here know its just Vista under the hood. They just do not want to make it public.

I wonder why they don't make it public. Because I used to love Vista. Before I got my hands on Win7, I thought Vista was the greatest thing since sliced bread. XP was the worst version of Windows I ever used, and I have been using Windows since the 3.1 days.

LOL,? Xp is fast, vista is slow. Vista has too much, XP has just the right amount of everything. Everyone hates Vista. Go along.

 

[alphanumeric]

For me Windows 2000 was the first Microsoft OS that made me smile. It was rock solid, blue screens were few and far between, for me anyway. I only got them when I tweaked things I probably shouldn't have. With compatibility mode I could run all my old games. I think that was the OS that crossed the work and at home barrier. It was a good all around OS. If Microsoft would have let you run the latest version of IE and MP on 2K I probably never would have moved on to XP.
The 7 thing I think is all about Vista, or not about Vista depending on how you look at it. With all the problems that Vista had the name of the new OS shouldn't infer any connection to it. So obviously they weren't going to call it "The New Vista" or "Vista SE". As far as the kernel goes, windows 2000 was NT5.0, XP was NT5.1, so if it worked on 2k it should run on XP. Drivers shouldn't be a big deal either so come join the party. Vista was NT 6.0 which created a lot of problems with drivers and program compatibility. It wasn't so easy to go from XP to Vista and that ended up being a big problem early on. Not so much now. If 7 had used a new kernel say 7.0 Microsoft would have just repeated the cycle or no drivers and poor program compatibility that plagued Vista early on. Not a good move. So it's not hard to see why they went to NT 6.1. Calling it 7 I guess just makes "most" people think its an entirely new OS. Also I would think calling it Windows 6.1 would get a lot of "thats just lame" comments. Anyway to make a long story short, oh I guess it's too late for that now, oh well.

 

[manhunter2826]

XP was the worst version of Windows I ever used, and I have been using Windows since the 3.1 days.

Lol, gotta disagree here; XP was the best implementation of Windows since a very long time. Vista was a disaster - and surely MS know it

 

[logicearth]

Lol, gotta disagree here; XP was the best implementation of Windows since a very long time. Vista was a disaster - and surely MS know it

You weren't there for the launch of Windows XP were you? It had more a lot more problems that plaqued it then Vista ever did.

 

[Zidane24]

XP was the worst version of Windows I ever used, and I have been using Windows since the 3.1 days.

Lol, gotta disagree here; XP was the best implementation of Windows since a very long time. Vista was a disaster - and surely MS know it

XP+two Service Packs and 9 years of updates makes it a solid OS...

Vista + 2SPs is already better and were only at year three....

7 Out of the box blew them both away

 

[Barman58]

Would any one who is using XP like to do a version check You will find that XP is actually windows NT 5.1 (windows 200 was 5.0) .

The reason for this is the simple fact that a lot of developers are lazy

Rather than perform a version check as greater than 6 they check for 6.something. because of this an application will fail for no real reason. By reporting Windows 7 as 6.1 it improves comatability for thos applications that are sloppily written

A similar piece of coding laziness is responsible for the vast majority of programs that will only run as administrator.
It has been the windows standard since NT3.5 to always code for the non administrative user, so next time you click on a UAC prompt that's not really needed don't blame MS it's more likely to be the application developer's fault

 

[Coolness]

Would any one who is using XP like to do a version check You will find that XP is actually windows NT 5.1 (windows 200 was 5.0) .

The reason for this is the simple fact that a lot of developers are lazy

Rather than perform a version check as greater than 6 they check for 6.something. because of this an application will fail for no real reason. By reporting Windows 7 as 6.1 it improves comatability for thos applications that are sloppily written

A similar piece of coding laziness is responsible for the vast majority of programs that will only run as administrator.
It has been the windows standard since NT3.5 to always code for the non administrative user, so next time you click on a UAC prompt that's not really needed don't blame MS it's more likely to be the application developer's fault

I thought NT was 4.0, and ME/2000 was 4.1. I guess im wrong then...

 

[alphanumeric]

2K was 5.0 and XP was 5.1, not sure what ME was. Was ME even based on an NT kernel ?

EDIT: Looks like ME was the last of the 9x series of operating systems from Microsoft and not part of the NT family. At least thats what i get from a quick Google search.